Will Israel ever pull back to 1967 borders?

RandFan said:
Doesnt answer my question, which was, when did America and other countries gain the "right to exist"?

That's all well and good but would you mind addressing my point?
  1. No
  2. No
  3. I don't know. Perhaps it's a good idea. Is there currently a problem that would be resolved by doing so?
What does any of this have to do with my point?
Click to expand...

Most people argued that the White Supremacist state of South Africa had no right to exist..and it was dismantled.

The White Supremacist state of Rhodesia was also dismantled.

So no, Israel is not being treated uniquely.
 
parky76 said:
Most people argued that the White Supremacist state of South Africa had no right to exist..and it was dismantled.

The White Supremacist state of Rhodesia was also dismantled.

So no, Israel is not being treated uniquely.
Click to expand...
Again, all good and well but it still doesn't address my point. I'm sure a strawman argument is better in your mind than no argument at all but it's really not. I'm not claiming that Israel is being treated uniquely. I'm asking, what determines the right of a state to exist? You are the one who brought up the question of the right to exist. I'd like to know, what are the criteria and, who decides it? Is it the UN? Is it the Palestinians? Clearly there is precedent for nations forming that could be argued not to exist. You state it is a matter of time. I'm asking you how much time is necessary. When did Canada, America and Australia meet the criteria of time?

Look, if you don't want to address it that's fine but strawmen arguments aren't helping.
 
When does a nation have the right to exist? When the world decides that they have earned...their right to exist.
 
parky76 said:
When does a nation have the right to exist? When the world decides that they have earned...their right to exist.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. There is no such right. There never has been any such right.
 
BenBurch said:
Actually, I was a Libertarian for about 25 years. :-)

Nations are something we can no longer afford. (If we ever could.)
Click to expand...
I think we could also argue that people are something we can no longer afford. ;)

I don't see the elimination of nations anytime soon. Too many rely too much on them. America's intervention in Somalia being a great example. How do you get people to abandon their loyalty to a political leader or get them to abandon their nationalism? We were trying to feed people for crissake. We would do well to get rid of homeopothy but even though it is bollocks the trend is on the uptick not down.

And then you got folks like Chavez, Castro and Kim Ill Sung (Kim Jong Ill), whatever, these folks would much rather that there entire nation go to hell in a handbasket than let go of their right to be the father figure that their people need and so desperatly want.

Have you thought perhaps of stopping the tides? I think your chances of that are much better.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
Thats easy. Israel is a relatively new country.
Click to expand...

Newness is irrelevant. Every country was once new.

It is the only nation-state to be created without long term settlement of the national group.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Every new-world country was in the same boat.

Israel is an exception because of its peculiar circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yes: it's full of Jews. That's the only thing truly peculiar about its circumstance.
 
parky76 said:
Jews hold onto their religion no matter what the costs. There are still hundreds of thousands of Catholic people living in Mexico, other parts of Latin America, and Spain, who still for some reason do not eat pork and light candles Friday evening. They don't know why they do this...but we do.

They are descended from Jews.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't make any assumptions about any of that. Avoiding pork and having Saturday as a holy day are not unique aspects of Judaism.

Besides, you said these people are Catholics descendant from Jews so clearly they are, in fact, Jews who did reject their religion. The fact that they might still practice some cultural traditions is irrelevant.
 
parky76 said:
Most people argued that the White Supremacist state of South Africa had no right to exist..and it was dismantled.

The White Supremacist state of Rhodesia was also dismantled.

So no, Israel is not being treated uniquely.
Click to expand...



This is nonsense. South Africa was not dismantled, and still exists - you can check them out on a map if you don't believe me.

The Republic of Rhodesia never existed, at least so far as the international community never recognised it as a legitimate entity.

More importantly, the changes that occurred in both of these countries a result of change within the society, not the fiddling of foreign states or the international community.

To suggest that the international community should "dismantle" the state of Israel (rather than, say the population of Israel deciding to evolve their country in some significant way) is to suggest a vastly different treatment than was experienced by the other countries you cited.

If you want to talk about states deciding other states don't have a right to exist, and dismantling them, I would suggest having a look into Rome's treatment of Carthage. Not exactly upheld as a shining example of international relations.
 
The view is also important.

DR might explain something about artillery/air control needing a good view.
 
DR might explain something about artillery/air control needing a good view.
Click to expand...

Having been a Sergeant in the US Artillery, I can assure you that a good view, even in a age of computerized weaponry, is still vital to accurate artillery fire.
And a "Natural View" (a hill or a tall building) is better then aerial observation because you can't shoot down a hill, and a building is harder to take down then an observer aircraft, which has to fly slow to be an effective platform for guiding in fire, and is therefore a sitting duck for anti aircraft fire.
 
Thank you.
I knew somebody could explain the usefulness better than me.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes: it's full of Jews. That's the only thing truly peculiar about its circumstance.
Click to expand...

Its very convenient for you to ignore all criticism by labeling it "anti-Semitism" huh?

Do you think the criticism in Ha'aretz is anti-Semitic? What about from Gush-Shalom, Peace Now, Meretz, and other Israeli civil rights organizations?

is anyone who ever accuses Israel of violating basic human rights..an anti-Semite?

You seem to be suggesting this.
 
parky76 said:
Its very convenient for you to ignore all criticism by labeling it "anti-Semitism" huh?
Click to expand...

Feeling a little defensive, are we? I'm not answering "all criticism", I'm responding to your arguments about what makes Israel unique. Your arguments were wrong, and I stated why. You have in fact ignored my statements about why your arguments are wrong.

is anyone who ever accuses Israel of violating basic human rights..an anti-Semite?

You seem to be suggesting this.
Click to expand...

I've said nothing in this thread about whether or not Israel is violating human rights, and nothing about whether or not any criticism of such violations is justified. But lots of countries violate basic human rights, and nobody questions their right to exist. That is what we were discussing. The problem here isn't me blaming everything on antisemitism, it's you not even being able to sort out what's under discussion.
 
parky76 said:
is anyone who ever accuses Israel of violating basic human rights..an anti-Semite?
Click to expand...
It's a lot of straw parky. You need to address the arguments made and the rebuttals to the arguments you've made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom