If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So lets go occupy Germany because they started a war or two, way back when, as obviously peace is out of the question due to past events they cannot be forgiven for.
And notice how the Arabs were not consulated at all on any of the matters? So really Israel should never have been created. But its to late for that now.
And come off it, if someone dislikes you... occupying bits of their country is hardly going to improve matters, is it? Oh, and they are expanding the settlements now. Well done. They've even gone against their biggest allies advice, America.
Shit, someone teach Sharon diplomacy soon, please.
Not to me, but you seem to think that roots and links to the land matter if the inhabitants are jewish. Wasn't it you who said "their lack of legitimate ethno-linguistic roots to the land and to any ethno-cultural cultural link to the original Israelites or any other indigenous people of the region."?
Wasn't it you who then brought up the census to prove your point about Muslims inhabitants?
As had jews. Or are you suggesting that it's just a matter of numbers?
Had the europeans not been wiping them out in their millions, perhaps the jews may have not wanted to move in such volume.
If, possibly and maybe. Useful words, non?
Again, I will never take a lecture from someone who believes that it is acceptable to sit back and watch genocide happen.
Ah, the conspiracist, too busy looking for the zionist under his bed.
Fucking hell, all I did was ask for a little more information about the make up of a population. There was no hidden agenda, but the information you posted was a little out of date. I was actually after more recent information, not a fucking diatribe.
Nowhere did i state or argue that their JEWISHNESS had any bearing in the equation. Thank you to not invent or reinterpret my arguments into your pet strawmen.
It is their ethno-cultural roots that have no link to any historic claim (being Slavo-Turkic in geographic origin), and certainly none which would allow them to simply dispossess centuries old indigenous inhabitants from their land and homes in order to advance a wholly European-originated agenda and ideological aspiration of statehood on foreign soil.
Is that too difficult for you to comprehend, or do I have to repeat it for the 10th time?
Astounding!
Yes Jews had lived there and those Jews were Arab Jews also centuries resident in the land living peacefully alongside their muslem neighbours. They are not the ones who originated nor advocated the influx with the intent to create an exclusively Jewish state.
Again, reinterpreting my arguments rather than hearing what I have argued.
Try reading the links provided before spouting off any more false claims thanks.
(a little out date? The entire discussion concerned the period prior to the creation of the state which itself was over a half century ago. Thus the data provided is relevant to the period in question and more importantly, far more legitimate than the bogus claims of Mr. Farah and his sycophants.)
By your reasoning then there is no basis upon which to indict anything as a crime and it returns merely to the historically shameful belief of might makes right. As history shows us, and most poignantly recent history (re: the hundreds of thousands greater number we killed with our sanctions and invasions than Saddam ever was responsible for killing) your method of supposed action only proves to be more heinous and brutal than leaving sovereign citizenries to deal with their own leaders as they wish, if they so wish.
Its your job to concern yourself with keeping your government under scrutiny, just as it is mine to hold my leaders to account and decry their abuses of power, not the leaders of others. Whether you like it or not, to sanction imposition of our presumed superiority is to revert back to everything we fought two world wars to end.
Obviously some people simply cannot learn from history.
I feel left out.... :crying: I thought I was intellectually dishonest as well, but obviously not enough....
Nah, the incident happened in Manchester - where Betar regularly attacks the M+S picket.
It was a response to your claim that :
It really isn't that simple, is it? And my mate isn't the only Jewish person to have heard that line either, is he?
Loads of splits ........ Askenazim/mizrahim - zionist/anti-zionist - reform/orthodox/secular and all sorts of issues about the Russians and the Ethiopians for instance......
I note zero response to the question of how we're supposed to achieve the 'logical feat' of accepting the right of every Jewish person, (regardless of cultural and genetic background) to live in Israel, and yet not accept the right of every Palestinian to live in their ancestral homeland.
Over a 1.2 million Arabs live in Israel and it isn’t a problem for Israelis. Arabs in Israel are full Israeli citizens with equal rights to Jews. I think there are just over 200,000 Jews in the West Bank/Gaza and it’s a huge problem. I think Israel must make concessions over the Disputed Territories to secure peace but I think people forget that Palestinians and Jews have a historical attachment to the land in the Disputed Territories. Israel also is fairly entitled to use part of the Territories for new defensible borders, given history’s proof of the aggressive nature of Israel’s neighbours this is justifiable. Even the UN with Resolution 242 and 338 seem to support this.
Israel is making moves against the peace process? The withdrawal from Gaza by Sharon seems to suggest otherwise. And lets not forget in 2000 Israel offered a full withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for peace...Syria rejected the offer. Similarly Barak in 2000 offered the Palestinians 92% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, the dismantling of all settlements, a Palestinian state and Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem. Arafat as we know rejected this, chose violence and wouldn't make a counter-offer. Later on in 2000 Israel offered 95% of the West Bank to Arafat - and he again refused making no counter-offer.
