 |
I didn't say that but the fact is that palestine is a modern construct, the people are either jews or arabs, the jews don't identify as palestinian and the arabs only identify as palestinian for political ends, before 1967 they were jordanian or eqyptianQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians
Seems your version of the definition of Palestinian people is but the most recent one as clearly there have been others and for many centuries past. The Israelis may not be invaders but they are clearly oppressors, and suppressors as they expand their own territories by displacing Palestinians.
Like all the other conquerors of human history with superior forces.
Adding to what Talinman said--------Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You're playing the semantics game to avoid the issue. That game has been played since 1948 to somehow justify the takeover by Israel. As if suggesting the Arabs living there had no Palestinian name, therefore they did not exist, and therefore no one was displaced - what a bunch of BS!
The issue is - the Arabs that were living there, now calling themselves Palestinians, have been illegally and immorally forcibly removed from their ancestral lands by the UN in support of another group who call themselves Israelis. Anyway you slice it, the Palestinians Arabs have been oppressed and displaced.
To repeat from an earlier post: In 1947, the Arab population was about 1.25 million. Jews, primarily recent immigrants since the advent of Zionism, were a few hundred thousand. Prior to the late 19th century, the Jewish population had been a small minority and had been static since their expulsion by the Romans in 70 AD.
So it wasn't just a bunch of Arabs and Jews living there - the Arabs were overwhelmingly the dominant population. It is beyond me why you pick such a false position on the issue. It is one thing to support Israel, it is quite another thing to spew lies about the Palestinian Arabs. The facts are obvious and plain for all to see. You should be ashamed of yourself.
No the fact is that when Israel was formed the Jews invited the arabs to live peacefully among them, the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation. I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation, you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI
Gee, how nice of them! So the Jews take over the land belonging to the Arabs and then they invite them to live there on their own land? Peacefully, no less! Who could resist such an offer?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What would YOU do if somebody kicked you off YOUR land?Quote:
the arabs attacked the jews resulting in defeat and an occupation.
The nerve of those Arabs! How dare they live on their own land without an organization you approve of. (This is just getting more and more bizarre).Quote:
I don't deny the arabs lived there but they had no political organisation,
I hereby deny it. As far as I can tell, the land has been there since the planet was formed. Since then, there have been several civilizations living there as you yourself indicated in a previous post.Quote:
you cannot deny that the whole of the ME is a recent construct following the defeat of the Ottomans in WWI
The way you twist words is astounding. Especially, the Jews inviting the Arabs to live on their own land. That one takes my breath away.
Thank you Tal
There is much more Clete.
https://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/30...ed-in-5-charts
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/f90A...lation__1_.jpg
Israeli expansion into an already small crowded place is the recipe for conflicts and bloody retributions. What does one expect from such blatant displacements?
it is an ancient problem tal
Yep, with no end in sight.
Paraclete - did you look at the chart? The Israelis are taking Arab lands NOW, not anciently! And they are doing this in direct violation of the UN directive forbidding Israel to settle on Arab lands in the West Bank. SMH.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Athos, you maybe unaware that noone takes UN directives seriously when it applies to them, the US doesn't take them seriously regarding sanctions on Iran, China doesn't taken them seriously. In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank, not because they wanted to but because these people made war on them. I understood the graphic, just as I understood the content of Tal's link. There is not just one aggressor there and there are various forms of aggression. Whenever you jamb people into ghettos you get violence, whenever you restrict populations you get violence. The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it. The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming backQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
All nations, both big and small want to keep their own SOVERIEGNTY. While the UN is but a collective that can make suggestions and in some cases facilitate a vehicle for joint endeavors, they cannot GOVERN. The rules don't allow it, and the most powerful nations still dominate and run the show in it's own national self interests.
You know how we humans are, conquer and dominate as you can (For profit, power and influence like it's always been) and who and how will rules be enforced? We do have a few rules though, and a loose global agreement but obviously as you said that doesn't stop those who can from bending, breaking those rules.
We're a long way off from a effective GLOBAL authority that all submit to willingly, or whole heartedly. To the discussion though, a peace agreement while one side pushes the other into an ever shrinking corner will never happen and workers to the pushers benefit and not the pushed. That's just the history of the world until a greater force intervenes instead of enables.
Israel was more than willing to listen to the UN when it decided in their favor to take Arab lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.Quote:
In Fact, they are just so much background noise, why should the Israeli's listen when these people are their enemies, they conquered the west bank,
Finally, you got something right.Quote:
The UN created the problem at the behest of the great powers and the atrocities of WWII. Israel was the UN's great experiment and the world is still paying for it.
Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.Quote:
The arabs took Palestine centuries ago by conquest and now they object to the ancient inhabitants coming back
It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.
The jews didn't seek to take the land by conquestQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
while we are all greatfull the US won the war in the Pacific, Japan was never going to overrun Australia, it was as they say a bridge too far but they certainly didn't want Australia to become a US base. The US fought the battles in the Pacific for their own agendaQuote:
So, your moral principle is Might Makes Right. It's a good thing for you that the United States pulled your bacon out of the fire when the Japanese were poised to overrun Australia on the theory of Might Makes Right. You probably sang a different tune back then.
Finally?Quote:
Finally, you got something right.
Yes we know the arabs are an abrahamic people, makes all the more a wonder that they make the jews their enemies. There seems to be an adage that you keep what you conquer, but you are right the arabs are the phillistines of today even centred in the ancient phillistine citiesQuote:
Well, that didn't last long - you're back on the wrong track. The area has ALWAYS had Arabs. What changed was their culture that bound them. Originally, that culture is lost in the sands of time. Subsequent cultures/nation/city states have been Syria, Egypt, Canaan/Philistines (from which the name derives), Israel, Roman, Greek/Byzantine, Christian, Muslim, and today's displaced inhabitants. So your designation of the Israelites as the "ancient inhabitants" is not true.
It is also important to note that a majority of Arabs and Jews share DNA that traces back to common ancestors a few thousand years in the past.
Quibble - They ACCEPTED the land which already belonged to others. Better?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Without the US, maybe.Quote:
Japan was never going to overrun Australia,
We seem to be far off the track here. My point with all this is that the Israeli-Palestinian argument/dispute/fight/war was unfairly begun in Israel's favor. The world had tremendous sympathy for what the Jewish people suffered under the Nazis and that influenced the decision to offer them a homeland where they did.
At the time, few stood up for the Arabs being displaced. Some of the reasons supporting Israel have been beyond bizarre.
Ed Koch, ex-NYC mayor, actually claimed, seriously, the Jews had a right to the land because God gave it to them. Chaim Potok argued the Jews had a right to the land because "they made the desert bloom", while the Palestinian owners were just sheep and goat herders. I don't know which reason is stranger or less rational.
How the Jews could go along with the 1947 arrangement after experiencing the horrors of the death camps is something I will never understand.
Israel has a chance to do the right thing with the Palestinians. Settling hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the West Bank is not the right thing.
Israel tried to do the right thing at the start but this was quickly eclipsed by war, they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now, so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place. The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partitionQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Still we have progress the UAE, and other gulf states, have thrown the palestinians under a bus, no doubt tired of the endless propaganda and war
You're repeating yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state? Another repetition from you.Quote:
they could still make them citizens of a greater Israel but the palestinians didn't accept it then and they won't accept it now,
The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.Quote:
so you will have two tiny states with indefensible ill defined borders and this is what allowed the situation to develop in the first place.
All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW!Quote:
The whole ME is the result of the failed idea of racial partition
a failing you have also succomed tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
the concept of citizenship eludes youQuote:
Why should they "accept" being citizens of their own state?
at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology. What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDSQuote:
The "situation" started when the UN gave Arab lands to Israel. I thought you already knew that.
you are not the only one who is frustrated, you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively. In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyoneQuote:
All of the above has already been asked and answered. You're going round and round in circles and my patience in trying to advise you of the facts is wearing thin. You need to make more of an effort to learn or else you'll continue to wallow in ignorance.
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stanceQuote:
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Whatever history book you're reading, throw it away. NOW!
I have succumbed to nothing. What I have done is reply to your repeated statements. You say the same things over and over. Of course, my replies are the same. Why wouldn't they be?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
It's a simple concept. You will need to elaborate on this comment.Quote:
the concept of citizenship eludes you
At the same risk, you refuse to understand that the UN had no right to remove a population from their lands to award those lands to a different population. What is so hard for you to grasp?Quote:
at the risk of being tedious the UN attempted to solve a problem by separating to populations with different idiology.
Who did the lands belong to? Martians?Quote:
What you failed to recognise is the lands were already conquered and had been for decades, THEY WERE NO LONGER ARAB LANDS
Thank you for saying this and being FINALLY so clear. Here we see an ABSOLUTE LIE from you. This is the lie that supports everything you have said. The question now is: Just why do you engage in this blatant falsehood?
It IS/WAS Arab land exclusively! Whose do you think it was? Martians again?Quote:
you seem stuck on the idea it was arab land exclusively.
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it is impossible to reply to it.Quote:
In fact it has had so many conquerers and occupiers it could belong to anyone
Are you now saying that I am a Palestinian? So what? True or not, that does not change the facts. In logic, that's called an argumentum ad hominem. You have failed to convince of your position, so you attack the person not the argument. You're revealing your true colors.Quote:
the apple doesn't fall far from the tree,
This is where you go fundamentally wrong. Taking a stance is not an argument. You've made another logical fallacy. In any case, right at the beginning, I stated that "If ever there were two sides to a question, this is one of those times". Hardly a "decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance".Quote:
you have taken a decidedly Palestinian anti Israel stance
However, if you were honest, you would realize the stance I take is based on the facts of the situation. We've done them ad infinitum, so there's no need to go over them again. I suggest you read this thread again, be honest, and arrive at an honest resolution. I suspect you are already aware of an honest resolution, but something is holding you back.
The palestinians become stateless person by their own volition, instead of using peaceful means to gain ascendency in the longer termQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
what you fail to grasp is the UN removed noone. The UN legitimised a situation that already existedQuote:
At the same risk, you refuse to understand that the UN had no right to remove a population from their lands to award those lands to a different population. What is so hard for you to grasp?
see you are resorting to the rediculous. Before the British mandate, the land belonged to the Ottoman's (Turks) who took it from the arabs, so the arabs had not "owned" it for centuries. They were allowed to have a largely nomadic existence under the Ottomans. I suppose that you consider they owned Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon tooQuote:
Who did the lands belong to? Martians?
I think the Turks would have an opinion on that. The arabs have as much chance of reconquering the land as we have of conquering MarsQuote:
It IS/WAS Arab land exclusively! Whose do you think it was? Martians again?
yes discussions of martians usually isQuote:
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid, it is impossible to reply to it.
What I am saying is your argument is blatantly anti semetic or blatantly semetic depending on which side of the genetic fence you sit. You cannot argue for the arabs without arguing for the jews, they are each one side of the same coin. I am personally happy the jews were returned to their ancestral homeland and I cannot argue against their occupancy for the same reason I cannot argue against my own occupancy of this continent. I am continually confronted by the argument this is aboriginal land in the same way you confront the jews with the argument that it is arab land. Neither argument is valid
Isn't it just like the humans with power, authority and influence to carve things up the way they see fit? The UN as a body is no different, and decides things according to the inner machinations of its most influential members. Maybe it sounded good then, when the decision was made, but sure could stand some tweaking now since the affected parties can agree on a solution on their own so the underdog Palestinians, absent big brothers, allies, and backers like the Israelis Have fewer less appealing options.
A decided and maybe unfair imbalance for sure.
If the palestinians agreed to live peacefully there would be no issues eventually, walling off the west bank has considerably reduced conflict but while ever Hamas seeks the annilihation of the jews the problem cannot be resolved. What needs to be done is gaza bulldozed and its inhabitants relocated, a territory swap so the palestinians could have contiguous territoryQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The Palestinians didn't want to live peacefully under Israeli rules. Still don't. Even a rat fights back when cornered, and out numbered.
speaking of a two state solution each with defendable borders, tal, as things are now the palestinians are divided a situation neither party wants
The Palestinians have always been a loose collection of settlements making them ripe for conquest and exploitation. The perfect target for conquerors and bullies. We wouldn't be here if they could defend themselves from Israeli expansion.
