The Israeli idea if peace is key pong the Palestinians confined in a ghetto. It's not peace they are offering its permanent imprisonment and control like a modern Indian reservation.
The Palestinians want freedom, to control their own lives and land. That's really not an unreasonable demand. Who doesn't want that?
It would be a perfectly reasonable demand if they didn't want to also obliterate Israel and didn't support Hamas and Hezbollah
OK so if enough militant worshipers of the Norse pantheon get together they are justified in claiming Norway for themselves?
Good example.
The Germans and Norwegians are both Germanic people and if Germans and Norwegians occupied Norway and Britain gave the Norwegian people land because they were persecuted and wanted a state of their own and the Germans backed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland invaded Norway to wipe out the Norwegian state but were defeated and for decades after the Germans were firing rockets at the Norwegians and refusing to acknowledge the Norwegian state when all the Norwegians want is peace, who would you put at fault?
[/B]
It would be a perfectly reasonable demand if they didn't want to also obliterate Israel and didn't support Hamas and Hezbollah
So it's fine for them to get what they want as long as they don't support who they want. Great.
Maybe less extreme parties would favoured if Israel wasn't such a steadfast occupier. Incidentally, the demands of Hamas themselves for ceasefire a week or so ago were actually incredibly reasonable too, though they didn't get much traction in the press.
gaza used to be part of egypt, so why has egypt closed the border and lets less things through than israel.
Because the current Egyptian rulers hate the Muslim Brotherhood, who they feel Hamas are linked to (though I don't know the facts of these apparent links.)
They also lived there and had a state before any arabs did.
Again, should we then be making the case for a Native American or Aboriginal Australian state? I don't see many willing to give up their land and homes for such a thing.
[/B]
It would be a perfectly reasonable demand if they didn't want to also obliterate Israel and didn't support Hamas and Hezbollah
That's ridiculous. It is like saying the Indians have a right to fight for freedom but should off denounced those that used violent protests or the South Africans but they should ditch that terrorist leader and party the ANC.
All those parties and people led violent / and non-violent struggles for independence. The two compliment each other. The violence forced concessions . The people who said they shouldn't fight for independence said so because they didn't want them to gain it. Israel isn't going to gift them liberty any more than any occupying country is. Why would they? What's in it for them?
I know a Brit who lives in New York. He occasionally posts Facebook status updates, often trivial things that get dozens of likes because his American associates over there seem to think he's God's gift. A couple of days ago he posted a paragraph about how utterly biased US news was in Israel's favour - not a single response. Which I suppose made his point.
Again, should we then be making the case for a Native American or Aboriginal Australian state? I don't see many willing to give up their land and homes for such a thing.
I dont know but if they wanted one and they got it would you support americans or australians bombing them and initiating suicide attacks because omg, they gave them land and it is ours.
You would be out there with your free america flag.
Viva america down with the native american occupation.
The Germans and Norwegians are both Germanic people and if Germans and Norwegians occupied Norway and Britain gave the Norwegian people land because they were persecuted and wanted a state of their own and the Germans backed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland invaded Norway to wipe out the Norwegian state but were defeated and for decades after the Germans were firing rockets at the Norwegians and refusing to acknowledge the Norwegian state when all the Norwegians want is peace, who would you put at fault?
Well certainly not all the Norwegian Christians who would have been marginalised by this pantheist take over.
I dont know but if they wanted one and they got it would you support americans or australians bombing them and initiating suicide attacks because omg, they gave them land and it is ours.
You would be out there with your free america flag.
I wouldn't support it but I would certainly understand why they were doing it. And I would put the central blame/impetus on the occupying force rather than the resister.
EDIT: Sorry, read that the opposite way around. European immigrants are the ones who came into the native lands and are therefore the occupiers. Israel came into being on Palestinian land and, having exceeded the 1948 boundaries, are also occupiers.
So it's fine for them to get what they want as long as they don't support who they want. Great.
Maybe less extreme parties would favoured if Israel wasn't such a steadfast occupier. Incidentally, the demands of Hamas themselves for ceasefire a week or so ago were actually incredibly reasonable too, though they didn't get much traction in the press.
Is it really so unreasonable to expect a country to not be intent on destroying another? *rolls eyes*
Again, should we then be making the case for a Native American or Aboriginal Australian state? I don't see many willing to give up their land and homes for such a thing.
And that is the policy which Israel would like. A subject people to demoralised, outnumbered and impotent that then seeking independence is unlikely. Unfortunately for them they are aren't in that position as the natives can't be a decimated as efficiently or unseen as in the past and they are in more if a South African / Indian position where a small colonial class have to keep order by violence, threat of violence against overwhelming numbers. It's a losing formula. It can't be maintained in definitely without genocide. And I don't think the world, or Israel, will stomach that option.
I wouldn't support it but I would certainly understand why they were doing it. And I would put the central blame/impetus on the occupying force rather than the resister.
EDIT: Sorry, read that the opposite way around. European immigrants are the ones who came into the native lands and are therefore the occupiers. Israel came into being on Palestinian land and, having exceeded the 1948 boundaries, are also occupiers.
No it didn't it came into being on land that had been fought over and conquered by different people for thousands of years, it just so happens that the jewish people are the earliest people to have inhabited it who are still alive and when it was under the rule of the british who took it from the turks we gave it back to the jewish people.
If Britain went to war with America tomorrow and we won and gave land to native Americans would you think it was wrong?
Is it really so unreasonable to expect a country to not be intent on destroying another? *rolls eyes*
Yes. When that country is intent in destroying them and suicide is not an option.
The situation is either / or. Israel won't allow a Palestinian state so the only way for them to get a home is to disempower Israel so it's not in a position to call the shots.
Is it really so unreasonable to expect a country to not be intent on destroying another? *rolls eyes*
It seems pretty clear that the Israeli's are just as intent to destroy Palestine as Hamas are to wipe out Israel. The difference is that Israel have the means to do it and are carrying out those policies as we speak.
No it didn't it came into being on land that had been fought over and conquered by different people for thousands of years, it just so happens that the jewish people are the earliest people to have inhabited it who are still alive and when it was under the rule of the british who took it from the turks we gave it back to the jewish people.
If Britain went to war with America tomorrow and we won and gave land to native Americans would you think it was wrong?
Free America!
When Israel was formed, the Jews were definitely not the majority in the territory. To create a state based on some sort of ethnic originality is pure insanity. That's my point. It's not going to wash with anyone that the United States should be made to give back all of their land that people have settled on over centuries. It's not going to wash with Israel either.
But no one is actually denying that Israel should exist anyway. But Palestine has just as much right to a state as they do.
They also lived there and had a state before any arabs did.
So? They left. And not for a short time. It's like saying Turkey has a right to Mongolia because they are descended from nomads from the region. That doesn't mean they can go and justifiably displace the current occupants.
The celts had a state in Feance way before the French. Should Scotland invade?
So? They left. And not for a short time. It's like saying Turkey has a right to Mongolia because they are descended from nomads from the region. That doesn't mean they can go and justifiably displace the current occupants.
The celts had a state in Feance way before the French. Should Scotland invade?
They didn't leave.
If they wanted a state of their own and were given one presumably you would be waving your flag
If they wanted a state of their own and were given one presumably you would be waving your flag
Free France!
Again, this is all silly nonsense anyway. Israel has a state that isn't going anywhere. It;s also exceeding the internationally recognised boarders of that state and denying a state to the people it displaced to form itself.
Comments
It would be a perfectly reasonable demand if they didn't want to also obliterate Israel and didn't support Hamas and Hezbollah
Good example.
The Germans and Norwegians are both Germanic people and if Germans and Norwegians occupied Norway and Britain gave the Norwegian people land because they were persecuted and wanted a state of their own and the Germans backed by Denmark, Sweden and Finland invaded Norway to wipe out the Norwegian state but were defeated and for decades after the Germans were firing rockets at the Norwegians and refusing to acknowledge the Norwegian state when all the Norwegians want is peace, who would you put at fault?
So it's fine for them to get what they want as long as they don't support who they want. Great.
