Should America Support Israel?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2014, 11:05 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2014 11:10 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As opposed to the UN giving territory from one people, without their permission, to another group of people. You know, kind of the whole point of the original grievance, that being unilateral sequestration of their territory.

But no, I imagine you still can't fathom why the Palestinians would be miffed at the encroaching Zionist settlers.
You have to factor in that there was a history prior to 1948. The UN special commision was fully aware of what had taken place - the massacres and the atrocities committed by both sides - and so their decision, rightly or wrongly, was based on that. Secondly, the decision was taken by the UN, hardly a justification for the Arabs to declare war on Israel.

And were the Palestinians at all consulted, or even given a voice, before their territory was given over to outsiders by outsiders? Or was this more of the typical unilateral 'diplomacy' of the era that favored self-determination for whites only (see: French Indochina)?



(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And that same standard applies to Israel too, Israel can also stop their bombing of civilians and lift the blockade and occupation. Nothing is stopping Israel from doing so, except seemingly their own lack of desire.
You're putting the cart in front of the horse: the blockade and occupation is a direct result of the continuing war. Stop the war and both the blockade and the occupation will in times disappear. Just the economic cost would force Israel to abandon those.

Yes, because the onus is always on the powerless to capitulate; the mentality of the schoolyard bully.



(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And yet the context is still lost on you. In the context of 1948, there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the terms proposed in 1948. But that is history, this is now; and in the present both Fatah and Hamas accept the existence of Israel and seek a 2 state solution based upon the (much less charitable) 1967 borders. People change, contexts change, circumstances change; this simple fact of life seems lost on you.
As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

Yes, according to the UN; clearly the Palestinians disagreed.

Also this is the same UN that officially declared Israel's actions an illegal occupation in 2005, and which the IDF has been bombing their shelters in Gaza; making Israel guilty of multiple war-crimes and in perpetual violation of International Law for decades.



(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As to Fatah and Hamas, they have shown little evidence they want this war to be over. When their actions are in unity with their seemingly desire for peace, then peace talks will take place. The reality is that there is no possibility for any peace talk to even begin. Why? The Palestinians, through their leadership, have the options to continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. Only the second option can lead to peace talks.


What more does Israel need? They demanded a unified government and democratic elections, the Palestinians complied. Then Israel got angry at who won the elections (reality check: the point of having elections is to let the people decide their representatives, not have them dictated by an occupying foreign power), and it was Israel who decided that even meeting their own demands wasn't good enough.

Both sides are fighting (one side barely at this point), but who is hitting schools? Who is hitting hospitals? Who is hitting UN shelters? Who is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of children?

But no, it's the side getting it's shit kicked in (and has been for decades) who is to blame here. Once again, the mentality of the schoolyard bully.



(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 02:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The point being, Israel has done nothing to convince the Palestinians that things will be better if they surrender.
The onus is on the Palestinians to lay down their arms. It's their responsibility to fully indicate they are no longer pursuing their war. Only when that happens can Israel proceed to the table for some hard, honest discussion about a peace treaty. The onus would still be on the Palestinians to reign in those among them who might want to continue their armed struggle. And that means full cooperation with Israeli force to capture those. I have not witness such cooperation in the past, and so I'm inclined to believe that the Palestinians have never been serious about peace talks.

Once again, let me spell it out for you dumbass.

From the point of view of the Palestinians, there is no reason to surrender. Their every attempt at a peaceful solution in the recent past has been stonewalled by Israel. Peaceful protesters get arrested and shot at with rubber (and sometimes live) ammunition. Israel demanded elections and a unified government, then pulled out of peace talks when they got just that. Israel lied about the 3 abducted kids, using it as a pretext to arrest hundreds of Hamas members and to start shelling Gaza; when they knew that the kids were most likely already dead, and that it was not sanctioned or ordered by Hamas. Israel knew this, suppressed the information, and used it as a false pretext to kill thousands; and now the Palestinians know this too. Why would they trust anything Israel has to say about surrender? I certainly wouldn't.

Palestinians see an Israel that has the power to operate unilaterally, and Israel is using that power. Palestinians have ZERO REASON to take Israel's claims at face value, because Israel has failed to keep any of it's own promises. There is no trust there, and for good reasons; Israel has exacerbated this problem by their own actions.

So once again, between laying down and dying or standing up and fighting (however futile it may be), is it any surprise how many choose to fight? And yet so many, many, many more choose not to fight; and they get killed for their trouble. Israel has helped create an atmosphere that breeds terrorism, then decries that they can do naught else because of terrorists; it's a self fulfilling prophecy.


Sadly Israel already knows this, regrettably you apparently do not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 05:06 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(03-08-2014 07:54 PM)Black Eagle Wrote:  The Israelis have intentionally massacred civilians, including children. The mass killing of Arab refugees at Sabra and Shatila by Israeli troops was not accidental. The Palestinians have killed more than their share of civilians, including children. If it were up to me, we'd convince the Russians to light up both the Israelis and the Palestinians and then we'd deny any involvement in the episode while quietly drinking a vodka toast to the Russians. But addressing the original question concerning aid to Israel, I wouldn't give either the Israelis or the Palestinians a goddamned dime.

It was actually christian Phalangist & Lebanese SLA who massacred indiscriminately in Sabra & Shatila not Israel. The massacres were amongst many committed by both Islamic and Christian fighters in the Lebanese civil war.
Israel did indirectly create a situation were a massacre could happen - but never ordered the Phalangist Christian militia to kill civilians & Israel did not intentionally kill civilians as they were not the ones who entered the camps. There is a background context to the massacre in Sabra & Shatila which you deliberately omit which was an on-going civil war between christian and muslims fighting to control Lebanon. The Christian Militia were supposed to eliminate only terrorists but out of vengeance for massacres against Christians went on the rampage.

.....and by the way this is not different than the US & UK involvement killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Whilst the US may not order a suicide bombing on a mosque it indirectly created a situation were this could happen by destabilizing regional powers (Sunni/Shiah)

The Russians ? They get away with Chechnya were they directly killed some quarter of a million civilians. The media couldn't care less. No pictures of chechen hospitals, schools, babies or anything and the Russians continued for years without a squeak.

Israel has to deal with Hamas - which have ambitions similar to ISIS/Taliban/Al-Queda - not exactly the sort of people you would trust when they say their primary goal is destruction of Israel & reject any two state solutions or living in peace. Hamas also use many tactics which increase their own civilian casualties - this is well documented from numerous sources.
If Israel deliberately wanted to kill as many civilians as possible why have a medical field camp treating Palestinians ? Why does it allow hundreds of tonnes of medical equipment into Gaza ? Why endanger many Israeli soldiers lives when numerous sorties were cancelled due to civilians in the way ? Why not x50 the number of civilian casualties if Israel used the Russian methods of defeating Chechnya ?

I would like to see how you would dismantle tunnels used only for terrorist purposes hidden in a densely populated urban area ? Israel gives warnings to evacuate certain areas via a variety of methods to limit civilian casualties and accomplish objectives such as demolishing terror tunnels. Granted it is genuinely not always easy to evaluate in a war-zone and Hamas use civilians as human shields civilian casualties are inevitable not deliberate.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Baruch's post
10-08-2014, 05:45 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 07:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

Not everyone would agree with that. Some would say the U.N. had no authority to steal Palestine and give it to foreigners.

