First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Israel
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

If its God, why would I need an agreement with man? Likewise, if every parcel of earth belongs to everyone, and now you are saying that there needs to be an agreement between the person who wants to use it and this mysterious other entity, does that not imply that this other entity owns the coveted land? And if that land belongs to this entity, does that mean it is no longer everyone's land? Your logic is of the most absurd kind, almost as foolish as the Book of Mormon or as a man somehow able to go to the skies with a horse-bird-man, but peace upon you and your family as well.


It seems you've misunderstood my points. The earth is created along with the beings on it. The human use the lands with the concern of others, while animals with brute force. The humans are the one who use transaction and several agreement to claim this land is use for farming and another land is used for living. The earth created by god for the human's sake. So it is up to people to use it with concern of others, not for god.

See with this kind of respect from this kind of atheist? I will be responding with the same manner if you keep continuing without addressing to the topic.


The first point: I will not address, mainly because it will result in an argument over Evolution through natural selection.

Second point: No, they do not. For proof, you can simply look in the Amazon- destruction of the habitat of animals and the destruction of the home of the aboriginals. I don't see how there is any concern for anyone else in such action.

Third: There is no agreement for many people. First, in the beginning, if that land is not yet occupied, you may very well occupy it for your benefit, and if ti is occupied, you may kill the people who owned it prior to attain the land. The same concept applies in our modern world, where people still kill each other for land and coere the poor folks for their land with a grand amount of money.

Four: God did not make it for humans, otherwise every terrain will be habitable and abundant. As it stands, there are land where people simply cannot settle.

Five: I am not at all an atheist, and you are only working under that assumption.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DrifterZ0 wrote:

You are biased, throughout history Islam was an icon of violence and conquest. From the late dark ages, to the fall of Constantinople until the present times. I don't think such religion who had such reputation of violence deserves to be called a religion of peace. The Ottoman empire was well known for waging war against the West.

Anyways, I think you should rather try to start downsizing your accusations. I will not hesitate to use insults the next time.


Did you look into the teaching itself deeper, not through prejudices and stereotypes around the world and media against us? Islam itself means Peace. From which group the phrase 'Peace be upon you' come from? Do you just mentioned Ottoman Empire were waging wars for religion?

Ottoman Empire invaded Jerusalem and taken control under their empire. At that time, Muslims and Jews were united against Ottoman Army to leave Jerusalem. So just because the majority of Ottoman Empire is muslims , doesn't mean they're the representative of Islam. The majority of Japanese Empire is holding Shintoism. They were invading major part of China which is the majority hold Buddhism, does that mean Japanese's invasion is the war of Shintoism vs Buddhism? The majority of US citizens is Christian, doesn't mean they're the representative of Christian when they invading, pillaging and massacring the nations around the world throughout decades.

It'll be nice of you if you tell me directly what accusation I've made. Native Americans were massacred and became slave is the fact of history that created US. Nobody should accuse Islam is the icon of violence as nobody accuse Catholic is the icon of pedophile. If we look both religion deeper and willing to learn other faith with the pure intention of knowledge, both of those claims are wrong. Peace be upon you and all of us.


Um... I would like to point out that your are all wrong with your history. One, initially, Islam had to conquer all the entire Middle East in the name of Allah, what is now, as it was then, refered to as Jihad.

The majority of Japanese practice a syncretic religion, which combines the native Shinto with the foreign Buddhist. Just as the Buddhism syncretise in China, with a huge population of Taoist. So, when you say 'majority shinto' you are really saying 'shito-combined-with-buddhist'. And the whole 'peace be upon you' thing is simply a way of saying 'may there be peace on you unless, of course, you piss me off.' But what religion isn't like that?
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/19/10

orangeflute wrote:

The first point: I will not address, mainly because it will result in an argument over Evolution through natural selection.

Second point: No, they do not. For proof, you can simply look in the Amazon- destruction of the habitat of animals and the destruction of the home of the aboriginals. I don't see how there is any concern for anyone else in such action.

Third: There is no agreement for many people. First, in the beginning, if that land is not yet occupied, you may very well occupy it for your benefit, and if ti is occupied, you may kill the people who owned it prior to attain the land. The same concept applies in our modern world, where people still kill each other for land and coere the poor folks for their land with a grand amount of money.

Four: God did not make it for humans, otherwise every terrain will be habitable and abundant. As it stands, there are land where people simply cannot settle.

Five: I am not at all an atheist, and you are only working under that assumption.


I thought our discussion is talking only about human. I only mentioned many beings live in this world and people use their brain to negotiate and talking to each other to live together.

That's when we didn't have international law as guidelines to occupy a land or recognized it as a country. The same happened when US, Australia, New Zealand etc were created in the same way. Now we have international law, so we can't do whatever we wants to the land that will breach the law we're agreed upon in UN. Well, it contradicts to current situation of the world when the big nations own the law and abuse it to attack another country in middle-east.

