Hugin wrote:Since you're obviously right about everything, only rednecks could disagree with you.

Israel didn't invade any country, took their lands and drove them away. Israel accepted the partition, and had the Arab states done so as well, there wouldn't be any conflict, no refugees and so on.

But oh well, sorry if I'm not overly enthusiastic about the establishment of yet another gangster satrapy in the world.

Why should there have been any partition at all? Under the British Mandate Palestine was a single administrative unit, and was a single unified government post-mandate that represented both the Jewish and non-Jewish population proportionally such a bad idea? Rather then handing over half of the country to what much of the Arab population would have seen as immigrants (Pre-1900 the Jewish population in Palestine was pretty small)? Political parties like the UKIP get traction in the UK, where compared to some other EU countries immigration is pretty low, just imagine the kind of support they'd get if immigration caused the UK population to increase by 60-70% over a couple of decades, and it was then decided that the UK should be partitioned, hell even I'd be pretty pissed if that happened.

No one would accept what has been done to the Palestine being done to their own country, why are we effectively telling them to?

Just to put Palestine's plight in more personal terms. Just imagine if some religious group believed that Stockholm was rightfully theirs, and that due to administrative fuck ups, and awful conditions elsewhere in the world members of this religious group migrated into Sweden. So 3-4 million people migrate into Sweden in a couple of decades (the numbers for Palestine were different, but proportionally similar to the above figure), and tension and sporadic outbreaks of violence begin happening because people are understandably annoyed that immigration has been allowed to get so out of control. Then imagine the UN or some other international body comes in and partitions Sweden into 2 different countries, and gives the religious group Stockholm. Would you accept the position you were in, in this hypothetical situation?

Hugin wrote:

farquezy wrote:Oh yeah, how dare they not accept having their land forcefully taken away form them

The Arabs attacked Israel in order to annihilate it, Israel defended itself. But of course, if Israel by itself is theft, then you're lost.

farquezy wrote:I have never met an educated person who supports Israel, unless they are a public figure who has his or her own agenda as we see with Alan Dershowitz

Then you haven't met many educated people.

Shall we take another turn? I've never met anyone who supports the Palestinians who has a reasonable grasp about the world. As far as I'm concerned, it is sheer lunacy to long for a Palestinian state. You know what it would be like. I know it too. It's not pretty.

Israel is theft. And there are a lot of butt ugly Israeli's (and I'm not just talking about appearance here). What is your point?

farquezy wrote:

Hugin wrote:

farquezy wrote:I love uneducated red necks who completely ignore everything Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians, then they get mad at the Palestinians and call them terrorist for fighting back

honestly, how fucking uneducated do you have to be?
Is it that hard of a concept to understand?

Let me make it simple for you rednecks, if some country invades your country, takes your land, put you in the most populated area of the world, gives you horrible living conditions, doesnt allow you to have sovereignty, builds a wall around you, and is responsible for killing hundreds of your friends and family, YOUR GOING TO FIGHT BACK

Since you're obviously right about everything, only rednecks could disagree with you.

Israel didn't invade any country, took their lands and drove them away. Israel accepted the partition, and had the Arab states done so as well, there wouldn't be any conflict, no refugees and so on.

But oh well, sorry if I'm not overly enthusiastic about the establishment of yet another gangster satrapy in the world.

Oh yeah, how dare they not accept having their land forcefully taken away form them

I mean its just land there were living one for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, no big deal
They had to agree, HOW DARE THEY FIGHT BACK

Yeah only rednecks would disagree, because rednecks tend to be extremely uneducated.
I have never met an educated person who supports Israel, unless they are a public figure who has his or her own agenda as we see with Alan Dershowitz

Israel did invade, took their land, and drove them away.
They had EVERY opportunity to to accept.
But hey, i would be fight if they stayed as it was, with the majority of the land belonging to the Palestinians and Palestinians still having their sovereignty, but its not that way anymore.

So is it correct to assume that you are not a redneck and in fact an educated person?
You could have fooled me, given your style, your grammar and your spelling.

farquezy wrote:
Israel did invade, took their land, and drove them away.
They had EVERY opportunity to to accept.
But hey, i would be fight if they stayed as it was, with the majority of the land belonging to the Palestinians and Palestinians still having their sovereignty, but its not that way anymore.

Israel only occupied the West Bank and Gaza because of the 1967 war which the Arabs started and lost. It's their own fault for waging a terrorist war instead of admitting defeat.

The creation of Israel was a racist tragedy (ie not counting Palestinians as people) to another racist tragedy (the holocaust). Its too late to revert it now but we can try to fix some of the results

mrjonno wrote:The creation of Israel was a racist tragedy (ie not counting Palestinians as people) to another racist tragedy (the holocaust). Its too late to revert it now but we can try to fix some of the results

I think it is more correct to call it tribalism. After all, Jews and Arabs are of the same race. And for those foreigners who aren't really "Jewish" (but rather white), well they are just wannabe's.

farquezy wrote:I love uneducated red necks who completely ignore everything Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians, then they get mad at the Palestinians and call them terrorist for fighting back

honestly, how fucking uneducated do you have to be?
Is it that hard of a concept to understand?

Let me make it simple for you rednecks, if some country invades your country, takes your land, put you in the most populated area of the world, gives you horrible living conditions, doesnt allow you to have sovereignty, builds a wall around you, and is responsible for killing hundreds of your friends and family, YOUR GOING TO FIGHT BACK

Sadly it seems you have not bothered carefully with little trifles such as learning history, therefore you fail to grasp the complexity of this conflict and your conclusions are superficial at best. But perhaps if you used bigger letters, just a tiny bit, you would be more convincing.

Fatma wrote:

farquezy wrote:I love uneducated red necks who completely ignore everything Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians, then they get mad at the Palestinians and call them terrorist for fighting back

honestly, how fucking uneducated do you have to be?
Is it that hard of a concept to understand?

Let me make it simple for you rednecks, if some country invades your country, takes your land, put you in the most populated area of the world, gives you horrible living conditions, doesnt allow you to have sovereignty, builds a wall around you, and is responsible for killing hundreds of your friends and family, YOUR GOING TO FIGHT BACK

Sadly it seems you have not bothered carefully with little trifles such as learning history, therefore you fail to grasp the complexity of this conflict and your conclusions are superficial at best. But perhaps if you used bigger letters, just a tiny bit, you would be more convincing.

I guess it's the hallmark of an educated person to write as if he or she is shouting.

Mojzu wrote:
Why should there have been any partition at all? Under the British Mandate Palestine was a single administrative unit, and was a single unified government post-mandate that represented both the Jewish and non-Jewish population proportionally such a bad idea? Rather then handing over half of the country to what much of the Arab population would have seen as immigrants (Pre-1900 the Jewish population in Palestine was pretty small)? Political parties like the UKIP get traction in the UK, where compared to some other EU countries immigration is pretty low, just imagine the kind of support they'd get if immigration caused the UK population to increase by 60-70% over a couple of decades, and it was then decided that the UK should be partitioned, hell even I'd be pretty pissed if that happened.

No one would accept what has been done to the Palestine being done to their own country, why are we effectively telling them to?

It is a terrible idea not to partition the land. These things hardly ever work. Look at Yugoslavia, look at Spain, look at Belgium, look at the Soviet Union. It didn't work in Israel during the British Mandate and would not have worked afterwards. Besides, the Jews didn't want another country in which they can be the minority. They already had that, and it didn't work out so well. They wanted a country of their own. It's not unreasonable.

Just to put Palestine's plight in more personal terms. Just imagine if some religious group believed that Stockholm was rightfully theirs, and that due to administrative fuck ups, and awful conditions elsewhere in the world members of this religious group migrated into Sweden. So 3-4 million people migrate into Sweden in a couple of decades (the numbers for Palestine were different, but proportionally similar to the above figure), and tension and sporadic outbreaks of violence begin happening because people are understandably annoyed that immigration has been allowed to get so out of control. Then imagine the UN or some other international body comes in and partitions Sweden into 2 different countries, and gives the religious group Stockholm. Would you accept the position you were in, in this hypothetical situation?

That's a false analogy. The Jews are not "some religious group". They are a people with long history. They didn't just "believe Israel was rightfully theirs". Israel is the Jewish homeland. Jews lived here long before the Arabs now called Palestinians (a term that did not exist until late 19th century) arrived. They had their own state here, something the Palestinians never had.
It was never the land of the Palestinians. ever. They never owned it, so it was not theirs to lose. The UN partitioned a land taken by the British from the Ottomans.

In my opinion, it is meaningless to say that a land "belongs" to someone. Who gave it to that someone, God? Especially in the case of a land like Israel, which switched so many hands throughout history. Does it belong to the Jews, who migrated into there thousands of years ago, were expelled by the Romans and came back two thousand years later? Or to the Arabs who's forefathers migrated into there a thousand years ago, after the Jews were kicked out but before they returned? Both the Arabs and the Jews, by the way, forced their way in when they came, kicking others out. Or perhaps it belongs to the Turks, after all the British took it from them by force. Or maybe we better ask ourselves "what can we do NOW so that EVERYONE can have some land to live peacefully in" instead of "who's ancestors count more".

Fatma wrote:

Mojzu wrote:
Why should there have been any partition at all? Under the British Mandate Palestine was a single administrative unit, and was a single unified government post-mandate that represented both the Jewish and non-Jewish population proportionally such a bad idea? Rather then handing over half of the country to what much of the Arab population would have seen as immigrants (Pre-1900 the Jewish population in Palestine was pretty small)? Political parties like the UKIP get traction in the UK, where compared to some other EU countries immigration is pretty low, just imagine the kind of support they'd get if immigration caused the UK population to increase by 60-70% over a couple of decades, and it was then decided that the UK should be partitioned, hell even I'd be pretty pissed if that happened.

No one would accept what has been done to the Palestine being done to their own country, why are we effectively telling them to?

It is a terrible idea not to partition the land. These things hardly ever work. Look at Yugoslavia, look at Spain, look at Belgium, look at the Soviet Union. It didn't work in Israel during the British Mandate and would not have worked afterwards. Besides, the Jews didn't want another country in which they can the the minority. They already had that, and it didn't work out so well. They wanted a country of their own. It's not unreasonable.

Just to put Palestine's plight in more personal terms. Just imagine if some religious group believed that Stockholm was rightfully theirs, and that due to administrative fuck ups, and awful conditions elsewhere in the world members of this religious group migrated into Sweden. So 3-4 million people migrate into Sweden in a couple of decades (the numbers for Palestine were different, but proportionally similar to the above figure), and tension and sporadic outbreaks of violence begin happening because people are understandably annoyed that immigration has been allowed to get so out of control. Then imagine the UN or some other international body comes in and partitions Sweden into 2 different countries, and gives the religious group Stockholm. Would you accept the position you were in, in this hypothetical situation?

That's a false analogy. The Jews are not "some religious group". They are a people with long history. They didn't just "believe Israel was rightfully theirs". Israel is the Jewish homeland. Jews lived here long before the Arabs now called Palestinians (a term that did not exist until the until late 19th century) arrived. They had their own state here, something the Palestinians never had.
It was never the land of the Palestinians. ever. They never owned it, so it was not theirs to lose. The UN partitioned a land taken by the British from the Ottomans.

In my opinion, it is meaningless to say that a land "belongs" to someone. Who gave it to that someone, God? Especially in the case of a land like Israel, which switched so many hands throughout history. Does it belong to the Jews, who migrated into there thousands of years ago, were explled by the Romans and came back two thousand years later? Or to the Arabs who's forefathers migrated into there a thousand years ago? Or perhaps it belongs to the Turks, after all the British took it from them by force. Or maybe we better ask ourself "what can we do NOW so that EVERYONE can have some land to live peacefully in" instead of "who's ancestors count more".

Well right now vast areas are owned by Christians, well Greek Orthodox Church (Patriarchate). Israeli don't even *own* the land of Knesset. It's on lease. They seem to be renting this part of the country (probably paid for by US "foreign aid" funding).

In this respect I'm re-thinking how I evaluate the Israelis because they have in their power the ability to royally turn the screws on the Greek Orthodox church and that defangs this set of parasites from secular Europe.

Fatma wrote:It is a terrible idea not to partition the land. These things hardly ever work. Look at Yugoslavia, look at Spain, look at Belgium, look at the Soviet Union. It didn't work in Israel during the British Mandate and would not have worked afterwards. Besides, the Jews didn't want another country in which they can the the minority. They already had that, and it didn't work out so well. They wanted a country of their own. It's not unreasonable.

Arguably those are better results or at the very least no worse then the current situation in Israel/Gaza/Palestine. And should every group get its own country for fear of being a minority? I agree they had damn good reasons not to want to be in that kind of situation again, but getting their own country doesn't really solve that problem, especially in such a hostile area and with their current behaviour.

That's a false analogy. The Jews are not "some religious group". They are a people with long history. They didn't just "believe Israel was rightfully theirs". Israel is the Jewish homeland. Jews lived here long before the Arabs now called Palestinians (a term that did not exist until late 19th century) arrived. They had their own state here, something the Palestinians never had.
It was never the land of the Palestinians. ever. They never owned it, so it was not theirs to lose. The UN partitioned a land taken by the British from the Ottomans.

They could have set up a country anywhere of their choosing, if they simply wanted to do it to avoid being in a similar situation to Nazi Germany again. Many areas would be much better in terms of positioning and politics (and be given up more peaceably) rather then setting up shop in a country where you are regarded as an immigrant, and will provoke extremely hostile responses by doing so. I don't think it being a major part of their ancestral roots really gives them a better reason to do it, I would wager that most people aren't living in their ancestral homeland (otherwise I'd probably be living somewhere in France), and aren't demanding that a country be set up there just for them. The fact is that the choice of land was largely based on religious reasoning, in that the Torah promises the land to the Jewish people, but I personally do not think the Torah is a valid legal document that lets them set up their own country against the majority of the populations wishes.

In my opinion, it is meaningless to say that a land "belongs" to someone. Who gave it to that someone, God? Especially in the case of a land like Israel, which switched so many hands throughout history. Does it belong to the Jews, who migrated into there thousands of years ago, were expelled by the Romans and came back two thousand years later? Or to the Arabs who's forefathers migrated into there a thousand years ago, after the Jews were kicked out but before they returned? Both the Arabs and the Jews, by the way, forced their way in when they came, kicking others out. Or perhaps it belongs to the Turks, after all the British took it from them by force. Or maybe we better ask ourselves "what can we do NOW so that EVERYONE can have some land to live peacefully in" instead of "who's ancestors count more".

It's all completely arbitrary really on who owns what land. But the existence of Israel isn't promoting any kind of peace in the middle east, and the behaviour of Israel is causing a lot of vindictiveness and anger. If we ask ourselves what we could do now, then I still think the only solution that may have a chance of leading to a peaceable solution in the area, is a unified Israel/Palestine under a single government.

It's all completely arbitrary really on who owns what land. But the existence of Israel isn't promoting any kind of peace in the middle east, and the behaviour of Israel is causing a lot of vindictiveness and anger. If we ask ourselves what we could do now, then I still think the only solution that may have a chance of leading to a peaceable solution in the area, is a unified Israel/Palestine under a single government.

The existence of Israel was not meant to promote any kind of peace in the Middle East. It was meant to provide a refuge to the Jewish people and an ability for them to live in their own land. That the Arabs never accepted that, and therefore peace was denied - that's really too bad.

A unified state is a terrible solution, which Israel would never accept, and rightfully so. How would you like living as a minority under a Muslim majority? It can never ever work.
The only possible solution is a two state solution. Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and let the Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinians should give up their demand for "the right to return", which Israel could never accept, acknowledge Israel's right to exist and give up armed struggle. Assuming both the Israelis and the Palestinians want most of all to live peacefully in their own land, this solution should satisfy both. Sadly, neither side has had much luck with its leaders. Now with Hamas in charge of Gaza and a right wing government in Israel, I can't believe anything good could happen.

Hell, I'm an atheist living amongst a majority of Christians. I'm doing fine. Israel was a mistake and still is.

Fatma wrote:The existence of Israel was not meant to promote any kind of peace in the Middle East. It was meant to provide a refuge to the Jewish people and an ability for them to live in their own land. That the Arabs never accepted that, and therefore peace was denied - that's really too bad.

How is it a refuge if there is no peace in the area? A refuge is a safe place, being surrounded by countries who you have a tenuous or violent relationship with is not safe.

A unified state is a terrible solution, which Israel would never accept, and rightfully so. How would you like living as a minority under a Muslim majority? It can never ever work.

Currently the Israeli population outnumbers the Palestinian one doesn't it? And with a strong secular constitution why would there be a problem living under a Muslim majority? I'm in a minority of Atheists, but thanks to my states secular nature it is never an issue, and if it ever became one in a unified Palestine/Israel I'm sure there are plenty of countries who would jump in to stop a resurgence of violence.

The only possible solution is a two state solution. Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and let the Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital. The Palestinians should give up their demand for "the right to return", which Israel could never accept, acknowledge Israel's right to exist and give up armed struggle. Assuming both the Israelis and the Palestinians want most of all to live peacefully in their own land, this solution should satisfy both. Sadly, neither side has had much luck with its leaders. Now with Hamas in charge of Gaza and a right wing government in Israel, I can't believe anything good could happen.

With a 2 state solution all you end up with is Palestine thinking Israel has land that belongs to itself and vice versa. As long as either country thinks that there will not be peace in the area, and I can't see either side giving up its territory claims.

Do I really need to point out the difference between Muslim dominated states and Christian dominated states in our day and age? The status of an atheist living in a Christian country is not the same as that of a Jew living in a Muslim country. Actually, it is definitely not the same as that of an atheist living in a Muslim country (spooky thought!). No "strong secular constitution" is possible. It is but a dream.

Yes, today the Jews in Israel outnumber the Palestinians. But consider the Palestinian diaspora and their high birth rate. The Jews would quickly become the minority.

And yes, Israel is a refuge for the Jewish people. There may be no peace, but after two thousand years, finally Jews live in a state where they are not persecuted simply for being Jews.

With a 2 state solution all you end up with is Palestine thinking Israel has land that belongs to itself and vice versa

So they should grow up already and realize that peaceful existence in an independent state which you are free to shape as you will is more important than a piece of land. I believe most Israelis and Palestinians understand it by now.

Fatma wrote:Do I really need to point out the difference between Muslim dominated states and Christian dominated states in our day and age? The status of an atheist living in a Christian country is not the same as that of a Jew living in a Muslim country.

Out of interest, where on that apparently broad spectrum do you place the single jewish state, in our day and age? And the status of a palestinian reduced to living in absolute penury under apartheid in that jewish-dominated country, his life is a fucking walk in the park compared to (say) being a christian or atheist in Indonesia, Malaysia, and so on, I suppose?

ED209 wrote:

Fatma wrote:Do I really need to point out the difference between Muslim dominated states and Christian dominated states in our day and age? The status of an atheist living in a Christian country is not the same as that of a Jew living in a Muslim country.

Out of interest, where on that apparently broad spectrum do you place the single jewish state, in our day and age? And the status of a palestinian reduced to living in absolute penury under apartheid in that jewish-dominated country, his life is a fucking walk in the park compared to (say) being a christian or atheist in Indonesia, Malaysia, and so on, I suppose?

Then why don't the Israeli Arabs want their lands transferred to the Palestinians?

It must suck being a Palestinian, as they're not really popular with anyone. Just ask the Jordanians and the Lebanese.

Fatma wrote:Do I really need to point out the difference between Muslim dominated states and Christian dominated states in our day and age? The status of an atheist living in a Christian country is not the same as that of a Jew living in a Muslim country. Actually, it is definitely not the same as that of an atheist living in a Muslim country (spooky thought!). No "strong secular constitution" is possible. It is but a dream.

It is possible, and many countries have something akin to one. The reason there is such a massive divide between Christian and Muslim dominated states is that Muslim states usually do not have any constitution or laws that separate church and state (there are other factors such as Islam emphasizes a Muslim 'lifestyle' much more), whereas traditionally Christian countries do, or have become quite secular over time.

Yes, today the Jews in Israel outnumber the Palestinians. But consider the Palestinian diaspora and their high birth rate. The Jews would quickly become the minority.

I don't see that as a problem with a properly implemented government. There are minorities in every country, and in most western democracies this has generally not presented a problem. Should we have an atheist country too? As again, we're in the minority in most countries, however I don't think that gives us the right to be in the majority somewhere else or take someone's land by force.

And yes, Israel is a refuge for the Jewish people. There may be no peace, but after two thousand years, finally Jews live in a state where they are not persecuted simply for being Jews.

And instead they have resorted to being openly hostile towards other people, and have chosen the location of their state almost as if to intentionally cause as much anger as possible. And jews are not currently being persecuted just for being Jews in most European countries or America.

So they should grow up already and realize that peaceful existence in an independent state which you are free to shape as you will is more important than a piece of land. I believe most Israelis and Palestinians understand it by now.

Some do, some don't. And because they live in 2 separate states that are constantly at each others throats their argument is only ever going to become more polarised and more entrenched in the national identity of citizens of both countries. Neither will give up their territorial claims any time soon.

Mojzu wrote:And instead they have resorted to being openly hostile towards other people

Yeah, those bastards have the gut to fight those who start wars against them with the public intention to annihilate their state.

Mojzu wrote:and have chosen the location of their state almost as if to intentionally cause as much anger as possible.

Yeah, it's all wicked intents!

Mojzu wrote:And jews are not currently being persecuted just for being Jews in most European countries or America.

I guess you missed this story.

Hugin wrote:Yeah, those bastards have the gut to fight those who start wars against them with the public intention to annihilate their state.

There's a difference between defending yourself, and using white phosphorus on children in a country you've effectively annexed.

Yeah, it's all wicked intents!

I said it almost looked as if... Anyway it was a colossally bad decision to declare an independent state there. When someone says 'If you poke me I will break your neck', in a serious manner, you don't poke them. If you do poke them, that doesn't mean their response is in any way justifiable or reasonable, but it should bloody well be expected.

I guess you missed this story.

There are some bigots in a city in Sweden, which is in Europe! That obviously means that all cities in Europe are full of anti-Semitic bigots! But Europe is on planet Earth, and if we extrapolate because Israel is also on planet Earth it must also be full of anti-Semitic bigots!