Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

jeff_goldblum said:
This is what I mean by bringing in erroneous factors. It's irrelevant how big the mandate for Palestine was, it was an arbitrary imperialist construction. At no point did the historical state of Israel take up anywhere near that much territory, even at its very height over 2000 years ago it barely extended south of the Dead Sea, never mind as far south as the Red Sea.

Even if you were to accept the Old Testament Zionist argument and admit the Jewish right to a state in its ancestral lands, Israel should be about half the size it currently is. Acting like the UN did a massive favour to the Arabs by giving them lands the Jewish people never had any claim to at any point in history is just ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as handing over a huge amount of territory to a group of people who had never seen Palestine and whose ancestors hadn't been a political entity in that area for well over a millennium.
Click to expand...

David's kingdom was huge. Irrelevant to our topic, but it really was

Zionism is about national home in our people's historic homeland. You could be a Zionist and give up aspirations for the historic Jewish kingdom, if those ever existed in the first place. Portraying Zionism as a quest to restore the Jewish kingdom is dishonest. I'm a Zionist and would settle for a two-state solution on that tiny piece of land West of the river.

And the Palestinians never had claim to any territory, simply because they never existed. The Arabs here didn't know they were Palestinians. They were Syrians, Egyptians, Bedouins...Handing the territory to a bunch of nomads because most of its residents were sent to exile doesn't make sense. The only political entities here over the millenium we've been away were colonial forces. No one ever had a claim for the territory during that time. Thankfully, historical justice has been served when the true owners got back.
 
holyland red said:
David's kingdom was huge. Irrelevant to our topic, but it really was

Zionism is about national home in our people's historic homeland. You could be a Zionist and give up aspirations for the historic Jewish kingdom, if those ever existed in the first place. Portraying Zionism as a quest to restore the Jewish kingdom is dishonest. I'm a Zionist and would settle for a two-state solution on that tiny piece of land West of the river.

And the Palestinians never had claim to any territory, simply because they never existed. The Arabs here didn't know they were Palestinians. They were Syrians, Egyptians, Bedouins...Handing the territory to a bunch of nomads because most of its residents were sent to exile doesn't make sense. The only political entities here over the millenium we've been away were colonial forces. No one ever had a claim for the territory during that time. Thankfully, historical justice has been served when the true owners got back.
Click to expand...

Giving a group of people a name doesn't make them any more or less entitled to the land they live on.
 
Cheesy said:
Again though, the majority of Palestinians would likely be content with peace. Israel may be entitled to defend itself, and I'm not naive enough to expect no civilian casualties in the process, but the number of innocents dying is ridiculous, and has to stop.
Click to expand...

You are making assumptions that are in disagreements with facts. The numbers of dead is depressing, but a quick look around us suggest that despite renewed violence here this is still an island of stability and security compared with neighbouring countries. This is not the time for taking needless gambles in the ME.
 
Shamwow said:
Giving a group of people a name doesn't make them any more or less entitled to the land they live on.
Click to expand...

Syrians do not deserve another Syria if that already existed. The same applies to Egyptians. These countries fought Israel in 1948 and lost territory. Tough luck. A newly invented Palestinian state has already been established. It's called Jordan. Arabs who decided to stay in Israel are entitled to the land they live on too. Under Israeli sovereignty. Denying the Jewish people's right for independence in its historic homeland, and at the same time granting that right to a bunch of Arabs who didn't know they were Palestinians is pathetic. An historical gaffe.
 
holyland red said:
David's kingdom was huge. Irrelevant to our topic, but it really was

Zionism is about national home in our people's historic homeland. You could be a Zionist and give up aspirations for the historic Jewish kingdom, if those ever existed in the first place. Portraying Zionism as a quest to restore the Jewish kingdom is dishonest. I'm a Zionist and would settle for a two-state solution on that tiny piece of land West of the river.

And the Palestinians never had claim to any territory, simply because they never existed. The Arabs here didn't know they were Palestinians. They were Syrians, Egyptians, Bedouins...Handing the territory to a bunch of nomads because most of its residents were sent to exile doesn't make sense. The only political entities here over the millenium we've been away were colonial forces. No one ever had a claim for the territory during that time. Thankfully, historical justice has been served when the true owners got back.
Click to expand...

Wow that's a bizarre post, like something off Louis Theroux's weird weekends. A complete rewriting of the areas history to satisfy a narrative based on a millennia old religious text and a really quite offensive dismissal of the Arabic history of the area.
 
holyland red said:
Syrians do not deserve another Syria if that already existed. The same applies to Egyptians. These countries fought Israel in 1948 and lost territory. Tough luck. A newly invented Palestinian state has already been established. It's called Jordan. Arabs who decided to stay in Israel are entitled to the land they live on too. Under Israeli sovereignty. Denying the Jewish people's right for independence in its historic homeland, and at the same time granting that right to a bunch of Arabs who didn't know they were Palestinians is pathetic. An historical gaffe.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't agree with that at all. That to me is a racist way of looking at things.
 
2cents said:
One point of correction - under the UN partition plan, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to be governed by an international regime in order to reflect their unique religious status. It was never intended to divide the city, that was the result of the subsequent war.
Click to expand...

Noted, thanks for the correction!
 
holyland red said:
You are making assumptions that are in disagreements with facts. The numbers of dead is depressing, but a quick look around us suggest that despite renewed violence here this is still an island of stability and security compared with neighbouring countries. This is not the time for taking needless gambles in the ME.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Israel? Because if so, then surely that demonstrates the force used on Palestine is excessive, because they're not that big a threat after all? And if you're talking about Palestine, then no, it's clearly not stable or secure right now. Simply looking elsewhere and saying, "that's worse, so this is fine", is not a good way of looking at it.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Wow that's a bizarre post, like something off Louis Theroux's weird weekends. A complete rewriting of the areas history to satisfy a narrative based on a millennia old religious text and a really quite offensive dismissal of the Arabic history of the area.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Wow that's a bizarre post, like something off Louis Theroux's weird weekends. A complete rewriting of the areas history to satisfy a narrative based on a millennia old religious text and a really quite offensive dismissal of the Arabic history of the area.
Click to expand...