Were the land of northern area are habitable and abundant for people to live and the dessert are where there is no land to grow? As humanity changing and developing, the area that aren't unable for us to live now is changed to modern city with its various prosperity in it. Therefore, it's up to human whether they really have the will to live in this world.

I just assume it by reading your post in various forums, my bad. But this thread is not about religion.


orangeflute wrote:

Um... I would like to point out that your are all wrong with your history. One, initially, Islam had to conquer all the entire Middle East in the name of Allah, what is now, as it was then, refered to as Jihad.

The majority of Japanese practice a syncretic religion, which combines the native Shinto with the foreign Buddhist. Just as the Buddhism syncretise in China, with a huge population of Taoist. So, when you say 'majority shinto' you are really saying 'shito-combined-with-buddhist'. And the whole 'peace be upon you' thing is simply a way of saying 'may there be peace on you unless, of course, you piss me off.' But what religion isn't like that?


That's true, among many occasions of how the muslims were established, there were wars that happened on those lands. However, the wars were not supposed to forcing people of the land to embrace Islam, the wars were occurred only when they were attacked. Do you know how the city of Mecca became the center of muslims? Prophet Muhammad were giving instruction to the army to tell the people of Mecca that they will be safe if they stay in their home, close their doors or stay in the prayer's place. As the result, the city of Mecca did not shed any blood when muslims taken over the city. They only attack when they were attacked.

It's interesting that the biggest nation of muslim population embrace Islam without any kind of violence. Through trading and marriage, my people accepting Islam as our faith. It has nothing to do with violence when you believe religion. If you don't know the salam in Islam , then it's my mistake.

Shall we talking about Israel now?
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

The first point: I will not address, mainly because it will result in an argument over Evolution through natural selection.

Second point: No, they do not. For proof, you can simply look in the Amazon- destruction of the habitat of animals and the destruction of the home of the aboriginals. I don't see how there is any concern for anyone else in such action.

Third: There is no agreement for many people. First, in the beginning, if that land is not yet occupied, you may very well occupy it for your benefit, and if ti is occupied, you may kill the people who owned it prior to attain the land. The same concept applies in our modern world, where people still kill each other for land and coere the poor folks for their land with a grand amount of money.

Four: God did not make it for humans, otherwise every terrain will be habitable and abundant. As it stands, there are land where people simply cannot settle.

Five: I am not at all an atheist, and you are only working under that assumption.


I thought our discussion is talking only about human. I only mentioned many beings live in this world and people use their brain to negotiate and talking to each other to live together.

That's when we didn't have international law as guidelines to occupy a land or recognized it as a country. The same happened when US, Australia, New Zealand etc were created in the same way. Now we have international law, so we can't do whatever we wants to the land that will breach the law we're agreed upon in UN. Well, it contradicts to current situation of the world when the big nations own the law and abuse it to attack another country in middle-east.

Were the land of northern area are habitable and abundant for people to live and the dessert are where there is no land to grow? As humanity changing and developing, the area that aren't unable for us to live now is changed to modern city with its various prosperity in it. Therefore, it's up to human whether they really have the will to live in this world.

I just assume it by reading your post in various forums, my bad. But this thread is not about religion.


orangeflute wrote:

Um... I would like to point out that your are all wrong with your history. One, initially, Islam had to conquer all the entire Middle East in the name of Allah, what is now, as it was then, refered to as Jihad.

The majority of Japanese practice a syncretic religion, which combines the native Shinto with the foreign Buddhist. Just as the Buddhism syncretise in China, with a huge population of Taoist. So, when you say 'majority shinto' you are really saying 'shito-combined-with-buddhist'. And the whole 'peace be upon you' thing is simply a way of saying 'may there be peace on you unless, of course, you piss me off.' But what religion isn't like that?


That's true, among many occasions of how the muslims were established, there were wars that happened on those lands. However, the wars were not supposed to forcing people of the land to embrace Islam, the wars were occurred only when they were attacked. Do you know how the city of Mecca became the center of muslims? Prophet Muhammad were giving instruction to the army to tell the people of Mecca that they will be safe if they stay in their home, close their doors or stay in the prayer's place. As the result, the city of Mecca did not shed any blood when muslims taken over the city. They only attack when they were attacked.

It's interesting that the biggest nation of muslim population embrace Islam without any kind of violence. Through trading and marriage, my people accepting Islam as our faith. It has nothing to do with violence when you believe religion. If you don't know the salam in Islam , then it's my mistake.

Shall we talking about Israel now?


