Why cant the Palestinians figure this out?

[NUKE]

"Palestine" never existed.

[Pei]

Originally posted by NUKE
"Palestine" never existed.

The "United States of America" never existed

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pei
The "United States of America" never existed

What the hell are you talking about?

[Pei]

Originally posted by Hortlund
What the hell are you talking about?

There was no United States of America before the end of the 18th century, so by NUKE's arguments there should be no USA either.

What right did the Washington et al have to create state from a few seperate colonies, themselves only a few centuries old?

It's called a counter-argument Hortlund. Come on man, you should be good at this!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pei
There was no United States of America before the end of the 18th century, so by NUKE's arguments there should be no USA either.

What right did the Washington et al have to create state from a few seperate colonies, themselves only a few centuries old?

It's called a counter-argument Hortlund. Come on man, you should be good at this!

No, its just that Im stunned by the piss-poor quality of your "counter-argument"

There never was a nation called Palestine...ever. Your counter to this fact is "there was no nation called USA before 1776". ...well so...what?

You then say that the US created itself from some colonies, sure, now explain the relevance of the astounding fact that all nations in existance right now was created sometime in the past. This would be relevant...how exactly?

[Pei]

Originally posted by Hortlund
No, its just that Im stunned by the piss-poor quality of your "counter-argument"

There never was a nation called Palestine...ever. Your counter to this fact is "there was no nation called USA before 1776". ...well so...what?

You then say that the US created itself from some colonies, sure, now explain the relevance of the astounding fact that all nations in existance right now was created sometime in the past. This would be relevant...how exactly?

It's not only relevant but was in fact the point I was trying to make: all nations were created by people. That being the case there is no reason why a nation called Palestine (or any other name) should not be created by the people who call themselves Palestinian, whether or not such a nation, or region  or culture, existed previously.

Maybe we are hitting language barrier problems?

The point being that NUKE's argument that the the Palestinian cause flawed because no state of Palestine existed previously is fallacious.

[Hortlund]

I think there is more to it than that.

1) There has never been any nation known as "Palestine"

2) Palestinian is not an ethnical group, nor is there a Palestinian culture.

3) "Would be Palestine" is not a clearly defined coherent territory.



All nations are created by people yes. You think that the Pals should be allowed to create their own nation because they want to. *shrug* there are many other peoples/cultures with much better claims for own nations who wont be getting their own nations...ever. So I dont see why that argument should be a factor.

[Pei]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I think there is more to it than that.

1) There has never been any nation known as "Palestine"

2) Palestinian is not an ethnical group, nor is there a Palestinian culture.

3) "Would be Palestine" is not a clearly defined coherent territory.

All three points could be made about many other nations at or before their creation. Most of the nations of the middle east for a start.

Has there historically been a sovereign state of Palestine? No.

Is there seperate Palestinian race? Not really.

Is there separate Palestinian culture? Depends on the point of view.  They are certainly as sperate from most of the other Arab states as we Brits are from the US.

Originally posted by Hortlund

All nations are created by people yes. You think that the Pals should be allowed to create their own nation because they want to. *shrug* there are many other peoples/cultures with much better claims for own nations who wont be getting their own nations...ever. So I dont see why that argument should be a factor.

Every case should be judged on it's merits. I don't see how the cause of Kurdish statehood for example undermines Palestinian statehood. Certainly nations have been founded on lesser causes than that of the Palestinians (the USA for one).

Hamas and the other morons tarnish the idea of a Palestinian state but they don't invalidate it.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by GScholz
The Palestinians seem willing enough to fight and die for a Palestinian state. My bet is that they’ll eventually get it.

Is that what you think they are doing?

 From where I'm sitting it seems more like they are willing to fight and die for
a) religious beliefs ...you know jihad and martyrs and all that, and/or
b) to kill as many jews as possible

The palestinian statehood is just a convenient excuse to get to do a and b, and if they ever got a nation of their own, they would continue with a and b and blame some other percieved injustice as motivation.

[Nashwan]

No, but they had nothing to do with the desicion to create Israel.

So you're saying Begin and Shamir were murdering people just for fun?

They were murdering people to get their own way, just like every other terrorist. Without the Jewish terrorist groups, Britain would have continued the mandate for several more years, and organised a more peaceful handover.

As to the statement a Palestinian state has never existed, it's silly.

Something not existing in the past is no reason for it not to exist in the future.

To say if it didn't exist in the past it shouldn't exist in the future is one of the most illogical arguments anyone could think of.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by GScholz
The Palestinians seem willing enough to fight and die for a Palestinian state. My bet is that they’ll eventually get it.

No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dieing for his country... he won it by....

I remember somebody somewhere saying this, I am sure it is familiar to most on this BBS.

The theme of this thread however is whether non-violent civil disobedience is a better tactic than terror.  I believe it is impossible now, but had it been the tactic since 1950 or so, it would have been wildly successful.

As for Palestine never before existing and its right to become a state, I believe I would rather be living in a country established on the ideals of freedom instead of the decay of terror.  

Those governments established on terror, like the attempted government of Robespierre tend to lead to dictatorship and disaster.  et tu Bonaparte?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nashwan
So you're saying Begin and Shamir were murdering people just for fun?

They were murdering people to get their own way, just like every other terrorist. Without the Jewish terrorist groups, Britain would have continued the mandate for several more years, and organised a more peaceful handover.

[/b]

Actually if you re-read my posts you will indeed note that I never said anything even remotely resembling "Begin and Shamir were murdering people just for fun" so take your damn strawman and shove it ok.

What I said was clear enough. The reason Israel exists right now is not because of jewish terrorism, it is because of the holocaust.

Your attempt at what-if-guesing is charming and all, but you should realize that you dont know ***** about what would have happened "without the jewish territorial groups"

As to the statement a Palestinian state has never existed, it's silly.

Something not existing in the past is no reason for it not to exist in the future.

Silly because it is true?

Silly because it kinda removes the "they are occupying Palestine lands"-arguments?

Silly because it puts a big hole in the "this land rightfully belongs to the palestinians"-arguments?