It wasn't as simple as that. Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire until the end of WW1. After the treaty of Versailles, it became a British mandate. And at the end of WW2, the UK being bankrupted could no longer afford to administer that part of the world and asked the UN to make a ruling on it before the Brits would depart. You have to realize that between the two wars, there were massacres committed by both groups. And without the British presence, that region would have been in total chaos, and most likely, the Jews would have overun the Arabs into the sea. So the partition was necessary at the times.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
10-08-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  You have to factor in that there was a history prior to 1948. The UN special commision was fully aware of what had taken place - the massacres and the atrocities committed by both sides - and so their decision, rightly or wrongly, was based on that. Secondly, the decision was taken by the UN, hardly a justification for the Arabs to declare war on Israel.

And were the Palestinians at all consulted, or even given a voice, before their territory was given over to outsiders by outsiders? Or was this more of the typical unilateral 'diplomacy' of the era that favored self-determination for whites only (see: French Indochina)?


See my reply to Chas: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid621527


Quote:
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  You're putting the cart in front of the horse: the blockade and occupation is a direct result of the continuing war. Stop the war and both the blockade and the occupation will in times disappear. Just the economic cost would force Israel to abandon those.

Yes, because the onus is always on the powerless to capitulate; the mentality of the schoolyard bully.

The onus is on the one who declared war and started the hostilities to end it.



Quote:
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As I mentioned above, the history prior to 1948 was crucial for the UN to come to their decision. The partition was a reasonable compromise.

Yes, according to the UN; clearly the Palestinians disagreed.

Without the partition, with British forces no longer there to maintain the peace between the two groups, the Jews would have run the Arabs into the sea. Militarily, they were better at it than the Arabs.

Quote:Also this is the same UN that officially declared Israel's actions an illegal occupation in 2005, and which the IDF has been bombing their shelters in Gaza; making Israel guilty of multiple war-crimes and in perpetual violation of International Law for decades.
But the UN has also condemmned the actions of the Palestinians. It cuts both ways.



(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As to Fatah and Hamas, they have shown little evidence they want this war to be over. When their actions are in unity with their seemingly desire for peace, then peace talks will take place. The reality is that there is no possibility for any peace talk to even begin. Why? The Palestinians, through their leadership, have the options to continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. Only the second option can lead to peace talks.


Quote:What more does Israel need? They demanded a unified government and democratic elections, the Palestinians complied. Then Israel got angry at who won the elections (reality check: the point of having elections is to let the people decide their representatives, not have them dictated by an occupying foreign power), and it was Israel who decided that even meeting their own demands wasn't good enough.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians elected a party whose platform is the destruction of the state of Israel, not the smartest move to get to the peace table.

Quote:Both sides are fighting (one side barely at this point), but who is hitting schools? Who is hitting hospitals? Who is hitting UN shelters? Who is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of children?

Then tell Hamas not to launch their rockets from heavily populated areas. On second thought, tell Hamas not to launch rockets. PERIOD.




Quote:
(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  The onus is on the Palestinians to lay down their arms. It's their responsibility to fully indicate they are no longer pursuing their war. Only when that happens can Israel proceed to the table for some hard, honest discussion about a peace treaty. The onus would still be on the Palestinians to reign in those among them who might want to continue their armed struggle. And that means full cooperation with Israeli force to capture those. I have not witness such cooperation in the past, and so I'm inclined to believe that the Palestinians have never been serious about peace talks.

Once again, let me spell it out for you dumbass.

From the point of view of the Palestinians, there is no reason to surrender.

Then the war will continue, the misery will continue. Don't come home to mama and complain.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
10-08-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(10-08-2014 05:45 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 07:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not everyone would agree with that. Some would say the U.N. had no authority to steal Palestine and give it to foreigners.

It wasn't as simple as that. Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire until the end of WW1. After the treaty of Versailles, it became a British mandate. And at the end of WW2, the UK being bankrupted could no longer afford to administer that part of the world and asked the UN to make a ruling on it before the Brits would depart. You have to realize that between the two wars, there were massacres committed by both groups. And without the British presence, that region would have been in total chaos, and most likely, the Jews would have overun the Arabs into the sea. So the partition was necessary at the times.