Israel is making moves for the peace process and Israel is committed to the Roadmap for Peace. I really think people forget that Israel does want peace. This conflict is detrimental to Israel; too many Israeli civilians and soldiers have died, Israelis are tired of conflict and want to be safe again. Looking at it even purely economically without conflict Israel’s tourist industry and economy would be doing a lot better. I don’t doubt the fact that many Palestinians too want peace but sadly there’s still some who won’t be happy until they drive the Jews into the sea.
Please quit mentioning the "generous" Barak offer of 2000. How many times do I have to post the link explaining what the offer really meant? Do you think retaining a number of settlements, together with access roads and 'controlled blocs' that left Palestine as a shambles of broken, unconnected land islands is a good deal? Please...
The answer is very, very, very simple, and until it is achieved there will never be peace: full and complete withdrawal from the totality of Gaza and the West Bank.
Is it so damn difficult to comprehend?
As for other peace moves, you seem to anchored in the past. Less than two years ago practically all nations in the Arab League, including old enemies of Israel such as Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc., put forward a motion in which they would sign permanent peace deals and officially recognise the state of Israel in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights, Occupied Palestine and the so-called "buffer zones" Israel has also nicked along border lines.
Guess what the Israeli answer was. :rolleyes:
Its a simple case of not allowing oneself to absorb the truth that is presented in concrete factual terms, because to do so would force a serious self examination of the reality behind the indoctrination. To see the similitude of colonialist exceptionalism that runs through the evils perpetrated by all historic nationalist belief structures is to see how one has has come to advocate the same evils upon others (and the self justifications for it) to which one's own group was once subjected by others.
Palestinians resident in Israel and even Arab Jews face very real and very deeply rooted institutionalised discrimination and are not afforded the same preferential rights as their Western immigrated Jewish counterparts. That fact has been shown repeatedly in past threads here, yet true to form Dis and Jacq and co gloss right over it and go back (as we see with continued reference to the Barak peace deal lie) to regurgitating the same set of official PR mantras.
It is this ideological self deception that stands in the way in any possible atonement by Israel for the evils it has committed - and continues to commit daily -toward the indigenous people and thus prevents the achievement of any reconciliation and peaceful pluralistic cohabitation.
Oh me, oh my......
SURVEY: MOST ISRAELI JEWS WANT ARABS OUT
:eek2:
Well Arab Israelis can vote and they have their own parties represented in the Knesset. The Arab population in Israel has also vastly increased since 1948 and that’s not just because of high birth rates – many Arabs choose to live in Israel. I’d guess it’s because Arabs in Israel have many freedoms which simply don’t exist elsewhere in the Middle East – freedom of speech, the right to vote, equal rights for women and gays.
The Barak peace deal lie? Keep telling yourself that. Arafat turning down that offer was a huge mistake and I don't think another PM will ever match Barak's offer. It’s convenient for you to call it a lie but it was the best chance of everlasting peace and Israel was clearly prepared to make a massive concession in order to achieve peace. But as we all know Arafat chose violence.
Many people vote even in dictatorships without any significant advantage in social justice or equality within society. Voting proves nothing if the voice they receive is kept at a minority and easily disregarded.
An examination of Israel's discriminatory land laws shows the fact of the two tiered inequality of Israeli society quite poignantly Dis.
As for Barak, I suggest you go and review the information repeatedly provided for you. What you accept as some generous offer on the surface was a PR charade betrayed in off-camera backroom connivances by Barak intended to make the deal wholly unacceptable to the Palestinians precisely so blame could be then shunted onto Arafat and the status quo of hardline zionist control and land expansion maintained.
This same practice has been the stock in trade for all publically hailed peace negotiations for decades, well before you were born. If there was any generosity it was made by Arafat and the Palestinians in accepting far less land than they had at any other time in the past, but even 22% was too much for Barak and co to permit.
If you can only hearken back to your factually loose, yellow journalsm sources rather than documented facts as they have been duly provided for your benefit, then its obvious that you have no wish to believe anything other than spin and PR. This highlights precisely the intransigence of the Israeli power elite that makes any peace impossible (and for them and their agenda clearly undesired) regardless of the continued cost to both sides.
do you think israel is right to build settlements that are in their very nature unsustainable as theyve forcibly displaced people in most cases, not bought it by consent like they should do legally thus leaving lots of pissed palestinians with not much to do and something to fight for since theyve been forced out
Have a feeling that I should take that as a compliment, regardless of how it was meant
But let’s talk honesty shall we?
You consistently argue that the international community has no right to intervene in national issue, which occur inside a nations borders. This is the basis for your position on genocide. Or am I mistaken.