First off, you fail to defend your absurd claims, and secondly, you veered it off. We shall continue with our discussion about Israel.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/20/10 , edited 6/20/10

orangeflute wrote:

First off, you fail to defend your absurd claims, and secondly, you veered it off. We shall continue with our discussion about Israel.


Everyone can say anything they want. Nobody going to listen to them if they can''t explain their statement without proper explanation and back-up. Denies everything and conveniently make excuse without proof is the common pattern in discussion. Many atheist used it to deny the existence of god. No one going to listen to that kind of babbling.

Now, let's going to talk about the conflict. Since we've already talk about it in numerous topics here before (long before you're here) and it seems the pro-Israel can't back-up their statements. I'd like to talk this with different approach without throwing who is wrong and right but rather from the perspective of people in the country. Assuming you live in a country that has been invaded by foreign troops, would you recognized your current president which was being chosen by that foreign troops who destroyed your home?

Imagine if by any chance, US were attacked by another countries and being occupied by allied forces of Russia and China. and they setup the president as their representative to govern the citizens, hence puppet government. Would you support this government or oppose them?

Seeing there are always nationalist and patriotic people in each country, mostly there are always be resistance to oppose the foreign troops and puppet government. However, the people who are struggle to take their country back would mostly being called and accused as 'Terrorist' that make the country unstable. That's how they get public opinion to favor those who are killing the innocent people and reject the existence of nationalist whoa re just trying to take their country back. It makes people are being manipulated and asking ignorant question as Why do people always hate this nation? . If you don't agree to live under the foreign governments who have destroyed your country and oppose them, be prepared to be called as Terrorist.
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/20/10
wow... No one cared to address my assertions. I'll call them irrefutable then and claim victory.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/20/10

I'd like to talk about the solution for both sides, instead throwing insult and seeking whose fault it is. This is from my post which is taken in different thread. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/?pg=19#28800501. If you have any idea or suggestion, feel free to talk about it.


Now, now both side who've been supporting either Israel or Palestine should be calmer when discussing this sensitive issue or we won't get nowhere. Saying who has more evil or more good won't help either. The both sides has shown their evil and good sides toward each other, there's no point saying it just to make the tension worse. Isn't this thread supposed to talk about how Israeli and Palestinians can live together peacefully. Now, we should talk how to build "The Nation of Israel and Palestine"

There's many peace deals had being negotiated, either succeed or failed, it's not important. As long as it can build warm relation between 2 nations, it's what we should prioritize. Briefly speaking, there are many major issues that need to be solved before we create the Nation of Israel and Palestine:

There are numerous issues to resolve before a lasting peace can be reached, including the following:
- Strong emotions relating to the conflict on both sides
- Palestinian concerns over Israeli settlements and land.
- Status of Jerusalem
- Israeli security concerns over terrorism, safe borders, incitements, violence.
- Palestinian refugee issues


From the Israeli perspective, a key concern is security, and whether the major Palestinian figures and institutions are in fact trying to fight terrorism and promote tolerance and co-existence with Israel. Israeli concerns are based on abundant documentary and empirical evidence of many Palestinian leaders having in fact promoted and supported terrorist groups and activities. Furthermore, there is much concrete evidence of Palestinians having supported and expressed incitement against Israel, its motives, actions, and basic rights as a state. The election of Hamas has provided evidence for this view, with the Hamas charter stating unequivocally that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist. However there remain some activists on the Palestinian side who claim that there are still some positive signs on the Palestinian side, and that Israel should use these to cultivate some positive interactions with the Palestinians, even in spite of Hamas's basic opposition to the existence of the Jewish State.

A further concern is whether, as a result of this security argument, Israel will in fact allow the Palestinian community to emerge as a viable and sovereign political unit, a viable and contiguous state. There are also various economic and political restrictions placed on Palestinian people, activities, and institutions which have had a detrimental effect on the Palestinian economy and quality of life. Israel has said repeatedly that these restrictions are necessary due to security concerns, and in order to counteract ongoing efforts which promote terrorism which incite opposition to Israel's existence and rights as a country. The key obstacle therefore remains the Israeli demand for security versus Palestinian claims for statehood.

Furthermore, the identification of 'Palestinian' with 'terrorist' can be construed as problematic,[/u] and Sayigh argues that this association is used as a rationale for maintaining the status qou, and that only by recognising the status of Jewish immigrants as 'settlers' can we conceptually move forwards. However, it is the case that the Palestinian resort to militancy has made such conceptual clarity difficult to achieve.

There is a lively debate around the shape that a lasting peace settlement would take. See for example the One-state solution and Two-state solution. Authors like Cook have argued that the one-state solution is opposed by Israel because the very nature of Zionism and Jewish nationalism calls for a Jewish majority state, whilst the two-state solution would require the difficult relocation of 'half a million Jewish settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories'.But as stated above, this presupposes a Palestinian leadership that recognizes Israel's right to exist.


Based from History of Israel-Palestine

And the peace deals as following:

1.Oslo Accords - 1991 to 1993 which mainly about :

In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which "permanent status negotiations" would commence - no later than May 1996 - in order to reach a final agreement. Major issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and security and borders were to be decided at these permanent status negotiations (Article V). Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases.

Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition - the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO again recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.

The aim of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, an elected Council, for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, and 338, an integral part of the whole peace process.

Jurisdiction of the Palestinian Council would cover the West Bank and Gaza Strip, except for issues that would be finalized in the permanent status negotiations. The two sides viewed the West Bank and Gaza as a single territorial unit.


2. Camp David - 2000 which is mainly about :

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, if 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory—an area including many more Jewish settlements.

According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.


3. "Road Map" for peace :

The plan called for independent actions by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with disputed issues put off until a rapport can be established.

In the first step, the Palestinian Authority must "undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere" and a "rebuilt and re-focused Palestinian Authority security apparatus" must "begin sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure."

Israel was then required to dismantle settlements established after March 2001, freeze all settlement activity, remove its army from Palestinian areas occupied after 28 September 2000, end curfews and ease restrictions on movement of persons and goods.


4. Peace Valley plan - 2007

The Valley of Peace initiative is an effort to promote economic cooperation between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians. It has received the personal attention and support of Shimon Peres, President of Israel. The initiative involves ongoing joint efforts by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to launch new industrial and economic projects, which will create new local businesses and job growth, and promote ongoing cooperation.

It also fits with other new trends and efforts within Israeli and Palestinian society to promote reconciliation based on joint economic effort and dialogue between both groups.


Some efforts and projects has been proposed and some has been implemented:

PIEFZA is a Palestinian economic organization designed to promote participation in the industrial parks which will be created by this effort. The project will also include a number of other separate efforts and projects, including:



5. United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - 1947



As you can see, how just divide 2 nations into different territory while Jerusalem became International Territory. Actually I support this plan, so there won't be any discrimination to Jews and Arabs in one nation.

5. Annapolis Conference - 2007

It is based on two state solution.
Variations on the basic idea have a long history.

The Peel Commission report of 1937 envisioned a partition of the British Mandate of Palestine area into three sections: Arab, Jewish, and a small continued Mandate area (effectively under international control), containing Jerusalem.

Partition was again proposed by the 1947 UN Partition plan for the division of Palestine. It proposed a three-way division, again with Jerusalem held separately, under international control. It too was rejected by the leadership of Arab nations and the Palestinian leadership at the time, although this plan was accepted by the Jewish inhabitants. (lol, Arabs would regret this as we can see now.)

Security Council resolutions dating back to 1976 supporting the two state solution based on the pre-1967 lines were vetoed by a permanent member. The idea has had overwhelming support in the UN General Assembly since the mid 1970's.

Many Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the Arab League, have stated that they would accept a 2-state solution based on pre-1967 lines. According to a 2002 poll conducted by PIPA, 72% of both Palestinians and Israelis supported at that time a peace settlement based on the 1967 borders so long as each group could be reassured that the other side would be cooperative in making the necessary concessions for such a settlement.

Another peace deals to solve Israel-Palestine conflict

As you can see above, there are numerous attempts to end the war, however none of them actually made progress to end this entirely. Because of the ignorance from both sides that wanted to claim all the lands without being considerate to their neighbor, either from Palestine or Israel. Therefore, there's no use saying their sins out of loud to say which one is right or wrong, because both of them have been cruel and kind to each other. This is what we should have in mind.

From those peace deals, I support UN Partition Plan for the territory and use Peace Valley Plan for their improvement and cooperation in economy and social. With this, hopefully both sides would gradually decreasing their hate to each other and remember their past of how peaceful they used to be and begin to love each other for eternity.

How about you? Do you agree to one of those peace deals? Or do you have another solutions regarding to this conflict that has been last for more than 50 years? Before you post, let me remind you. Saying which one is right and wrong would not be taken seriously, and would be considered as troll that only to make the situations between Israel-Palestine worse. If you have another opinions and solution, please fell free to post.

This is brief map about territory of Israel-Palestine to helps us understand more.


It is unfortunate that nobody wants really talk about the solution. This is what makes the conflict has gone worse than how it was. Then the flaming flying as the lives of people fly leaving this hateful world .
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/20/10 , edited 6/20/10
The two state solution was unacceptable to the Arabs in '47 when they tried to wipe out the Jewish portion. Now the israelis have a contiguous state with a strong military that they are confident will never persecute Jews. Why would they go roll back 40 years of (in their minds) success just because the Arabs after having the shoe put forcefully on the other foot are saying 'oh okay we didn't mean it, really, can we have our land back now? oh and yeah we'd like to keep our rocket launchers too please."

Do you think the Israelis see the UN as a better guarantor of Jewish security than their own strong military? Two members of the '47 UN security council were co-conspirators in the violent Arab repudiation of that deal.

What find interesting is NO ONE talks about the west bank anymore. You know.. the larger more industrialized part of Palestine that DIDN'T adopt a hardline 'fuck youse all" attitude? I gather things are working out fairly well for them.

Meanwhile in Gaza they continue to launch rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals then complain when after being asked nice several times, the Israelis ask with a brigade of tanks.

I notice you still haven't said anything about my earlier post. not even to dismiss it as biased.


1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


orangeflute wrote:

First off, you fail to defend your absurd claims, and secondly, you veered it off. We shall continue with our discussion about Israel.


Everyone can say anything they want. Nobody going to listen to them if they can''t explain their statement without proper explanation and back-up. Denies everything and conveniently make excuse without proof is the common pattern in discussion. Many atheist used it to deny the existence of god. No one going to listen to that kind of babbling.

Now, let's going to talk about the conflict. Since we've already talk about it in numerous topics here before (long before you're here) and it seems the pro-Israel can't back-up their statements. I'd like to talk this with different approach without throwing who is wrong and right but rather from the perspective of people in the country. Assuming you live in a country that has been invaded by foreign troops, would you recognized your current president which was being chosen by that foreign troops who destroyed your home?

Imagine if by any chance, US were attacked by another countries and being occupied by allied forces of Russia and China. and they setup the president as their representative to govern the citizens, hence puppet government. Would you support this government or oppose them?

Seeing there are always nationalist and patriotic people in each country, mostly there are always be resistance to oppose the foreign troops and puppet government. However, the people who are struggle to take their country back would mostly being called and accused as 'Terrorist' that make the country unstable. That's how they get public opinion to favor those who are killing the innocent people and reject the existence of nationalist whoa re just trying to take their country back. It makes people are being manipulated and asking ignorant question as Why do people always hate this nation? . If you don't agree to live under the foreign governments who have destroyed your country and oppose them, be prepared to be called as Terrorist.


False analogy- The Palestinian people have a government of their own, and they are allowed to elect anyone they like, in spite of the consequences. They chose a government by a internationally recognised terrorist group. A similar analogy would be if we elected members from the Ku Klux Klan into our government so as to make them a majority. There, I am sure you would agree, the international community must intervene.

Now, if they conquered the land, then, by right of might, they therefore own the land and may do as they will. If China defeated and occupy America, they won the right to own our country through their military might, and may do anything they will to us so long as it doesn't violate international law.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/20/10 , edited 6/20/10


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

British Palestine, after years of Palestinian Guerrilla and Terrorist acts (by the both of the people would become Palestinians and Israelis) was to be divided between the two peoples and handed over. The British and the French (not mention everyonelse in the middle east) were already making plans to drive the Israelis out. In the event the attackers did so poorly that they lost their own territories to the Israeli self defence. Since that time, every time someone has attacked Israeli they've lost a hill or a riverbank out of their territory that represented a strategic defence point. The plan was to leave no Israelis to cry about being losers but becuase the shoe is on the other foot everyone likes to protray the Israelis as unmitigated bad guys.


Not only to drive out Israeli, but also to eradicate the inhabitant, both Palestinian and Israelis. Like what they did in Australia, New Zealand and US. The native inhabitant in those countries are not originally english man, but now we can see them as the majority of those countries and the one who govern the whole country. We can see why the flag of Australia and New Zealand have U.K. flag on it. US gain their independence, so they don't have it. Pretty much the same method of colonialism to take over the whole country, its land, its resources, its people and its authority. South Africa had almost fallen to that situation with the heavy Apartheid system implanted on it.

Of course, the action of illegal invasion that brings purpose to eradicate the Jews, the people of that country can't be justified. We have international laws to determined which actions is illegal or legal. In the past, we rarely have any. The former UN, The League of Nations didn't have any guidelines such as Geneva Treaty, etc. to know which actions is illegal or not. But at the present, the occupation of Israelis in Palestinians lands is being considered as illegal.


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

The two state solution was unacceptable to the Arabs in '47 when they tried to wipe out the Jewish portion. Now the israelis have a contiguous state with a strong military that they are confident will never persecute Jews. Why would they go roll back 40 years of (in their minds) success just because the Arabs after having the shoe put forcefully on the other foot are saying 'oh okay we didn't mean it, really, can we have our land back now? oh and yeah we'd like to keep our rocket launchers too please."

Do you think the Israelis see the UN as a better guarantor of Jewish security than their own strong military? Two members of the '47 UN security council were co-conspirators in the violent Arab repudiation of that deal.

What find interesting is NO ONE talks about the west bank anymore. You know.. the larger more industrialized part of Palestine that DIDN'T adopt a hardline 'fuck youse all" attitude? I gather things are working out fairly well for them.

Meanwhile in Gaza they continue to launch rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals then complain when after being asked nice several times, the Israelis ask with a brigade of tanks.




Israel has every rights to conquer the lands, even the world if the current situation of world system is still the same as medieval age. Now we have international laws to followed, and Israel with their blockade and oppression has breach the world's system. I meant, nobody are going to complain if Israel doesn't put high wall and blockade to Palestinians until today. Take a look at Australia, do they put the wall and blockade to Aborigines? No, so no one complain about it. Even they claimed the Palestinian lands that supposedly not in Israel grasp in the past and it's considered as illegal according to UN, now they make illegal settlements for their own people. Even US was angry to Israel in this topic and said it was insult to US when the vice-president of US took visit there.

Actually, in the every border of Israel, there are UN army to protect and prevent invasion from Arabs neighbor like in Six - Days war combined of military personnel from many nation. There is no need for UN to replace Israeli military there's no country being replaced by UN without permission from that country as no country in the world adopt that. What I find it suited, Israel should allow UN police to secure the area in Israel and Palestinians population. To assist the injured and to stabilize the area to not fight each other and bring oppression to one side.

West bank has their president to negotiate and conduct diplomatic relation. However, they also demands to Israel to stop building illegal settlement inside west bank territory, especially East Jerusalem. They also demand Israel to release thousands of Palestine civilian in Israel prisons. With every effort, Fatah is trying to solve the conflict but there is nothing they achieved. The Palestinians chose Hamas rather than Fatah to fought against this oppression in election before, because they consider Fatah in West Bank is puppet government that will always bow their head to every decisions to Israel. We can see this when they reject Goldstone report to be brought in UN security council, there is no trust anymore in Palestine to Fatah in West Bank.

Of course the firing rockets to Israel also illegal and breach international laws as the response of Israel blockade, illegal settlements and oppression. Both sides have been breach international laws, so shall we talk about the solution instead talking about whose fault is it when the lives of innocent died every moment?


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I notice you still haven't said anything about my earlier post. not even to dismiss it as biased.


There is a link to quote if you want someone to notice it.




orangeflute wrote:

False analogy- The Palestinian people have a government of their own, and they are allowed to elect anyone they like, in spite of the consequences. They chose a government by a internationally recognised terrorist group. A similar analogy would be if we elected members from the Ku Klux Klan into our government so as to make them a majority. There, I am sure you would agree, the international community must intervene.

Now, if they conquered the land, then, by right of might, they therefore own the land and may do as they will. If China defeated and occupy America, they won the right to own our country through their military might, and may do anything they will to us so long as it doesn't violate international law.


With every effort, Fatah is trying to solve the conflict but there is nothing they achieved. The Palestinians chose Hamas rather than Fatah to fought against this oppression in election before, because they consider Fatah in West Bank is puppet government that will always bow their head to every decisions to Israel. We can see this when they reject Goldstone report to be brought in UN security council, there is no trust anymore in Palestine to Fatah in West Bank. This is clear and precisely that Fatah is puppet government that not represent the Palestinians.

Many Americans don't like KKK and it doesn't represent what American wants, so of course they won't choose them as their own leader. In Palestine, Fatah failed to represent the Palestinians needs to help them survive, that's why they chose Hamas as their leader to fight the oppression and stop the blockade. That's what Fatah had failed to do so, so nobody going to choose them, obviously. The same as when American chose Obama because they wanted to change America for better future. There's no international intervention when people chose Obama, was it?

lol, that war and occupation itself are violation of international law. Maybe you'd be happy to live China or Russia communism but are you sure they won't change the system in America entirely? Different occupier means different laws, I don't think most Americans would agree to live in communism state. The different thing about Israel is, they are occupy the lands along with many violation of international laws. US, UN, EU has express their disagreement when Israel build another settlements and continue blockade the Gaza Strip.

There is the breach of international laws. That's why people condemn it. And it's the job of people like us who live far away from them to talk about the solution, not to justified illegal actions from both sides.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/20/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:




papagolfwhiskey wrote:

British Palestine, after years of Palestinian Guerrilla and Terrorist acts (by the both of the people would become Palestinians and Israelis) was to be divided between the two peoples and handed over. The British and the French (not mention everyonelse in the middle east) were already making plans to drive the Israelis out. In the event the attackers did so poorly that they lost their own territories to the Israeli self defence. Since that time, every time someone has attacked Israeli they've lost a hill or a riverbank out of their territory that represented a strategic defence point. The plan was to leave no Israelis to cry about being losers but becuase the shoe is on the other foot everyone likes to protray the Israelis as unmitigated bad guys.


Not only to drive out Israeli, but also to eradicate the inhabitant, both Palestinian and Israelis. Like what they did in Australia, New Zealand and US. The native inhabitant in those countries are not originally english man, but now we can see them as the majority of those countries and the one who govern the whole country. We can see why the flag of Australia and New Zealand have U.K. flag on it. US gain their independence, so they don't have it. Pretty much the same method of colonialism to take over the whole country, its land, its resources, its people and its authority. South Africa was almost fallen to that situation with the heavy Apartheid system implanted on it.

Of course, the action of illegal invasion that brings purpose to eradicate the Jews, the people of that country can't be justified. We have international laws to determined which actions is illegal or legal. In the past, we rarely have any. The former UN, The League of Nations didn't have any guidelines such as Geneva Treaty, etc. to know which actions is illegal or not. But at the present the opression of Israelis to Palestinians people is being considered as illegal.


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

The two state solution was unacceptable to the Arabs in '47 when they tried to wipe out the Jewish portion. Now the israelis have a contiguous state with a strong military that they are confident will never persecute Jews. Why would they go roll back 40 years of (in their minds) success just because the Arabs after having the shoe put forcefully on the other foot are saying 'oh okay we didn't mean it, really, can we have our land back now? oh and yeah we'd like to keep our rocket launchers too please."

Do you think the Israelis see the UN as a better guarantor of Jewish security than their own strong military? Two members of the '47 UN security council were co-conspirators in the violent Arab repudiation of that deal.

What find interesting is NO ONE talks about the west bank anymore. You know.. the larger more industrialized part of Palestine that DIDN'T adopt a hardline 'fuck youse all" attitude? I gather things are working out fairly well for them.

Meanwhile in Gaza they continue to launch rockets at Israeli schools and hospitals then complain when after being asked nice several times, the Israelis ask with a brigade of tanks.




Israel has every rights to conquer the lands, even the world if the current situation of world system is still the same as medieval age. Now we have international laws to followed, and Israel with their blockade and oppression has breach the world's system. I meant, nobody are going to complain if Israel doesn't put high wall and blockade to Palestinians until today. Even they claimed the Palestinian lands that supposedly not in Israel grasp in the past and it's considered as illegal according to UN, now they make illegal settlements for their own people. Even US angry to Israel in this topic and said it was insult to US when the vice-president of US took visit there.

Actually, in the every border of Israel, there are UN army to protect and prevent invasion from Arabs neighbor like in Six - Days war combined of military personnel from many nation. Also, there is no need for UN to replace Israeli military there's no country being replaced by UN without permission from that country. What I find it suited, Israel should allow UN police to secure the area in Israel and Palestinians population. To assist the injured and to stabilize the area to not fight each other and bring oppression to one side.

West bank has their president to negotiate and conduct diplomatic relation. However, they also demands to Israel to stop building illegal settlement inside west bank territory, especially East Jerusalem. They also demand Israel to release thousands of Palestine civilian in Israel prisons. With every effort, Fatah is trying to solve the conflict but there is nothing they achieved. The Palestinians chose Hamas rather than Fatah to fought against this oppression in election before, because they consider Fatah in West Bank is puppet government that will always bow their head to every decisions to Israel. We can see this when they reject Goldstone report to be brought in UN security council, there is no trust anymore in Palestine to Fatah in West Bank.

Of course the firing rockets to Israel also illegal and breach international laws as the response of Israel blockade, illegal settlements and oppression. Both sides have been breach international laws, so shall we talk about the solution instead talking about whose fault is it when the lives of innocent died every moment?


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I notice you still haven't said anything about my earlier post. not even to dismiss it as biased.


There is a link to quote if you want someone to notice it.




orangeflute wrote:

False analogy- The Palestinian people have a government of their own, and they are allowed to elect anyone they like, in spite of the consequences. They chose a government by a internationally recognised terrorist group. A similar analogy would be if we elected members from the Ku Klux Klan into our government so as to make them a majority. There, I am sure you would agree, the international community must intervene.

Now, if they conquered the land, then, by right of might, they therefore own the land and may do as they will. If China defeated and occupy America, they won the right to own our country through their military might, and may do anything they will to us so long as it doesn't violate international law.


With every effort, Fatah is trying to solve the conflict but there is nothing they achieved. The Palestinians chose Hamas rather than Fatah to fought against this oppression in election before, because they consider Fatah in West Bank is puppet government that will always bow their head to every decisions to Israel. We can see this when they reject Goldstone report to be brought in UN security council, there is no trust anymore in Palestine to Fatah in West Bank. This is clear and precisely that Fatah is puppet government that not represent the Palestinians.

Many Americans don't like KKK and it doesn't represent what American wants, so of course they won't choose them as their own leader. And Fatah failed to represent the Palestinians needs to help them survive, that's why they chose Hamas as their leader to fight the oppression and stop the blockade. That's what Fatah had failed to do so, so nobody going to choose them, obviously. The asame as when American chose Obama because they wanted to change America for better future. There's no international intervention when people chose Obama, was it?

lol, that war and occupation itself are violation of international law. Maybe you'd be happy to live China or Russia communism but are you sure they won't change the system in America entirely? Different occupier means different laws, I don't think most Americans would agree to live in communism state. The different thing about Israel is, they are occupy the lands along with many violation of international laws. US, UN, EU has express their disagreement when Israel build another settlements and continue blockade the Gaza Strip.

There is the breach of international laws. That's why people condemn it. And it's the job of people like us who live far away from them to talk about the solution, not to justified each actions of both sides.


Hamas is still an terrorist organisation, like the KKK, which wish death to the Israeli nation and to the Jewish people, a siege is not against any international law, being a common tactic in warfare, and as to my relationship with China and Communism, I will just disregard this ad hominem attack, being irrelevent and pointless. I can say, with equal irrelevency, that your sympathies with the Palestinian people is mainly because you share the same religion. Israel has not violated any international law, and, even if several countries disagree.
55350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/20/10
Just a brain fart; under Islamic law making an agreement with a non Muslim can be broken at any time. This game Arafat played this game over and over now it Hamas, turn I have had Jewish friend and later in life Muslim friends. I never once herd Jewish person blame there person problem on any other religion. But Muslim when thing get bad all they spout is hatred for the viper aka Jewish people. It has been way, past time to take the gloves off (Winner take all). By the way the PLO is dead Hamas is the governing power it also behind most the attacks on Israel.
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/20/10 , edited 6/20/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:



There is a link to quote if you want someone to notice it.





Wait... what? I have to quote you before you'll read a post on this thread? Well that explains why no one has commented on the multiple posts I've made here.

but then... how did you find the interest to make your first post to this thread?

I find your willingness to ignore posts just because your attention wasn't brought to them disappointing. It inclines me to disregard anything you post here. Before I made my first post I laboured through every page on this thread. I might have missed or forgetten something becuase frankly It was enough material to make my eyes glaze over at times. but I tried. I find the idea that people are so self centered that they ignore posts that don't quote them, Very disappointing for a forum that claims to be about scholarly discourse.




10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 6/20/10

orangeflute wrote:

Hamas is still an terrorist organisation, like the KKK, which wish death to the Israeli nation and to the Jewish people, a siege is not against any international law, being a common tactic in warfare, and as to my relationship with China and Communism, I will just disregard this ad hominem attack, being irrelevent and pointless. I can say, with equal irrelevency, that your sympathies with the Palestinian people is mainly because you share the same religion. Israel has not violated any international law, and, even if several countries disagree.


How do you define a group as terrorist? For Israel, Hamas is terrorist. For Palestinians, Israel is terrorist. For thief, policeman is terrorist for creating terror in their heart. Hamas is being recognized by its people to rep[resent the will of Palestinians to get their rights to live peacefully. Of course, many of their method are wrong, the same as Israel

Seeing there are always nationalist and patriotic people in each country, mostly there are always be resistance to oppose the foreign troops and puppet government. However, the people who are struggle to take their country back would mostly being called and accused as 'Terrorist' that make the country unstable. That's how they get public opinion to favor those who are killing the innocent people and reject the existence of nationalist whoa re just trying to take their country back. It makes people are being manipulated and asking ignorant question as Why do people always hate this nation? . If you don't agree to live under the foreign governments who have destroyed your country and oppose them, be prepared to be called as Terrorist.

About China and Russia matter, it's not ad hominem, it's called assumption. It's common to be used in discussion.

So there's no violation of international law from Israel? It's very biased statements. I know you don't like to read it, but it's the matter of fact, not the result of ignorant statements.



The recent violation according to Flotilla Freedom, it's not several countries disagree, the major countries have disagree even the Canadian, French, EU, UN and US condemn the attack.



Therefore it's not religion issue, it's humanitarian issue when people are being treated unfair and not according to Geneva Convention and several international laws.

67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/20/10


Also I wouldn't mind if you took it slower and made it simpler for a dumb infidel like myself. I think I am misunderstanding you or you misunderstood me when I spoke of the POST British Mandate attacks on Jewish Territory by Palestinians and most other Arab nations with a thinly concealed backing/good wishes by Britain (primarily... I think France was more involved in encouraging Israeli in it's first act of aggressive war against Egypt)

Also think your fingers are racing ahead of your meanings in a few places. your post could use a rewrite for clarity. I'd rather not respond erroneously because of a typo.





First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.