Actually the likelihood had the British not intervened the mainly Arab areas would just become an extension of Jordan, Syria and Egypt.
The "throwing onto the sea" was the Arab deceleration by the invading Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi armies who had they won in 1948 would have killed all remaining Jews.
After the 1967 war Israel offered return of Gaza & Sinai to EGYPT for peace. There was no plan for even a partial Palestinian state in Gaza before 1967 by Egypt (or the west Bank under Jordan) and had the UN not set up UNWRA it would have become an extension of Egypt.

UNWRA is ultimately responsible for the current situation because it has perpetuated refugee status unique to Palestinians which carries on through generations rather than helping them to re-establish themselves and prosper.
Also be aware that most of Israel's Jewish population come from displaced Jews from Arab countries fleeing persecution such as Iraq, Syria and Egypt.
Just between 1948 and 1951 this amounted to 56% of the total immigration
These Jews were refugees with properties & wealth confiscated by Arab regimes who ended up in Israel with virtually nothing and no Arab compensation or UNWRA help.
Fair to say if there were 650,000 Arab refugees post the 1948 war then the million or so jewish refugees from Arab countries to Israel is a fair swap.

However UNWRA was set up to maintain Palestinian refugee status "perpetually" via the male line regardless if the Palestinians are citizens elsewhere & encouraging states not to give citizenship but to continue refugee status.
(unlike the refugee policy by UNHCO in the rest of the world)

Just see UNWRA vs UNHCO for a stark comparison on refugee policy & definitions.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q...6100,d.ZGU

What the hell is a "perpetual refugee status" for Palestinians in 1948 in contrast to refugees all over the rest of the world ??? Jews fleeing Arab countries to Israel never received aid or UN refugee status and started often penniless living in tents ? [from previously often being a wealthy middle-class in Arab countries]

If you seriously take "perpetual refugee status" to its logical conclusion and applied to all people then Jews are the "perpetual refugees" exiled from Judea by the Roman conquerors who renamed the territory "Palestina" then denied return & then Jews persecuted by the Byzantines followed by Islamic Caliphates !!!!
According to UNWRA's definition Jews are the perpetual refugees exiled from their national homeland according to their secular definitions !

In any case "palestine" was never a soverign state of Arabs but always governed by external empires (Roman/Byzantine, Islamic Caliphates or recently British) - the last people to have a recognized sovereign autonomous state were historically Jews !!!

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
10-08-2014, 09:03 AM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2014 09:27 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And were the Palestinians at all consulted, or even given a voice, before their territory was given over to outsiders by outsiders? Or was this more of the typical unilateral 'diplomacy' of the era that favored self-determination for whites only (see: French Indochina)?
See my reply to Chas: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid621527

So the Palestinians lived in that region for generations, unfortunately they got passed from one imperialist power (the Ottomans) to another (the British) before being adjudicated by another (the UN) in which it again had no say in what happened. Yet you seem surprised about why they might be bitter and resentful after having been passed around and never having a chance to rule themselves.

Remember, self-determination was only for white countries after WWI. Thanks imperialism!

But no, this is still all the Palestinians fault I'm sure.


(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, because the onus is always on the powerless to capitulate; the mentality of the schoolyard bully.
The onus is on the one who declared war and started the hostilities to end it.

You stupid fuck...

When did this 'war' magically start? The most recent incursion happened when Israel covered up and lied about the fate of the 3 supposedly kidnapped teens, and used that as a pretext to invade and bomb Gaza.

If you however you mean 'what started this conflict originally', what is your justification for magically asserting that it's the Palestinians who initiated it? Were they not fucked over by both the Ottomans and the British? Then when the British left, yet again another group of outsiders were making decision for them without their input. did the war start when the British arrived? Did it start when the Zionist started emigrating under the British occupation?

Why is it automatically the fault of the Palestinians for fighting back against, what appeared to them at the time, the encroachment and the taking of their territory by yet another set of zealous foreign settlers?

