Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on April 18, 2004, 08:33:31 AM
-
(http://www.tn.gov.in/tamiltngov/memorial/gandhi.jpg)
-
Palestinians respond:
What a genious... you can hide way more explosives strapped to your body underneath flowing robes with which you can kill many more zionists... allah be praised!
-
it's obvious GRUN , in no way a moustache can be a proper substitute of a real beard
-
Sick
-
(http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1bugeye.gif)
-
I'm going to venture a bet that Arafat does not want to give up the business. He is making way to much money off the the aid money the US is sending him. It's not a bad deal, skim millions per year for playing the role of the victim.
-
Yasser Arafat is a world acknowleged man of peace while Mohandas Ghandi was not. At least that is what the Nobel Prize committee thinks.
-
I had a weird dream couple nights ago. I dreamed I had $16.00 and gave it to my friend to roll craps with. In real life experience, this is the last guy you'd want gambling with your money. But in the dream, he took that 16 bucks and won $14,000.00 with it rolling dice!!!
I think that's the happiest in a dream I've ever been.:D
Of course you know that would be impossible, don't you? But it made for a great dream. One that I'm more satisfied with being a dream than if it was real.
Too much stress.
Les
-
because he was filled with love -even for his enemies
while the pals are filled with hate with more than alittle ignorance
-
Everybody hates everybody over there in the Middle East. Probably even more than they hate us. "Drop the big one and see what happens. They all hate us anyway." Randy Newman
Les
-
Ghandi was killed by extremists on his own side. Unfortunately, the extremists in Palestine hold all the power.
-
India was on the road to independence before Ghandi. Government acts in 1909 introduced Indian participation in a very limited self government.
In 1917 the British government announced a policy of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."
India was headed for dominion status (which was the same level of independence as Canada, Australia and New Zealand). It might have taken longer without Ghandi, but that is the direction they were heading anyway.
The status of the Palestinians is, and was, totaly different.
The Palestinians live on territory that Israel believes is part of Israel.
Haaretz is a left wing Israeli paper. Their commentator on the occupied territories, Nadav Shragai, summed up the views of Israel recently:
We are not talking of colonialism. The morality of "settlement" after 1967, is equivalent to the morality of settling the land after 1948. Morally, historically and religiously, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, takes precedence over the right of other peoples here. The internal dispute within Israel is over what is possible within the framework of the security and international reality that the country faces.
and
The majority of the Israeli public accepts the Bible as the moral, historic and religious basis for the Jewish presence on all of the Land of Israel. There is a dispute within Israel over whether this right can realistically be realised.
It doesn't matter how "nice" the Palestinians play, they are in the way of the "historic, religious and moral right" of the Jews to live in, and control, all of historic Israel.
To this end, Israel deported over 1,000 people from the occupied territories during the late 60s and early 70s. Political activists were deported, even if they advocated only peaceful protest.
If you think all the Palestinians have to do to get their own state is behave nicely, you're very naive.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If you think all the Palestinians have to do to get their own state is behave nicely, you're very naive.
If you think their attempts to play hardball via intifada and terrorism is getting them anywhere you are very far from reality.
-
The palestinians will allways hold a grudge because their guy was born illigitimate by a mistress and they think they have right to everything cause he was the first born
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If you think all the Palestinians have to do to get their own state is behave nicely, you're very naive.
Civil disobedience is not behaving 'nicely'.
Civil disobedience severly screws things up, just in a non-violent manner which brings the weight of world public opinion to change the status quo.
Public opinion can sway Israel policy makers as forcefully as it did Mountbatten or his predecessors, but public opinion does not get behind those who advocate killing commuters on busses or patrons in a restaurant.
People like to root for the underdog but not if the dog is rabid.
-
Hortlund said:
If you think their attempts to play hardball via intifada and terrorism is getting them anywhere you are very far from reality.
Is it? The PLO first came to international attention when they hijacked three planes and blew them up in the desert. That was in the late sixties or the seventies. Until then, they were largely ignored by the west.
I am not condoning what they did, but it did bring world attention to their plight.
As for terrorism, if you leave someone with no option but terrorism, what option do you think they are going to choose?
As I said, before...the sooner that the Israelis and Palestinians have more in common than they do differences and start intermarrying, all this will stop eventually. But that's not likely to happen.
If you were a Palestinian, Hortland, how would you go about getting your people to be recognised as equals in their own country?
-
Originally posted by ravells
how would you go about getting your people to be recognised as equals in their own country?
Ask him.....
(http://www.youngleaders-usa.org/leadership/yl02_research_papers/mlk_images/image001.jpg)
-
Well Grunz,
As I said earlier, the moment that pacifist approaches are made on both sides, they get derailed by the militants. To get a pacifistic revolution, you need a personality cult leader, good timing and a lot of luck.
Tell you what would be really good. That is if an Israeli stood up and took the reins and did a Martin Luther King or a Ghandi. I'm sure there are Jews and Palestinians who have both tried...and failed.
Ravs
-
Civil disobedience is not behaving 'nicely'.
Civil disobedience severly screws things up, just in a non-violent manner which brings the weight of world public opinion to change the status quo.
Civil disobedience can screw things up. It certainly did in India.
India was a country of several hundred million people, run by a very small number of British civil servants, and very small numbers of British troops, with the vast majority of all government and military positions being occupied by natives.
The Palestinians are numerically inferior to the Israelis, and the occupied territories were run by Israelis, and order was enforced by Israeli troops.
The Palestinian economy was tiny, and didn't really matter to Israel.
Israel could afford to ignore civil disobedience. Palestinians either worked for Israeli companies, in which case taxes were deducted before pay, or they starved. If they stayed away from work, Israel didn't suffer.
The Israelis didn't need the Palestinians, in fact the Palestinians are simply obstacles. The British needed the Indians to run India.
Civil disobedience had no chance for the Palestinian because the Palestinians were an irrelevent minority for Israel.
Public opinion can sway Israel policy makers as forcefully as it did Mountbatten or his predecessors, but public opinion does not get behind those who advocate killing commuters on busses or patrons in a restaurant.
Mountbatten administered handover in India. It was a process that was well under way before WW2, and became unavoidable after the war.
I'd like to point out the case of Kenya, where instead of peaceful protest they had the Mau Mau, who killed thousands of people. They got their independence regardless, it was just part of a process of pullout from Empire that had been underway from before WW2.
Public opinion has little or no effect on Israel. UN security council resolutions are always vetoed by America if they threaten any serious problems for Israel.
The entire settlement process has been condemned by almost the entire world as a violation of the Geneva conventions, yet it has never paused. Deportation is another clear violation of the Geneva convention, again roundly condemned by almost every country in the world, including America, yet Israel deported thousands of Palestinians, as and when it chose.
If you think their attempts to play hardball via intifada and terrorism is getting them anywhere you are very far from reality.
I'd really, really like to think you are right, because giving in to terrorism is not a good precedent. But Israel clearly does give in to terrorism.
Consider the Palestinian prisoners. Abu Mazen got Hamas and Islamic Jihad to agree to a temporary truce shortly after he was appointed. He sought concessions from Sharon, including a prisoner release. Sharon gave him almost nothing (even Moshe Yaalon, IDF chief of staff, said Israel had been too stingy with Abu Mazen)
Some months later, Israel released 430 mostly Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Hezbollah releasing 1 Israeli drug dealer and the bodies of 3 Israeli soldiers Hezbollah had kidnapped and murdered.
Look at Gaza. Sharon pioneered the settlements there. Israel held on to the settlements, and increased them throughout the Oslo years. Israel would not pull out of them as a gesture to the Palestinians in the 90s, now after 3 years of terrorism, which Sharon has consistently promised to defeat, Israel is pulling out unilaterally.
The same is true of the south Lebanon security zone Israel established. Israel fought for years, only to pullout unilaterally after years of attacks from Hezbollah.
It would be much better for everyone if Israel negotiated a pullout from Gaza. If, when Abu Mazen took over. Israel had offered him a Gaza pullout, he would have something to show for a peaceful approach, and Israel could have got concessions in return. Instead they offered Abu Mazen nothing, waited until there were more terrorist attacks, and then announced a pullout.
They couldn't do more to encourage terrorism if they tried.
-
An Israeli Gandhi would be useless.
-
Originally posted by ravells
That is if an Israeli stood up and took the reins and did a Martin Luther King or a Ghandi.