The Arabic history you sympathetically refer too infers that they were there from the big bang onwards. They are not native to Palestine but to Arabia (the clue is in the name) and massacred their way throughout the Middle East.
 
Fearless said:
The Arabic history you sympathetically refer too infers that they were there from the big bang onwards. They are not native to Palestine but to Arabia (the clue is in the name) and massacred their way throughout the Middle East.
Click to expand...
So you're advocating evicting anyone anywhere whose distant, millennia dead, relatives conquered a place?
 
Silva said:
So you're advocating evicting anyone anywhere whose distant, millennia dead, relatives conquered a place?
Click to expand...

You mean I shouldn't be walking around Scotland with my kilt and sword to evict the English? Damn, need to do some major life re-evaluation now.
 
Fearless said:
No, Im advocating this thread recognise the voodoo double standards applied to the Jews of Judea (the clue is in the name)
Click to expand...
Land doesn't work like that though, you don't have a right to live there because you're a Jew and Jews used to live there centuries ago, you've got a right to live there because the current generation was born there. Similarly, Palestinians have a right to land there because it's where they were born and live. The historical arguments as to why either group should get the land are farcical. What should be looked at is the situation now and how to improve it going forward.
 
Last edited:
I've just seen some PLO guy claiming that the synagogue attacked yesterday was a place where people plot activities against the Palestinians - proven by the fact those praying there had US and British citizenships - and therefore appropriate for an attack. The problem is some people believe and follow upon the things they hear from those sick, twisted people.
 
Cheesy said:
Are you talking about Israel? Because if so, then surely that demonstrates the force used on Palestine is excessive, because they're not that big a threat after all? And if you're talking about Palestine, then no, it's clearly not stable or secure right now. Simply looking elsewhere and saying, "that's worse, so this is fine", is not a good way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Palestine is. I'm talking about Israel, and I could extend this to areas under IDF control whatever these are going to end up eventually. Giving away territory in the hope that they wouldn't serve as a platform for future attacks is madness. Especially after the Gaza experience.
 
Silva said:
Land doesn't work like that though, you don't have a right to live there because you're a Jew and Jews used to live there centuries ago, you've got a right to live there because the current generation was born there. Similarly, Palestinians have a right to land there because it's where they were born and live. The historical arguments as to why either group should get the land are farcical. What should be looked at is the situation now and how to improve it going forward.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, and think that that unique, Palestinian "right of return" is a major hindrance on the way to any lasting solution.
 
holyland red said:
I'm not sure what Palestine is. I'm talking about Israel, and I could extend this to areas under IDF control whatever these are going to end up eventually. Giving away territory in the hope that they wouldn't serve as a platform for future attacks is madness. Especially after the Gaza experience.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you should just give away territory without any thought though. Again, I'm not naive enough to expect Israel to just hand over the territory with no questions asked. I'm saying I don't condone the excessive murders of innocent Palestinians.
 
holyland red said:
The idea of nation states is racist?
Click to expand...

You'll not find many nation states based on the belief that one ethnic group is chosen by god to rule that nation state and has sovereignty over the other ethnic groups who happen to life within its borders. That's racist
 
jeff_goldblum said:
You'll not find many nation states based on the belief that one ethnic group is chosen by god to rule that nation state and has sovereignty over the other ethnic groups who happen to life within its borders. That's racist
Click to expand...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpo...tion of establishment of state of israel.aspx

...THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations...

...WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions...

...WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
 
Shamwow said:
Argue the point not the person.
Click to expand...

Your point was he should try putting himself in their shoes, since he is currently in his own fairly unpleasant pair of shoes maybe you should be the one trying to put yourself in his shoes?

If you had asked, for example, people bombed out of their houses during the 2nd World War what they thought about the Allies bombing German towns & cities, what do you think their reaction would have been?
 
Colin129 said:
Your point was he should try putting himself in their shoes, since he is currently in his own fairly unpleasant pair of shoes maybe you should be the one trying to put yourself in his shoes?

If you had asked, for example, people bombed out of their houses during the 2nd World War what they thought about the Allies bombing German towns & cities, what do you think their reaction would have been?
Click to expand...

Does that make Dresden okay?

Your argument underlines my point. Ask the Palestinians who have been bombed out of their homes what they think about bombing Israelis. That's the point you're trying to make right?
 
Last edited:
Shamwow said:
Does that make Dresden okay?
Click to expand...

Does that make Coventry alright?

You see, it's easy to make these flippant comments if you are not in the thick of it. If you are then it is a totally different issue.

The reality is that after the war there was reconciliation on both sides, but during the conflict each side supported their own position. You can't expect HR to do anything other than support his own side, although he can, and often is, critical of his governments's policies and actions.
 
Shamwow said:
Read my edit. You've made my own point for me.
Click to expand...

You are neither Israeli nor Palestinian so you don't actually know what it's like on the ground there. You can't ask HR to put himself in their shoes any more than you can ask the other side to do the same thing, despite actually doing that might be helpful to both sides.
 
Colin129 said:
You are neither Israeli nor Palestinian so you don't actually know what it's like on the ground there. You can't ask HR to put himself in their shoes any more than you can ask the other side to do the same thing, despite actually doing that might be helpful to both sides.
Click to expand...

You're right, I can't possibly understand that destroying houses as a form of collective punishment might make tensions worse and help the cause of anti-Israeli propaganda. Christ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.