Simple, because Israel is never wrong. To even hint that they might, remotely, be at fault for the current state of affairs would go against the preferred narrative.



(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, according to the UN; clearly the Palestinians disagreed.
Without the partition, with British forces no longer there to maintain the peace between the two groups, the Jews would have run the Arabs into the sea. Militarily, they were better at it than the Arabs.

But without the British, would there have been enough emigration of Zionist settlers? Seeing as how the Palestinians main problem seemed to be the encroachment of the settlers, one has to wonder if they would have the numbers or equipment to pose that kind of threat of not for the British presence. Likewise, the one thing that gets continuously overlooked here is; nobody bothered to ever ask the Palestinians. After being occupied by the Ottomans, then passed off to the British, only to get pushed back by the Zionist and the UN. It seems like never once did anybody respect their claim, their right, to that territory; and simply asked them for their input (if not flat out for their permission).

Maybe the Palestinians would have said 'yes', maybe they would have allowed limited settlers, or maybe they would have said 'no' and just focused on rebuilding their own homeland. But we'll never know because nobody seemed to care about their rights; they were only arabs after all.

Remember, self-determination was only for white countries after WWI. Thanks imperialism!

But nope, it's still all their fault for not being 100% cool with everyone else always dictation to them what to do, when, where, how (and don't forget, move the fuck over to make room for the zionist). How fucking dare they try to stand up and protect what was theirs, what they had a more legitimate claim to than anyone else at the time?




(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also this is the same UN that officially declared Israel's actions an illegal occupation in 2005, and which the IDF has been bombing their shelters in Gaza; making Israel guilty of multiple war-crimes and in perpetual violation of International Law for decades.
But the UN has also condemmned the actions of the Palestinians. It cuts both ways.

That was the point fucknuts; Israel is not the perfect, mistake free white-night that you try to make it out to be. Nor are the Palestinians the root of all evil; this conflict is filled with grey and nuance (which you seem entirely unable to grasp most of the time). Need I remind you that there were Zionist and Israeli terrorists that committed attacks and bombings in the name of establishing Israel, and in forwarding its interests after the fact?




(09-08-2014 05:30 AM)zaybu Wrote:  As to Fatah and Hamas, they have shown little evidence they want this war to be over. When their actions are in unity with their seemingly desire for peace, then peace talks will take place. The reality is that there is no possibility for any peace talk to even begin. Why? The Palestinians, through their leadership, have the options to continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. Only the second option can lead to peace talks.

Fuck you, you lying piece of shit. cjlr has pointed this out to you repeatedly, that Hamas and Fatah both recognise the existence of Israel and desire a 2 state solution; and both say as much in their charters.

Keeping in mind however that the Likud (the conservative part of Netanyahu) says in their own charter that they do not desire nor will they recognise a Palestinian state. Remind me again who's stonewalling the peace process here?

But no, that doesn't fit your prefered narrative, so you ignore those facts and instead attempt to cherry pick things by pulling bits out of Hamas' half a century old 1948 charter. For fuck's sake, if you need to ignore reality this much to sell your story...



(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What more does Israel need? They demanded a unified government and democratic elections, the Palestinians complied. Then Israel got angry at who won the elections (reality check: the point of having elections is to let the people decide their representatives, not have them dictated by an occupying foreign power), and it was Israel who decided that even meeting their own demands wasn't good enough.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians elected a party whose platform is the destruction of the state of Israel, not the smartest move to get to the peace table.

Once again, more lies as repeatedly pointed out by cjlr (see above jackass).

And guess what, you don't negotiate the end of a war with allies! You are in a fucking war, right? Those who you are negotiating with are your enemies, and you negotiate a peace treaty so that you stop being enemies. Fucking hell, I can't believe you are that fucking stupid...



