General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[a_unique_person]

OK, let's say I am wrong. how did you determine that before I even presented my evidence? And BTW you of course misrepresented me by saying that I said the land belongs to the Jews. I said it was promised to them originally. Unfortunately before the negotiations could be finished the Jews were attacked
in the Hebron massacres in 1929 and the Arab revolt in 1936. Oh wait, that's more than 40 years ago and before resolution 181 so it must not count.

But of course even after 1947 when the UN then gave half of that 25% to the Arabs it still wasn't enough and they attacked again. Now they have about 15% of the original area of Palestine mandated by...oh wait don't want to give up a source before you tell me how you determined I was wrong without any evidence.

EDIT - All you had to say was that you cannot accept my argument without me first providing evidence, which is a valid argument since for all you know I could very well be wrong.

Where did the right of self determination of Palestinians come into negotiations between the British rulers of the empire, that currently ruled that land by dint of military might, and the Zionists asking for land for the State of Israel? The people who supposedly didn't exist and had no desire for self determination appear, but they are now criminals because they were left out. They had specifically asked the British for their land, and were turned down. Deny someone their right of self determination through peaceful negotiation, what other means of recourse do they have? History tells us how people around the world usually respond.

 

[Virus]

Where did the right of self determination of Palestinians come into negotiations between the British rulers of the empire, that currently ruled that land by dint of military might, and the Zionists asking for land for the State of Israel? The people who supposedly didn't exist and had no desire for self determination appear, but they are now criminals because they were left out. They had specifically asked the British for their land, and were turned down. Deny someone their right of self determination through peaceful negotiation, what other means of recourse do they have? History tells us how people around the world usually respond.

All the wars waged against Israel were waged by an Arabs states. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, ect. Egypt was the main country that goaded the others to war. None of them were slated to lose land by the UN partition plan.

 

[a_unique_person]

All the wars waged against Israel were waged by an Arabs states. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, ect. Egypt was the main country that goaded the others to war. None of them were slated to lose land by the UN partition plan.

You just moved the goal posts. The Palestinians had also attempted to negotiate with the British for self determination. They were turned down.

 

[a_unique_person]

Apparently none.

Which sounds about right to some of the xenophobes here.

More a case of why immigrants do, but the indiginous don't.

 

[mortimer]

You just moved the goal posts. The Palestinians had also attempted to negotiate with the British for self determination. They were turned down.

Really? Because the Palestinian leadership turned down the 1947 partition plan, which would have given them about half of the mandate land.

 

[Virus]

You just moved the goal posts. The Palestinians had also attempted to negotiate with the British for self determination. They were turned down.

What's that got to do with the Arab states starting wars?

 

[a_unique_person]

What's that got to do with the Arab states starting wars?

You brought that up. I was talking about something else.

 

[a_unique_person]

Really? Because the Palestinian leadership turned down the 1947 partition plan, which would have given them about half of the mandate land.

The "mandate" that was not of their choosing. Self determination.

 

[WildCat]

The "mandate" that was not of their choosing. Self determination.

Sometimes you have to compromise.

 

[mortimer]

The "mandate" that was not of their choosing. Self determination.

OK, so why should any other country help them? That wouldn't be "self determination". Let them determine their own fate with their neighbors.

 

[Virus]

Self determination to kill the Jews.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sometimes you have to compromise.

Sometimes that can take time. Or else you just keep killing the other guy till he is wiped out or gives in completely, or these things can go on for so long that everyone just ends up integrating with each other. Other ethnic conflicts have raged on for hundreds of years, or longer. Look at Sri Lanka. That is human nature. Look at Norther Ireland. Look at the Balkans. That is nothing to do with anti-semitism, it is to do with ethnic identity and the desire for self determination. All these conflicts have had periods of bloodshed too, and have dragged on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_LTTE_Insurgency

The resolution of this conflict will have to involve compromise, but it should be a just one.

 

[Skeptic]

To judge by some people's view of Hamas, Bikerdruid would have nothing to complain about were an Indian native, not liking the fact that a White man came to live there, would kill him and burn his house down -- despite the fact that he actually bought the land openly and legally.

Or perhaps this "right" to "liberate" land by killing those who bought it only applies when it's bought by Jews?

 

[a_unique_person]

To judge by some people's view of Hamas, Bikerdruid would have nothing to complain about were an Indian native, not liking the fact that a White man came to live there, would kill him and burn his house down -- despite the fact that he actually bought the land openly and legally.

Or perhaps this "right" to "liberate" land by killing those who bought it only applies when it's bought by Jews?