Come to think of it Clete, non of us would be here if the natives could defend themselves against the invaders to their lands. Guess we can't blame the Israeli's from doing what every other sovereign nation has done before, and still doing.
I started my usual rebuttal of your nonsense when it occurred to me this is going nowhere. As I previously said, you just repeat your falsehoods until it gets really tiresome. The facts are blindingly obvious, yet you refuse to see them. What in the world is going on with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Then I got it! A tipoff was your "personal happiness" when "the jews were returned to their ancestral homeland".
The answer lies in your Bible belief which has nothing to do with the facts. In your view, the Bible says the Jews will return to Palestine which they now call Israel. The prophecy promises the Jews will be converted after a Jewish state is established, and after the Second Coming of Jesus. This will occur only after the Jews have their own nation/state. Maybe other reasons also, but the point is made - your Bible tells you so.
A part of Christian Protestantism - fundamentalists - have made an unfortunate agreement among themselves that God is to be replaced by the Bible. Clearly a violation of the First Commandment, but the evangelical fundamentalist community would never see it that way. How could they? To them, the Bible IS God.
(Oddly, Catholic Christianity has done something similar. In their case, they have replaced God with Mother Church. This is particularly true among the clergy - not all, but a goodly fraction.)
You should know that the Jews are very aware of this silliness, but are willing to accept it in return for the support it offers to Israel.
I think we can now end this seemingly endless discussion.
by all means; our discussion was fruitless. I don't accept your contentions regarding the Palestinians or the Church. Christians do not worship the Bible or the ChurchQuote:
I think we can now end this seemingly endless discussion.
Of course, too many do, thus the yelling and screaming about having to wear masks and social distance when attending church services. Far too often I've read about ministers who reassure their members, "God will protect you from Covid-19."Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Church is believers, not a building. Matthew 16:18.
"Worship" is the wrong word. If it were that obvious, there'd be no debate. The situation is more subtle than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here's an example: In the Catholic Church child abuse sex scandal, it doesn't take a theologian to know that God would want the abuse to stop and for the offenders to receive their just desserts. Instead, these criminals were transferred to other parishes to save Mother Church from the notoriety of a major scandal. Mother Church was placed above God.
As for the fundamentalists and the Middle East conflict, God would surely have wanted a solution that was fair to the Israelites and fair to the Palestinians. However, the solution turned out to be a "might makes right" solution. Not an answer God would have given. The fundamentalists support this answer because it reflects a Bible prophecy concerning the end times. The Bible was placed above God.
Do I speak for God? Of course not. All I do is try to discern what are obvious principles of morality while ignoring the politics of any given moment.
And that prophecy has been majorly taken out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
and the swamp wins again. Clinesmith got a slap on the wrist by FISA judge James Boasberg for intentionally altering evidence . He ADMITTED to falsifying the evidence !! Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to 12 months probation and 400 hrs community service.
His reasoning is preposterous . Clinesmith changed an email confirming Carter Page had been a CIA source to one that said the exact opposite....explicitly forging the words “not a source” before he forwarded it. Clinesmit's hatred of Trump is obvious. Don't forget that Mueller pulled him from the investigation after Horowitz found text messages from Clinesmith expressing hatred of Trump. When Trump won he texted 'the crazies had won' . In another text he wrote 'viva la resistance ' The idiot judge gave him the light sentence because he reasoned Clinesmith LIKELY BELIEVED his alterations were the truth and therefore it was an honest mistake .
As Quid likes to say 'come on man' !!! You want to know why I don't respect the judiciary ....here is an example . George Papadopoulos made false statements and served jail time . Judge Sullivan refused to drop charges against Michael Flynn even after the DOJ had dropped the charges .
So if someone lies to the FBI they get hounded and end up in jail . But if an FBI attorney lies to FISA .....aint no big thing !
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:27 PM. |