(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Both sides are fighting (one side barely at this point), but who is hitting schools? Who is hitting hospitals? Who is hitting UN shelters? Who is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of children?
Then tell Hamas not to launch their rockets from heavily populated areas. On second thought, tell Hamas not to launch rockets. PERIOD.

An area so heavily populated because Israel has turned Gaza into the world's largest open-air prison by blockading in 1.8 million people into a space a little over 139 square miles (a sliver of land a fraction the size of the city of Los Angeles). Israel has the most technologically advanced military in the region, they have precision guided weaponry. They were repeated warned about the location of all hospitals, schools, and UN shelters (something upwards of 50+ times), and yet those locations still got hit.

So either Israel's military is too unskilled to perform these operations without excessive civilian casualties, and they should have stopped. Or Israel can avoid hitting them, but didn't care, and targeted them anyways. Option one is negligence and ineptitude, option two is terrorism.


But no, it's only terrorism whenever Hamas hits civilians. Whenever Israel does it, it's just 'collateral damage'. Just like whenever the United States tortured prisoners of war and called it 'enhanced interrogation methods' instead of what it really was, 'hooking your balls up to a car battery while trying to drown you 180 times'. Calling it 'enhanced interrogation methods' didn't stop making it torture, nor does calling the Palestinians civilian deaths 'collateral damage' make it any less terrorism.




(10-08-2014 06:02 AM)zaybu Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 11:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, let me spell it out for you dumbass.

From the point of view of the Palestinians, there is no reason to surrender.
Then the war will continue, the misery will continue. Don't come home to mama and complain.

Alright, just so long as we're on the same page here. You support Israel's 'right' to unlimitedly subjugate, occupy, harass, and in all ways beny basic human rights to the Palestinian people. Good you know you are, in fact, a fucked in the head sadist.

And also entirely unable to address the rest of the points in my post, probably because they were too inconvenient for your preferred narrative again. It's just so much easier to demonize them, to make them the 'other', so that you can think less and feel less guilty about not treating them like human beings. You know, like how the Nazis treated the Jews. Oh wait, make way for the irony train!


[Image: IronyTrain.png]


but I'm going to post it again for posterity, you stupid fuck.


From the point of view of the Palestinians, there is no reason to surrender. Their every attempt at a peaceful solution in the recent past has been stonewalled by Israel. Peaceful protesters get arrested and shot at with rubber (and sometimes live) ammunition. Israel demanded elections and a unified government, then pulled out of peace talks when they got just that. Israel lied about the 3 abducted kids, using it as a pretext to arrest hundreds of Hamas members and to start shelling Gaza; when they knew that the kids were most likely already dead, and that it was not sanctioned or ordered by Hamas. Israel knew this, suppressed the information, and used it as a false pretext to kill thousands; and now the Palestinians know this too. Why would they trust anything Israel has to say about surrender? I certainly wouldn't.

Palestinians see an Israel that has the power to operate unilaterally, and Israel is using that power. Palestinians have ZERO REASON to take Israel's claims at face value, because Israel has failed to keep any of it's own promises. There is no trust there, and for good reasons; Israel has exacerbated this problem by their own actions.

So once again, between laying down and dying or standing up and fighting (however futile it may be), is it any surprise how many choose to fight? And yet so many, many, many more choose not to fight; and they get killed for their trouble. Israel has helped create an atmosphere that breeds terrorism, then decries that they can do naught else because of terrorists; it's a self fulfilling prophecy.


Sadly Israel already knows this, regrettably you apparently do not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
@ EvolutionKills

Your posts are full of personal attacks. I will not answer them until you polish them. Keep your comments to the issue at hand. Otherwise I will ignore you.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
10-08-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(10-08-2014 08:13 AM)Baruch Wrote:  
(10-08-2014 05:45 AM)zaybu Wrote:  It wasn't as simple as that. Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire until the end of WW1. After the treaty of Versailles, it became a British mandate. And at the end of WW2, the UK being bankrupted could no longer afford to administer that part of the world and asked the UN to make a ruling on it before the Brits would depart. You have to realize that between the two wars, there were massacres committed by both groups. And without the British presence, that region would have been in total chaos, and most likely, the Jews would have overun the Arabs into the sea. So the partition was necessary at the times.