Legally bought from who? Not the Indians. When they were coralled into Oklahoma, even that was taken from them, and given away in a free for all land grab. Legally. Indians did kill whites, and burn down their houses, and no wonder. There was barely a deal done with them that was not subsequently broken.

 

[Skeptic]

I can see better your angle here, but I still don't understand why this doesn't have you and others labelling bikerdruid as a confused person whose words could be construed as indirectly supportive of the murder of innocents. This is often skipped in favour of active, conscious support for murder.

I see your point, Praktik, but I disagree.

The reason I don't see BD as "confused" is the same reason that if if someone openly praises the KKK, and declares them to be "freedom fighters", it is extremely unlikely they are "confused" and really joined the KKK party because of their economic policy. It is virtually certain that they are knowingly racists.

What's more -- and what's even more damning -- is that Hamas is well-known, quite apart from its antisemitism, for being dictatorial and theocratic and murderously anti-gay, among other things. Yet all this is forgiven and ignored by BD. So theocratic gay-killer dictators are bad, except for the theocratic gay-killers who also want to murder Jews, who are "freedom fighters". Now, what does that tell you?

 

[bikerdruid]

To judge by some people's view of Hamas, Bikerdruid would have nothing to complain about were an Indian native, not liking the fact that a White man came to live there, would kill him and burn his house down -- despite the fact that he actually bought the land openly and legally.

Or perhaps this "right" to "liberate" land by killing those who bought it only applies when it's bought by Jews?

you desperately need a new whine.
this one has run its course.

 

[bikerdruid]

I see your point, Praktik, but I disagree.

The reason I don't see BD as "confused" is the same reason that if if someone openly praises the KKK, and declares them to be "freedom fighters", it is extremely unlikely they are "confused" and really joined the KKK party because of their economic policy. It is virtually certain that they are knowingly racists.

What's more -- and what's even more damning -- is that Hamas is well-known, quite apart from its antisemitism, for being dictatorial and theocratic and murderously anti-gay, among other things. Yet all this is forgiven and ignored by BD. So theocratic gay-killer dictators are bad, except for the theocratic gay-killers who also want to murder Jews, who are "freedom fighters". Now, what does that tell you?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7352380&postcount=5356

 

[mortimer]

What's more -- and what's even more damning -- is that Hamas is well-known, quite apart from its antisemitism, for being dictatorial and theocratic and murderously anti-gay, among other things. Yet all this is forgiven and ignored by BD. So theocratic gay-killer dictators are bad, except for the theocratic gay-killers who also want to murder Jews, who are "freedom fighters". Now, what does that tell you?

I don't think this is particularly fair to bikerdruid. I can't recall him ever speaking out against any theocratic gay-killer dictatorships, whether they want to kill all the Jews or not.

 

[Skeptic]

Mortimer -- about the issue with the demographics in Israel -- there is something you might not know, perhaps, if you don't follow the Israeli press.

1). A few months ago a Rabbi said that one should not sell houses to Arabs in Safed lest they take over. He was universally condemned as a racist. Yet, in this weekend's paper, we have high praise for a group of secular Jews who set up a national committee to stop orthodox Jews from buying houses in various secular cities lest they take over. If "group X is taking over, we must not sell them land" is a racist claim, why is it racist when X = Arabs, and not when X = orthodox Jew?

2). More generally, the same people who condemend the rabbi are often the same people declaring Israel must give up land to free itself of Arabs lest they take over demographically. Why is "Arabs are a demographic threat, we must do X!" a far-sighted, learned comment when X = "give up land", while it is racist, evil xenophobia when X = any other policy whatever?

For these two reasons I am skeptical of the motives of those who go on about the demographic threat. It seems to me that whatever the facts are, the reason they go on about it is to established their previously-held conclusion -- "Israel must give up land" -- which is what all "right (that is, left) thinking" people should believe, just like they should believe in the evil taking-over intentions of the disgusting orthodox Jews.

 

[The Fool]

OK, let's say I am wrong. how did you determine that before I even presented my evidence? And BTW you of course misrepresented me by saying that I said the land belongs to the Jews. I said it was promised to them originally.

you made no mentions of promises you said "they started with everything west of the Jordan"

but anyway....even your rewrite is wrong. Nobody promised "The Jews" or anyone else everything west of the Jordan.

EDIT - All you had to say was that you cannot accept my argument without me first providing evidence, which is a valid argument since for all you know I could very well be wrong.

its more direct to the point to just break the bad news...you are wrong.....sorry. If you said the sky was green I wouldn't bother asking you for evidence either.