Civil disobedience is a weapon of the disenfranchised. Israelis already have mechanisms to change Israeli policy, called the ballot and the Kinesset. (sp)
The Palestinians already have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in Arafat to lead them, so there is your cult of personality. Of course this would assume that the Peace Prize is a prize of merit and not just politics.
-
An Israeli Gandhi would be useless.
I'm thinking of a new spin. What if the enfranchised people dropped tools for peace? Think how much more effective that would be. The problem about the ballot box is that you are effectively electing a dictator for a set period of time.
Holden...the nobel peace prize means jack in practical terms. As you've already pointed out. Arafat is old and increasingly irrelevant.
Here's a solution: Mutual hostages. Palestinian doctors treat Israeli patients and vice versa. Palestinian mothers run Isaerli creches and vice versa. Start small in controlled circumstances and if it works let it grow.
Ravs
-
The Palestinians are numerically inferior to the Israelis, and the occupied territories were run by Israelis, and order was enforced by Israeli troops.
....
Civil disobedience had no chance for the Palestinian because the Palestinians were an irrelevent minority for Israel.
...
Public opinion has little or no effect on Israel. UN security council resolutions are always vetoed by America if they threaten any serious problems for Israel.
...
[/B]
The Black population of America is only about 10%, yet MLK was sucessful in changing minds.
If Israel was perceived in America as jack booted thugs stepping on puppies, do you think we would still veto? I perceive Israelis as people in a difficult situation trying to defend themselves against folks who choose to kill children. The Palestinians I perceive as desperate people clinging to failed and corrupt leadership; leadership which can't see beyond their hatred and self intrest to the use of better methods.
The modern aspect that should increase the effectiveness of civil disobedience is live 24 hour news. Ghandi walked to the sea and folks read it in the Times. King walked to Selma and Cronkite spent 5 minutes an evening talking about it.
With CNN, Fox, MSNBC, you have a virtual million walking with you and seeing the injustice before their eyes, live.
-
In the India/Britain or Black Americans/White Americans there was a clear view about who was being oppressed.
I'm not so sure about how clear that is with the Palestinian / Israeli problem. Using a kid to blow up more kids was something that never happened previously.
I hate this escalation of brutality, but there it is. It's the world we live in today. Only bad news gets reported. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we got more news reports about Palestinians and Israelies who are working together to make some sort of peace?
Ravs
-
It's pretty clear to me that Isreal occupies the position of the powerful party, the "opressor," if you will.
-
Yes, but the Indians and Blacks did not start their struggle by a sustained campaign against the civilian populace of the 'oppressors'...although the Indian Mutiny did result in some English civilian deaths, I think there was such an overwhelming feeling in Britain that they were amongst a 'great culture' that it was almost to be expected.
In these conflicts, it's all in the details and the timing. And when both work out (for example, I think that the whole 'summer of love' thing, Vietnam and the rise of MLK worked together to make the black situation better in America) then the results can be spectacular.
I live for the day when that time can come in the Middle East. It just takes the right idea at the right time and the right person to see it through.
God knows, people must get sick and tired of not being able to live normal lives.
Ravs
-
The Black population of America is only about 10%, yet MLK was sucessful in changing minds.
If Palestinians were 10% of the population of Israel, they would already have equal rights, and there wouldn't be an issue.
Palestinians formed about 18% of the population of Israel (ie excluding the West Bank and Gaza) just after the formation of the state. In theory they had the same rights, although not in practice until the 60s.
Those Palestinian Arabs make up about 20% of the state of Israel now, they are Israeli citizens, have equal rights (although still suffer discrimination) and except in a few isolated cases, have nothing to do with Palestinian terrorism.
The problem is, when you take the population of the West Bank and Gaza into account, there are now roughly the same number of Palestinians as Jews.
That means if Israel were to grant them equal status, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Because of the relative birth rates, within a few years it would be an Arab state with a Jewish minority.
Israel cannot grant the Palestinians full rights.
The only alternative for the Palestinians to have full rights is in their own state, or in a third state. No third party state wants to take them in, and to have their own state the Israelis have to leave the West Bank, which takes us back to the quotes I posted earlier. Israelis feel they have a superior right to the West Bank, and it's only the political realities that can force them to forgo that right.
Protest marches, sit ins and demonstrations by the Palestinians are not going to make Israelis forgo that superior right.
If you want to talk about peaceful protest, I'd point to the Dalai Lama. The Tibetans have run a very successful propoganda campaign against Chinese occupation, and after decades they have got precisely nowhere.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
snip
If you want to talk about peaceful protest, I'd point to the Dalai Lama. The Tibetans have run a very successful propoganda campaign against Chinese occupation, and after decades they have got precisely nowhere.
Thanks for some great points.
As to the quoted one, however, IMO its apples and oranges. China is a behemoth that stands on its own. Israel does need the support of the US and others, no matter how competent Israel is in its own right. I believe its very arguable that if the Palestinians would wise up and drop terror as a tactic, they would experience better success at achieving fair treatment by the Israelis due in part to pressure being brought to bear from external sources.
culero
-
Palestinians are Arabs for one thing, they have more than their fair share of land in the middle east.
Calling the Arabs in the area Palestinians, as though they are a different race or somehow a minority, is a joke.
I believe Arafat was born in Egypt, then he and his thugs were expelled from Jordan anfter they tried to overthrow the government. So really, people need to put things in a little perspective.
The people that lived in the area where Israel was created where basically a mixture of Jews and Arabs, hence they are both "Palestinians"
Sorry, but that term "Pakestinian" just pisses me off the more I hear it.
-
And how many of the jews who currently live in Israel were born there or had recent ancestors who were born there?
cuts both ways, Nuke.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Protest marches, sit ins and demonstrations by the Palestinians are not going to make Israelis forgo that superior right.
If you want to talk about peaceful protest, I'd point to the Dalai Lama. The Tibetans have run a very successful propoganda campaign against Chinese occupation, and after decades they have got precisely nowhere.
And bombing busses will get them what?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If Palestinians were 10% of the population of Israel, they would already have equal rights, and there wouldn't be an issue.
...
The problem is, when you take the population of the West Bank and Gaza into account, there are now roughly the same number of Palestinians as Jews.
Okay, see if I have this right... non violent civil disobedience can only work when, like american blacks, the oppressed population is only 10% or when like India, 98% of the population.
In between it won't work.
Civil disobedience works when the information gets out to the general population of the world so popular opinion can flourish. I do not remember the last foreign correspondent report from Lhasa. hence it does not work in Tibet until free flow of information exists.
It cannot work in Israel / Palestine becuse the PLO has already poisoned the waters with years of terror. Had CD been the tactic from the get go, Palestine would be fact not fantasy.
-
And bombing busses will get them what?
A place in hell if there's any justice in the world.
Unfourtunately, terrorism got Gerry Adams a place in the government of Northern Ireland, it got Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin the prime ministership of Israel, it got De Valera the prime ministership of Ireland, it got Arafat the Nobel peace prize (and vast amounts of money).
These are only a few examples, I'm sure if you trawl through Africa Asia and South America you will find many, many more.
Alan Dershowitz, who is a fanatical supporter of Israel , wrote a book called Why Terrorism Works. Here's a reply he gave in an interview about it:
I gave a speech the other night in front of 500 people. I asked the people how many of them favored a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. I think every person in the audience raised their hand. Then I asked how many people favor a Kurdish state. People looked at me like I was crazy. Then I asked how many people favored an Armenian state inside of Turkey. Same thing. Then I asked how many people favor an independent Tibet? A few hands went up. How many people favor an independent Basque state? How many people favor a Chechen state? People didn't know what I was talking about. Everybody knows of the plight of the Palestinian people. And yet when you put the Palestinian situation in comparison to, say, the Kurds, the Tibetans and the Armenians, those claims are certainly no greater. In fact, they're probably considerably lower; the Tibetans have been under occupation for a far longer time period, there are many, many more of them, and they've never been offered a state. The Palestinians were offered a state in 1948 and they turned it down. They could have had a state between 1948 and 1967 and they turned it down. They were offered a state at Camp David and they turned it down.
So when you do any kind of a moral comparison, you ask yourself, why has the Palestinian cause leapfrogged over all other causes? Why has the pope met with Arafat seven times and never met with a Kurdish leader or an Armenian leader? It's a reflection of the success of Palestinian terrorism. Now, that doesn't mean that it's the only way of achieving success; my own personal view is that the Palestinians would have actually achieved a state had they engaged in civil disobedience, Martin Luther King-like. But they opted for the tactic of terrorism and for them it has worked. In the book, I quote Palestinian leaders who say that they were surprised at how well it worked.
I don't like terrorism. I wish it didn't work. But, like war, I think it does. Kill enough people, and threaten to kill more, and you often get your way.
Not always, and there are far more dead terrorists than successful terrorists, but in certain circumstances terrorism works.
If Israel was perceived in America as jack booted thugs stepping on puppies, do you think we would still veto?
The IRA was a terrorist group operating in a democracy. They were comprised of men who had the vote, full political and legal rights, and were engaged in murdering people in Americas oldest ally.
They were feted in America, their leaders invited to the Whitehouse, convicted murderers led St Patricks day parades and talked of the "oppression" they'd suffered that had led them to kill.
Now if the Irish voice in America could get that sort of support for a terrorist group against a democracy, that was also America's strongest ally to boot, I can't see the Jewish voice having much trouble with a bunch of Arabs.
(http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0012/ireland.clinton/04.clinton.adams.ap.jpg)
Gerry Adams, leader of a terrorist group that murdered close to 2000 people, in one of his many meetings with US presidents.
-
Okay, see if I have this right... non violent civil disobedience can only work when, like american blacks, the oppressed population is only 10% or when like India, 98% of the population.
In between it won't work.
No, civil disobedience can work when it's effects are great enough, and the aims not too unobtainable.
Blacks in America didn't have that much leverage, but allowing equal rights wasn't that difficult for the US. It was more difficult for some states, but do you think if, say, Alabama had been an independent country, peaceful protest would be so effective? If there hadn't been federal authorities to impose things from above? Equal rights for blacks had very few negatives for most of the US, so was an easy thing to grant.
In the case of India, Britain could not rule without the consent of the Indians. We simply didn't have the manpower to do so. Civil disobedience had far more impact, and even in India the intention was to move towards independence anyway.
For the Palestinians, they don't have the numbers to mount truly effective civil disobedience, and their goals require Israel ceases to be a Jewish state, or gives up a lot of land Israelies believe is theirs by religious and moral right.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why cant the Palestinians figure this out?
[/B]
Sounds like you've been re-reading "Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy, Grun.
I have to admit, the concept makes sense. Nothing would swing US public opinion faster than the "no violence and failure to cooperate" in my opinion. The Palestinians are a publicist's nightmare - The Palestinians are the Palestinians worst enemy. It's not like they fear death.
curly
-
No such thing as a Palestinian, unless you consider the Jews and Arabs both Palestinian, simply because that's what the British put down as a name on a map to designate that area.
So Palestinians are Jews and Arabs in reality. Isn't that ironic?
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Sounds like you've been re-reading "Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy, Grun.
I have to admit, the concept makes sense. Nothing would swing US public opinion faster than the "no violence and failure to cooperate" in my opinion. The Palestinians are a publicist's nightmare - The Palestinians are the Palestinians worst enemy. It's not like they fear death.
curly
Considering I never read any such book, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Is it some sort of insult? ;)
But yea you're right. I have this image of calm, steady palestenians locked arm in arm walking slowly up to an IDF tank or checkpoint. No rock throwing, no anger, no noise just humanity.
Invite a camera crew, repeat day after day and there would be nothing the israelis could do...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Considering I never read any such book, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Is it some sort of insult? ;)
But yea you're right. I have this image of calm, steady palestenians locked arm in arm walking slowly up to an IDF tank or checkpoint. No rock throwing, no anger, no noise just humanity.
Invite a camera crew, repeat day after day and there would be nothing the israelis could do...
Oh, no insult, Grun. That's exactly what they did in Clancy's book. Well, actually they were trying to prevent the Israelis from rebuilding an old synagogue where an old Mosque was built. Anyway, they locked arms and sang "We shall overcome."
They were fortunate in that an American news crew was there and captured an Israeli soldier shooting an unarmed man in the face with a rubber bullet.
Now, the book of course is fiction, but it's a powerful idea.
curly
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No such thing as a Palestinian, unless you consider the Jews and Arabs both Palestinian, simply because that's what the British put down as a name on a map to designate that area.
So Palestinians are Jews and Arabs in reality. Isn't that ironic?
The area had been refered to asl Palestine or "the Holy Lands" for centuries. It has a distinct culture and traditon of it's own just like Egypt or Saudi. If that was the case then one must be able to argue that there should be no distinct US state because the US is the same as the Brits and the Canucks and the other English speaking peoples.
The idea that "there is plenty of land in the middle east so they bugger off elsewhere" is bollocks because:
a) while there is plenty of land most of it is crap and much worse than what they once had.
b) on a personal level they used to own the land that was taken from them. Think about it: you and your family live in a house or a farm for generations. Then someone from miles or even continents away comes and takes it from you by force because they have a holy book that says that land is theirs. Do you 1) meakly walk off knowing that their religion is right or 2) get very angry indeed?
The whole point of the "go elsewhere it doesn't matter" argument is to make people feel better about supporting a state that oppresses people on the basis of language, culture and religion.
The massive flaw in the argument is plain to see if you put yourself in their shoes.
With civil disobedience the difficulty is that the only thing the palestinians provide to Isreal now is labour and many need the wages it provides to live. Also the '40s in India and the '60s in the US have something in common that is not true for the Palestinians now: the state was not willing to use massive violence to suppress protest . The nature of the conflict now (which is the fault of both parties, even if the root cause is not) means that any mass protest might be met with guns and rockets. Even given all that I think civil disobedience is the only way for them to go: they seem to lack the polical maturity and the leadership for it though.
Violence gained the Palestinians recognition for their cause: it became an issue with the powerful only after the '70s. Further violence gains them nothig now, and only serves to justfiy more walls, security checks and assassinations.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Unfourtunately, terrorism got ... Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin the prime ministership of Israel
BS. It was the holocaust.
-
Pei, the Jews are the only people that ever had a nation there.
There is no such race as a "Palestinian" No such nation in history known as "Palestine" and no "Palestinian culture ever in history.
And in modern times, the area was almost desolate, inhabited by a few Jews and Arabs. It was a wasteland pretty much.... only Jew and Arab nomads lived their in modern times, so the land being desirable is a joke.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
BS. It was the holocaust.
So those British soldiers being shot at and blown up in Palestine was just a dream....
-
The Jews are the only race and nation that was removed from the area..... by the Romans.
-
Originally posted by Pei
So those British soldiers being shot at and blown up in Palestine was just a dream....
No, but they had nothing to do with the desicion to create Israel.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Pei, the Jews are the only people that ever had a nation there.
There is no such race as a "Palestinian" No such nation in history known as "Palestine" and no "Palestinian culture ever in history.
What has race got to do with nationhood (pop-quiz #1 what race are you?)?
There is a distinct culture based on Palestine being the the location of many holy sites for various religions, with many places of learning. It has also been the centre of a clash of cultures that has left and indelible mark on the people and thier history.
As to the no nation part as I have said before there are many examples of nations existing where non existed before :
e.g
India
Pakistan
and of course
the USA
People have a right to self-determination. If not then your country owes mine 200 odd years of back taxes (you can send the check via me if you like).
Originally posted by NUKE
And in modern times, the area was almost desolate, inhabited by a few Jews and Arabs. It was a wasteland pretty much.... only Jew and Arab nomads lived their in modern times, so the land being desirable is a joke.
Complete and utter bollocks.
This isn't the desert interior of Arabia: it's the mediterranean. It wasn't populated by rag clothed nomads driving their camels from place to place.
Apart from some mountain areas there have been towns farms and villages there since the time when people in my country were living in caves.
Jaffa (Tel Aviv), Hebron, Bethlehem, and above all Jerusalem have been population centres since ancient times. The countrside has been heavily farmed for thousands of years. The area has always been one of the most heavily populated areas of what we now called the middle-east.
Palestinians owned and ran farms, shops and workshops before 1947/8, some still do though others have had thier property seized by settlers or the Israeli state.
-
"Palestine" never existed.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
"Palestine" never existed.
The "United States of America" never existed
-
Originally posted by Pei
The "United States of America" never existed
What the hell are you talking about?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?