Maybe less extreme parties would favoured if Israel wasn't such a steadfast occupier. Incidentally, the demands of Hamas themselves for ceasefire a week or so ago were actually incredibly reasonable too, though they didn't get much traction in the press.
They also lived there and had a state before any arabs did.
Because the current Egyptian rulers hate the Muslim Brotherhood, who they feel Hamas are linked to (though I don't know the facts of these apparent links.)
Again, should we then be making the case for a Native American or Aboriginal Australian state? I don't see many willing to give up their land and homes for such a thing.
That's ridiculous. It is like saying the Indians have a right to fight for freedom but should off denounced those that used violent protests or the South Africans but they should ditch that terrorist leader and party the ANC.
All those parties and people led violent / and non-violent struggles for independence. The two compliment each other. The violence forced concessions . The people who said they shouldn't fight for independence said so because they didn't want them to gain it. Israel isn't going to gift them liberty any more than any occupying country is. Why would they? What's in it for them?
I dont know but if they wanted one and they got it would you support americans or australians bombing them and initiating suicide attacks because omg, they gave them land and it is ours.
You would be out there with your free america flag.
Viva america down with the native american occupation.
Well certainly not all the Norwegian Christians who would have been marginalised by this pantheist take over.
I wouldn't support it but I would certainly understand why they were doing it. And I would put the central blame/impetus on the occupying force rather than the resister.
EDIT: Sorry, read that the opposite way around. European immigrants are the ones who came into the native lands and are therefore the occupiers. Israel came into being on Palestinian land and, having exceeded the 1948 boundaries, are also occupiers.
Funnily enough you have history in reverse and i would have supported the pagans in having their own state.
I suppose you would have been waving your christian flag viva christianity.
Is it really so unreasonable to expect a country to not be intent on destroying another? *rolls eyes*
And that is the policy which Israel would like. A subject people to demoralised, outnumbered and impotent that then seeking independence is unlikely. Unfortunately for them they are aren't in that position as the natives can't be a decimated as efficiently or unseen as in the past and they are in more if a South African / Indian position where a small colonial class have to keep order by violence, threat of violence against overwhelming numbers. It's a losing formula. It can't be maintained in definitely without genocide. And I don't think the world, or Israel, will stomach that option.
No it didn't it came into being on land that had been fought over and conquered by different people for thousands of years, it just so happens that the jewish people are the earliest people to have inhabited it who are still alive and when it was under the rule of the british who took it from the turks we gave it back to the jewish people.
If Britain went to war with America tomorrow and we won and gave land to native Americans would you think it was wrong?
Free America!
The situation is either / or. Israel won't allow a Palestinian state so the only way for them to get a home is to disempower Israel so it's not in a position to call the shots.
It seems pretty clear that the Israeli's are just as intent to destroy Palestine as Hamas are to wipe out Israel. The difference is that Israel have the means to do it and are carrying out those policies as we speak.
When Israel was formed, the Jews were definitely not the majority in the territory. To create a state based on some sort of ethnic originality is pure insanity. That's my point. It's not going to wash with anyone that the United States should be made to give back all of their land that people have settled on over centuries. It's not going to wash with Israel either.
But no one is actually denying that Israel should exist anyway. But Palestine has just as much right to a state as they do.
So? They left. And not for a short time. It's like saying Turkey has a right to Mongolia because they are descended from nomads from the region. That doesn't mean they can go and justifiably displace the current occupants.
The celts had a state in Feance way before the French. Should Scotland invade?
The only people who moved families into the war zone were the Israelis. The Palestinians and their families were in the area when they were attacked.
It's like those weird cowboy films when some lady moves to the frontier and then gets all indignant when the Indians see her as a legitimate target.
If you want peace then you don't journey into a war and build your hut on someone else's land.
Yeah...except the PLO and Hamas and their supporters.
You know...those guys firing rockets at the Israelis.
They didn't leave.
If they wanted a state of their own and were given one presumably you would be waving your flag
Free France!
Again, this is all silly nonsense anyway. Israel has a state that isn't going anywhere. It;s also exceeding the internationally recognised boarders of that state and denying a state to the people it displaced to form itself.