Actually the likelihood had the British not intervened the mainly Arab areas would just become an extension of Jordan, Syria and Egypt.
The "throwing onto the sea" was the Arab deceleration by the invading Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi armies who had they won in 1948 would have killed all remaining Jews.

My statement, "the Jews would have overun the Arabs into the sea", is to be taken as hypothetical, and I mainly based myself on the fact that the Jews fought not only the Arabs inhabiting the region but militants that came from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran and as far as Saudi Arabia. Subsequently the IDF has shown to be superior to the combined armies of these countries. Now, the Israelis never intended to drive the Arabs to the sea, and as you have pointed out, the Arabs rallying call at the time was in effect to drive the Jews into the sea.

Hopefully, this clears up that point.

My blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes zaybu's post
10-08-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(07-08-2014 02:46 PM)Noonespecial Wrote:  The jewish people should have a state of their own.... somewhere. The problem is that they chose land that happened to have a lot of people already on it. They chose it because their "Holy" book said it is theirs. Unfortunately, other people have similar books saying the same thing.

So, if they bought a really nice piece of land in like say a corner of Brazil or Australia (probably) noone would have fought them.

So, now we have a fight that will NEVER end because of religious beliefs.

Sigh.

I hear your view but would comment that it is not based only on "religious beliefs"
The Jews were the last people to have a sovereign autonomous state called Judea according to secular accepted history which was renamed "Palestina" by the Roman conquerors. Subsequently Jews were in exile and forbidden to return by the Roman and then Byzantine successors who controlled the land. After the conquest of the Byzantine Empire "palestine" was a province of various Muslim caliphates which again restricted Jewish access & return. (there were some indigenous Jews throughout all these periods to various extents)
The late ottoman empire relaxed some of the Jewish restrictions for example by allowing the rebuilding of the ancient Jewish quarter in Jerusalem. Throughout these time periods populations in Palestine waxed & waned depending on who was conquering whom and various periods of stability in between.

From a secular point of view the re-establishment of Israel can have little to do with Biblical authenticity considering according to secular archeologists the exodus never happened and the "Israelite" population emerged from indigenous Canaanites. Even the biblical "Philistines" have an origin from Crete or other probably Aegean origin as part of the "sea people" which invaded the coastline but also integrated with Canaanites.
In any case - the emergence of Israel occurs more than 1200 years before its conquest by Rome with most of that time either compete Jewish sovereignty or various degrees of autonomy (eg under Israel the Persian Empire after Cyrus the Great reconquered it from Babylon)

...Hence the only logical place for a Jewish state is were it always has been - Israel regardless of religious beliefs.

Obviously the religious might agree with my secular version but add "God gave it to us" which obviously doesn't help much considering Muslim Palestinians will say God gave us the "Ummah" which is the greater Islamic commonwealth at the height of the Caliphate conquests of the Abbasid's, Umayyads, Fatimids and eventually Ottomans - and anywhere which was part of the Ummah must be defended for the sake of Allah. This makes negotiating somewhat challenging.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
10-08-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: Should America Support Israel?
(10-08-2014 09:18 AM)zaybu Wrote:  @ EvolutionKills

Your posts are full of personal attacks. I will not answer them until you polish them. Keep your comments to the issue at hand. Otherwise I will ignore you.

Ignore me all you want jackass, seeing as how your prefered method of 'debate' is ignoring inconvenient evidence and putting on a display of cognitive dissonance so strong you'd make Brigham Young blush. I have little patience for people who contine to lie, even after having been caught and corrected multiple times; or for those who apologise for and attempt to rationalise the murder of children. So there is that...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: