UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Yeah, like stating he was going to institute a Muslim ban, build a wall, institute a hiring freeze, restart the Dakota pipeline, repeal Affordable Healthcare, freeze Obama's in-process regulations, promote anti-abortion laws. Yep, never trust anything he says he will do as none of it has happened or is in process.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
People who think what Trump says at one part of the day means anything in an hour haven't been watching.
This means nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
It's not entirely what Trump says. It's also what Netanhayu thinks that he can now do.
quote:I don't dispute Trump's lack of interest. My point is that Trump's lack of interest signals to Netanyahu that he has an even freer hand to deal with the PA and Gaza however he wishes without having to put up with static, however heretofore ineffectual, from Washington. Now that the violation of private property rights has been "legitimised" by the Knesset's passage of the Regularisation Law (still to be challenged in court), we can expect to see even greater expansion of Jewish settlement in the West Bank. The very bad is getting worse.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Trump's certainly not going to press Netanhayu to change anything but he's not really committing to anything here beyond "Yeah, whatever."
quote:This is obvious bullshit. Establishment Republicans, however much you may disagree with them, aren't pantomime villains so moustache-twirlingly evil that they would publish a document in which they 'prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event'. I don't believe you have a copy of anything that even remotely comes close to this.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
*The George Bush II crew of war criminals prayed for a "Pearl Harbor" event pre 11 Sept 2001, about which they published a paper, since taken down, but beloved of conspiracy theorists, and illustrative of the complete amorality of Bush and his war criminal gang. I have a copy somewhere.
quote:If that's what he meant, I suppose NP can thank you for doing his homework for him. I've searched the PDF (and not for the first time; I'm pretty sure NP has flogged this BS before) and there two places Pearl Harbor is mentioned in that article:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the pre-9/11 document that np mentioned:
Evidently, it's the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Wikipedia).
And here's a link to a PDF copy of the report at Archive.org.
Note: I just did a really quick search, and skimmed the Wiki article. Haven't looked at the PDF.
quote:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
quote:Neither of these can be reasonably glossed as "praying for a Pearl Harbor event."
For the moment, the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday. While the ability to project naval power ashore is, as it has always been, an important subsidiary mission for the Navy, it may not remain the service’s primary focus through the coming decades. Over the longer term – but, given the service life of ships, well within the approaching planning horizons of the U.S. Navy – the Navy’s focus may return again to keeping command of the open oceans and sea lines of communication. Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.
quote:OK, you did not specify that your comment was about this particular topic, but I suppose one could say it was implied by where it was placed.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Again, not listening. Trump's been all over on this particular topic - saying both two state and one state in the last year.
quote:Not sure what you mean. How does any country defend their borders without having a buffer security zone?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd like to have the following questions answered:
1) If the 1967 border is enforced with the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank, how will Israel defend its borders in the areas where geographically it will be impossible?
quote:No they absolutely haven't categorically said that no Jew will be allowed to live there. I've heard Palestinians even in Hebron say that Jews who have a historic family tie to the city are welcome. Those who are not welcome are the parasitic settlers who have no tie to the city and who treat other people like vermin.
2) If the West Bank becomes a proper Palestinian State it has been said uncategorically that no Israeli - no Jew - will be allowed to live there. Therfore, what will happen to the 500,000 Israelis currently living in the West Bank?
quote:They will close, just like the settler businesses in Gaza will close. I'm not sure why you think this is a major problem.
3) If the Jews are cleansed from the West Bank, what will happen to all the businesses owned by Israelis?
quote:Presumably either they'll start their own businesses or suffer.
4) If the Jews are expelled from the new Palestine, what will happen to the thousands upon thousands of Arabs who are at present employed by Jewish people in Israeli-owned companies, and who rely on their employment in order to live?
quote:I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:They will close, just like the settler businesses in Gaza will close. I'm not sure why you think this is a major problem.
3) If the Jews are cleansed from the West Bank, what will happen to all the businesses owned by Israelis?
quote:Mudfrog, listen I'm really trying to be calm with you but I've been there and I don't think you have. You walk down Al-Shuhada Street in Hebron and you tell me what it is like for someone else to close down your market.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.
500,000 Jews settled in mainly Israeli towns.
The Palestinian authority comes and closes down their businesses, ejects them from their houses and actually transports them to the border and forces them to leave.
Do you know what that will look like, what it will remind them of?
quote:Again, I'm going to ignore this because I assume you are totally ignorant about what is actually happening in the West Bank.
Will all the shop windows bear the Arabic word for Jew (rather than Jude)?
Will the people with their suitcases all be wearing yellow stars?
What transport will they use? Cattle rucks? goods trains?
quote:Really, this is tiresome.
Do you realise how anti-Semitic the attitude of, Oh, they'll just have to close their businesses and leave' sounds.
quote:Wow. I'm out of flabbers. They are fully gasted.
And what, might I ask, do you think will happen if people do not want to leave?
And what, might I ask, do you think the UN and the international community - let's say, for example, the US, the UK and Australia, will say and do in the face of this ethnic cleansing?
quote:So let me get this straight - a bunch of Israelis illegally annex parts of Palestinian land, and trying to reverse that process is equivalent to the holocaust?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder if you would like to consider this and the ramifications.
500,000 Jews settled in mainly Israeli towns.
The Palestinian authority comes and closes down their businesses, ejects them from their houses and actually transports them to the border and forces them to leave.
Do you know what that will look like, what it will remind them of?
Will all the shop windows bear the Arabic word for Jew (rather than Jude)?
Will the people with their suitcases all be wearing yellow stars?
What transport will they use? Cattle rucks? goods trains?
Do you realise how anti-Semitic the attitude of, Oh, they'll just have to close their businesses and leave' sounds.
And what, might I ask, do you think will happen if people do not want to leave?
And what, might I ask, do you think the UN and the international community - let's say, for example, the US, the UK and Australia, will say and do in the face of this ethnic cleansing?
quote:Which policies did you have in mind? I'm not following what you are saying.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Transfer the same policies to another country and then work through it to see if they seem acceptable. I'll bet money they aren't. We can all be Palestinian liberators of a radical form until we think about it in our own context and realise we'd actually really not like that in our own country or on our own doorstep. There's a kind of strange fog that mists up the brain when people even so much as mention Palestine and Israel in the same sentence.
quote:Out of interest, how many people do you actually think are living in Palestinian refugee camps? How many Palestinians are being supported by food hand-outs? How many are in prison for resisting an occupier?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We're talking about 500,000 people here.
People who will all be expelled.
Not to another village, but out of the country.
I get what you're saying. I accept that I have not been to Hebron and I haven't seen the stuff you've seen and I am not saying it is defensible.
But this is surely on a different scale.
Up to 500,000 people?
quote:Erm... Was it not the case that after Israel was attacked from Egypt they were then attacked from Jordan and it was in the defeating the Jordanian army that Israel occupied the West Bank? Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight - a bunch of Israelis illegally annex parts of Palestinian land, and trying to reverse that process is equivalent to the holocaust?
That's utterly ridiculous. Quite insane. It's an insult to both logic and the holocaust itself.
quote:Nope
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?
quote:OK. I'm picturing a situation where France has expanded into Britain, driving out (or killing) the native population and inserting their own people into the now-vacant areas. A situation where Brits are effectively locked up in Wales and Scotland while the French claim all of England as their own and violently suppress all Brits who cry out for liberation.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Transfer the same policies to another country and then work through it to see if they seem acceptable. I'll bet money they aren't.
quote:In WW2 Britain was attacked by Germany. In defeating the German army Britain had to occupy France (and Belgium, etc.).
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm... Was it not the case that after Israel was attacked from Egypt they were then attacked from Jordan and it was in the defeating the Jordanian army that Israel occupied the West Bank? Is it not the case that 94% of the west bank has in fact been given back?
quote:That would be your specific view of it, and undoubtedly the specific view held by many others too. However it does ignore the views of many, many others who have an entirely different way of looking at it. Now we could all just hold on to our viewpoints and bash them up against each other like a game of conkers, hoping that eventually one cracks and breaks, but is that really the best approach? Is there not a better way?
....was simply conjoured out of thin air in 1948.
quote:It is the view held by almost the entire international community and the UN, the EU and until recently the USA.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
That would be your specific view of it, and undoubtedly the specific view held by many others too.
quote:Yes, the better way is to consider the welfare of everyone, not just those who happen to live in settlements. By any stretch of the imagination, the Palestinians have gotten an extremely poor deal out of the creation of Israel. However you want to cut a political agreement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it cannot possibly be fair to suggest that Palestinians live in poverty whilst their neighbours live in luxury on the land which was theirs.
However it does ignore the views of many, many others who have an entirely different way of looking at it. Now we could all just hold on to our viewpoints and bash them up against each other like a game of conkers, hoping that eventually one cracks and breaks, but is that really the best approach? Is there not a better way?
quote:See! There's the fog bank rolling in. I never suggested any such thing.
However you want to cut a political agreement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it cannot possibly be fair to suggest that Palestinians live in poverty whilst their neighbours live in luxury on the land which was theirs.
quote:Palestinians can't be free when there are settlers inside the 1967 green line for more reasons than I can be bothered to type.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
See! There's the fog bank rolling in. I never suggested any such thing.
quote:Exactly. For all you know I might entirely agree with you in everything you have said, yet you keep posting in a manner that feels a little like you're shouting at me about horrible settlers and freedom and the wrongs of oppression as of those things weren't important to any human being on earth.
I've no idea what your opinion is
quote:and when we talk about settlers in the West Bank we are talking about people who are out of the scope of the original 1948 partition anyway, and we are referring to a process which continues to this day.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Most of the settlers in the West Bank did not originate in Israel and have been living in the settlements for a few decades.
quote:I didn't say conspiracy theories don't exist - of course they do! Conspiracy theories about the Apollo moon landings exist also.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Dave W.
Project for a New American Century
The document is "Rebuilding America's Defences":
"Written before the September 11 attacks, and during political debates of the War in Iraq, a section of Rebuilding America's Defenses entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" became the subject of considerable controversy. The passage suggested that the transformation of American armed forces through "new technologies and operational concepts" was likely to be a long one, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[45] Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans"
You can search for the document name "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which appears to be in PDF according to links I cannot follow on a phone. I have a copy from the organization's website before they took it down
No you are wrong, the conspiracy theories exist. The Bush gang's ideas exist. The combination has bad optics and fed conspiracy theories nicely. I suspect there will be an interesting history written one day.
quote:What a funny way to add to a discussion.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
No
quote:Israel will never support a one-state solution because that would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. They will continue to support the status quo, where the Palestinian slaves -- sorry, natives -- are held in thrall, their land not really theirs but not really part of Israel either, steadily chipped away by illegal settlements until there is nothing left and all the Palestinians have to go somewhere else, PROBLEM SOLVED!
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The most likely long-term outcome of a 'one state solution' would surely be a system akin to apartheid-era South Africa.
quote:First, no. Not happening. But even should it be possible, it would require knowledge and a grasp of reality that cheeto doesn't have.
Originally posted by simontoad:
Judging by this thread and thousands of similar ones, it may be that someone with no knowledge of history or politics has at least as good a chance of finding a solution than the cognoscenti.
quote:You make make me laugh. Let's accept miracles have happened and the biblical ones were real. When was the last, verifiable miracle of this calibre?
If Trump manages to facilitate one, he will have earned his place in the history books and done the world a great service. I pray for his success.
quote:It is a funny way, but I wasn't really that interested in entering the fray of the pissing contest of who can be the most (self) righteously indignant about their chosen 'side'. It strikes me that there are very close parallels with what appears to be an intractable conflict in Israel and Palestine and what went on in Northern Ireland. For years Northern Ireland was pushed into doing something about peace by international leaders outside its borders, but for all of his faults it was actually Bill Clinton who seemed to recognise that essentially compromise was effectively an uneasy state where no one was in fact entirely happy with the result and that those involved directly in conflict were the ones who had to broker peace by talking to each other rather than constantly seeking the righteous support of external nations and their leaders. To me it was a better way, because it achieved peace and ignited hope in a way that I would never have dreamed that I would see in my own lifetime. In the end all of the arguments about who was more right and all the self indulgent digging over old ground of ancient wrong achieved absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to hold up Northern Ireland as some kind of beacon it is clearly not either; there are still huge problems and challenges and violence is still a strong feature of society but to my mind there was a lesson there in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.
What a funny way to add to a discussion.
quote:Aren't miracles generally things that people are pleased about? None of miraculous destruction, miraculous carnage, miraculous shit-storm seem to be good adjective-noun pairs.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?
quote:This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned. Presumably the Palestinian authority has some system of land ownership and the land occupied by settlers is technically owned by someone else - but the state of Israel does or doesn't have a system that applies to Palestinian territories?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As to the settlers, I think this entirely depends on their attitude. My sense is that some settlements would be welcome in a future Palestinian state providing the settlers contribute effectively to that state. Not all the settlers are religious ideologues and I think some may actually be prepared to live in that arrangement and I think there may be some places where Palestinians would accept them as new Palestininan towns.
quote:The whole way you frame your comment is wrong. There is an oppressor and there is an oppressed population. There is a bunch of people who were given land under a partition plan and who unilaterally decided to steal the other side's allocation. There is a population living without clean water because there are people down the road who, having stolen their land, have restricted access to their water.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is a funny way, but I wasn't really that interested in entering the fray of the pissing contest of who can be the most (self) righteously indignant about their chosen 'side'.
quote:Northern Ireland is absolutely nothing like Israel-Palestine.
I'm not trying to hold up Northern Ireland as some kind of beacon it is clearly not either; there are still huge problems and challenges and violence is still a strong feature of society but to my mind there was a lesson there in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.
quote:The Palestinian Authority effectively doesn't exist, the only real legal authority in the West Bank is the defacto occupying power, Israel.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned. Presumably the Palestinian authority has some system of land ownership and the land occupied by settlers is technically owned by someone else - but the state of Israel does or doesn't have a system that applies to Palestinian territories?
quote:There are lots of things to read about this if you are really bothered - see btselem on the military courts, Machsom Watch for accounts of how the courts work, this about the two law systems in the West Bank, this from the J-Post about the way Ottoman era property law is used, and so on.
I can read about the legal ambiguity regarding Palestine's government in international law (although not easily understand), but what I don't find any information on is what the internal legal positions are regarding land ownership and whether they are internally consistent.
quote:You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....
quote:Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?
Originally posted by Martin60:
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists (that's a prophecy that), maybe simontoad's nice Mr. Trump will allow full refugee status to all Palestinians? That's more likely than divine justice by the falsely named Israel after all. They are backslidden Jacob. Supplanter. Henceforth that's how they should be known.
quote:The two-mind solution of Trump is not dead! If he pronounces X, we can expect -X before dusk.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
While all this DH like discussion was going on in here, the expected happened and a Trump administration person indicated the two state solution was not dead.
This time it was the US ambassador to the UN.
Sooooo...maybe not so BREAKING or "officially dead"?
quote:Aye fletch. Ten thousand years.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Martin60:
quote:You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....
quote:Steady on TT. And it doesn't have the nice resonance.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?
Originally posted by Martin60:
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists (that's a prophecy that), maybe simontoad's nice Mr. Trump will allow full refugee status to all Palestinians? That's more likely than divine justice by the falsely named Israel after all. They are backslidden Jacob. Supplanter. Henceforth that's how they should be known.
quote:Only in places where the rule of law applies. Anywhere else, land is occupied by those who can fight to defend it against others. As, for example, in the Debateable Lands on the Anglo-Scottish border before the union of the two crowns.
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned.
quote:While absolute certainty is never really possible, I'm pretty sure nobody on this thread thinks that what we write here will bring about peace. So this observation, while 100% true, is also 100% irrelevant.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
...but to my mind there was a lesson there [(in Northern Ireland)] in terms of how peace began and peace certainly did not begin with internet forum pissing contests and righteousness competitions.
quote:Only if you think 30 years of right wing propaganda and brainwashing, plus a year or more of Russian manipulation of the press, are a miracle. Otherwise it's pretty evident that Trump's election followed from natural causes.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?
quote:Martin's statement leaves open that possibility. If the next generation changes in relevant ways, then the antecedent "if Israel continues to deny justice" will be false, obviating Martin's statement. So he is not "condemning" anybody. He's stating a perfectly obvious truth. Continuation of injustice will perpetuate the problem. Cessation of injustice is the only way to bring about peace.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Martin60:
quote:You speak of Israel like it's a monolithic identity when it is made up of people. We hear the powerful and the loud voices but can we really be sure that we hear all voices? Who really knows what the next generation will do; why condemn them to a self-fulfilling prophecy? To put it in spiritual terms: have you no faith that God might complete his work, perhaps even in spite of them?
If Israel continues to deny justice, which it will for as long as it exists....
quote:Or the US ambassador to the UN's days are numbered in his current position.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
While all this DH like discussion was going on in here, the expected happened and a Trump administration person indicated the two state solution was not dead.
This time it was the US ambassador to the UN.
Sooooo...maybe not so BREAKING or "officially dead"?
quote:Oh FFS. Can we please get over the ridiculous idea that Israel is beyond criticism because it's a Jewish state run by Jews? Like Jews can do no wrong, ever, since the Shoah? Yes, antisemites criticize Israel. From this it does not follow, however, that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. It grows fucking tiresome every time this old canard is dragged out. Give it a rest.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Crikey Martin. That's pretty extreme. Why not just go for "synagogue of Satan"?
quote:So's a sense of humour it would seem.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.
quote:And if I take over your country and supplant your legal system with my own, then maybe land becomes owned by someone else.
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is probably a daft question but I don't understand the legal position. Land is owned.
quote:It isn't any crazier than the God backs Israel nonsense.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.
quote:Yeah, I'll give you that.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It isn't any crazier than the God backs Israel nonsense.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.
quote:It's their land by right.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Question. How do Israelis actually justify building settlements? (I know some don't think it's justified of course, but I'm asking about those who do.)
IME, when most people do something that is (apparently) immoral, they still have some rationalisation in their head that explains why it's not really immoral at all.
So when the West (including many of Israel's supporters in the West) say that the settlements are illegal, these Israelis must think: 'What the West fails to understand about the settlements is X.' What is X?
quote:I think "falsely so-called Israel" is defensible. It's not the Israel of yore. It's a new, modern state, pretending to be the Israel of yore by choice of name. (I believe that in 1948 some mumbling was heard in gentile circles over the audacity of the name. It was quickly hushed in the name of antiantisemitism.)
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I see lots of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. I don't see so many people referring to "falsely so-called Israel" or "backslidden Jacob. Supplanter". That seems unnecessary to me.
quote:IMHO, there are such things as anti-miracles. Bad stuff that inexplicably happens.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Aren't miracles generally things that people are pleased about? None of miraculous destruction, miraculous carnage, miraculous shit-storm seem to be good adjective-noun pairs.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Trump getting elected as President?
quote:I don't get the connection. I don't see how controlling the, frankly bastard, settlers has anything to do with the idea of Israel remaining a country.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Haven't all the neighbouring countries painted the Palestinians into a corner? Excessive demands such as no Israel at all, which leads to Israeli paranoid inflexibility about settlements.
quote:Actually, Jordan has taken in so many Palestinian refugees that (IIRC) they outnumber the Jordanians. Raina, wife of the current king, is Palestinian.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Haven't all the neighbouring countries painted the Palestinians into a corner?
quote:So your solution to people being dispossessed on their own land is to remove them from it completely?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Jordan could be the Palestian state?
quote:It isn't a way to peace. Not only will the Palestinians and Jordan not accept this, the rest of the players will not.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's baiting the hook. But to respond, why not? If it is the only way to peace. And yes, of course it is unjust. War and conquest is unjust. That is how countries operate in our un-updates international realpolitik. People are expendable in that view.
quote:That is just bullshit to excuse poor behaviour.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.
If the entire population of Israel was to be confined to the city limits of Tel Aviv that wouldn't be enough for the Palestinian authority.
They will not be happy until there is a one state solution - that state being Palestine, and that devoid of all Jews.
quote:Actually all the main Palestinian factions including Hamas have said that they're willing to accept Israel within the 1967 borders.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.
If the entire population of Israel was to be confined to the city limits of Tel Aviv that wouldn't be enough for the Palestinian authority.
quote:There are some Palestinian hardliners, but it is a bit much to claim that that view is the only one available. And the difference is that whereas the stated policy of the PA, Fatah and Hamas is to recognise Israel within the 1967s borders, the stated policy of the hardliners within the governemnt of Israel is to never ever ever allow Palestinian nationhood.
They will not be happy until there is a one state solution - that state being Palestine, and that devoid of all Jews.
quote:And Israel has no right to settle its citizens outside its borders. The difference is that that is happening now, not in 1967, not in 1948.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."
The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.
quote:Land was illegally captured in 1967 and Israel was created in 1948 from disputed land. So that's not really true.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And Israel has no right to settle its citizens outside its borders. The difference is that that is happening now, not in 1967, not in 1948.
quote:My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."
The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.
quote:I think he might have taken the 1948 UN partition plan as the best of bad available options.
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
quote:The problem goes back a long way before the state of Israel was created, which was itself hardly excusable except by appeal to Euroguilt. This kind of tunnel vision doesn't help anything.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that from the day after the State of Israel was created, when the Arabs attacked her, the Israelis just can't win.
quote:As I said the problem started long before 1948. Unless Jesus has no foresight he wouldn't have let it get so far.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think he might have taken the 1948 UN partition plan as the best of bad available options.
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
quote:So why didn't He?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."
The Arabs had no right to attack a UN-recognised Sovereign state; not in 1948 and not in 1967 either.
quote:Mmm. Not really. Mostly they bought land off people who were ready to sell it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The existence of the Zionist enclaves in Palestine starting in the late 1800s was de facto ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing has been going on steadily ever since.
quote:Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
quote:Bullshit. Even if one buys into the middle-east manifest destiny rubbish, by that logic Israel blew it and got ejected. God provided no miracle reentrance. Again, believing that God, your Christian God of love and benevolence, cares more about land than people is ridiculous.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'My Jesus' would have said to the Arabs "Render unto Israel that which is Israel's."
quote:Bleedin' GREEK ennit?! Therefore Jesudes. Assuming a 3rd declension noun.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
My Jesus argues with your Jesus, and with everyone else's Jesuses*. And they all come with pointed sticks and throwing out money-changers attitudes.
*is this the plural of Jesus or perhaps Jesi given the 'us' ending
quote:Mostly bought off absentee landlords in Turkey who were previously able to squeeze the land from its former Palestinian owners due to changes in the tax code. So the willingness of the sellers doesn't really signify.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Mmm. Not really. Mostly they bought land off people who were ready to sell it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The existence of the Zionist enclaves in Palestine starting in the late 1800s was de facto ethnic cleansing, and the ethnic cleansing has been going on steadily ever since.
quote:There's a non sequitur for the ages.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Jesus approved of the British Empire otherwise?
Originally posted by mousethief:
My Jesus would have said to Britain, "You have no right to create a state of European immigrants in the middle east and supplant the people now living there."
quote:It shows that in the chaotic history of 19 century Jerusalem there is considerable uncertainty about exactly who owned what. Yes, wealthy Jewish philanthropists were coming in and buying up land to build new estates. But the whole place was a mess, the suggestion that these small groups of ideologue zionists were somehow conducting ethnic cleansing is likely bogus.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Mostly bought off absentee landlords in Turkey who were previously able to squeeze the land from its former Palestinian owners due to changes in the tax code. So the willingness of the sellers doesn't really signify.