Of course, it does appear that you have considerable interest in international input into the jewish state. One which is recognised by the UN (and it’s you who argues their legitimacy on international law) and interesting you do not condemn the acts of aggression by neighbouring states since.
Of course, you claim that this is because of your anti-Zionist stance and has nothing to do with anti-semitism.
Ah, the latest buzz phrase around these parts. You are a true civil servant
No repeat necessary.
But again I need to ask if all of the muslims included within the census were from that area, or if someone had migrated due to the religious significance of the area?
They are, of course, also not the ones facing extermination in the 30s.
What you missed, and still miss, is that I wasn’t seeking to get involved in that argument. I was asking for current census details to see if anything significant had changed. Comparisons would be interesting, nothing more.
My argument is that there is no basis for international law. There is no court, there is no means of enforcement. In effect it does not exist.
My view on genocide is that we should never sit back and just watch.
You do not need international law to tell you that slaughtering million is a “bad thing”. Personally, I don’t need international law for me to want my country to help protect another human being.
Possibly shameful, possibly realistic. Remind me, what was Nuremburg actually about? Was it about “justice” or was it politically motivated?
Talking of shameful, is it shameful to watch a million people be killed by their own Govt simply because “international law” doesn’t allow intervention unless a UN commission uses the expression in an official document?
If they can. Always useful to leave that bit out isn’t it? Please explain how a people are supposed to rise against an oppressor able to willing to use force.
In fact, please explain why the Palestinians shouldn't do just that. Without help from outside the borders.
So, if that is the case, why are you so preoccupied with Israel? You are a US citizen, living in Brussels and working for the EU. I see no direct Sharon/IDF connection there.
We did? We weren’t fighting to maintain a level of superiority?
Obviously not. As Rwanda et al shows.
Still those people didn’t die for nothing. They died to maintain international law.
Jewish settlements have existed in the West Bank for centuries. Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria – the West Bank since ancient times. And seeing as some settlements were in fact encouraged and built with permission during the League of Nations mandate I think the issue of settlements is a little more complex than Israel’s critics make it out to be.
Settlements have not displaced anyone. Almost all settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and the few which are near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave. Israel’s critics make it out as if most settlements are near/in Arab towns – over ¾ of settlers live in areas which are in effect suburbs of Israeli cities like Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. And these are areas which the US and even the UN to a degree have recognised that Israel will retain in future secure borders.
Saying that I do oppose the small minority of Israeli settlements in Arab towns and I hope Israel will be able to dismantle these settlements as part of a future peace agreement.
i know jewish people have settled there for centuries, im on about the new settlements, and are you sure bulldozing of palestinian areas forcing refugee camps to form is not part of this
im trying to be pragmatic you know here - even if i do dispice sharon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3526791.stm
from this link it says that basically building in actual israel has grinded to a halt, surely instead of causing more tension theyd stop building settlements etc
i dont liek the idea of keeping the 2 groups seperate since it jsut cause more xenophobia, israel should have been a secular state, and one with the david star is definetly not secular, and the regions given more autonomy
Pure and absolute fantasy............
Remind us what settlements there were bin the West Bank or Gaza before 1967 please. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one - it is possibly the only true statement in the whole post.
:eek2:
Is your source israelactivism?
I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of that as it goes.
I certainly dispute your nonsense about settlements being built on uninhabited land, without displacing people.
This Israeli account of the settlement process gives a far more accurate picture of what really happens.......
No, that is not my source...My source for what anyway? The fact that Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria – the West Bank since ancient times? Do you dispute that?
Thanks for the link anyway.
The origin of the Star of David is cultural. Yet it only proves to show, how you can't seperate the terms of people and religion in Judaism.
Regarding the settlement, they are usually shitholes which I wouldn't touch with a polestick, in what seems to be the middle of nowhere - don't really know what kind of image you have of them.
cultural symbol pah
a jewish person is jewish whether they a convert or born 1 and stay 1 ableit a cultural jewish person unless converts are worth less than a apparant ethnic jewish - is that right?
i can do the trying to lower the argument by lowering the argumentor, and its bloody annoying :banghead:
Sorry - But I didn't understand any of that.
If the settlements are "shitholes" why won't israel clear out?
They are in the process of clearing out in Gaza.
Either way from the governments point of view, they are in most cases strategically placed. The settlers find a religious/historical/cultural/biblical value in the areas of Judea and Samaria.
You have to ask yourself, what caused Israel to get hold of those areas in the first place? And if we're technical, the "someone elses land" is other countries like Jordan and Egypt, who haven't been interested in getting their land back - most probably because of the people which inhabitates it.
How is it relevant to today's conflict anyway?
The Romans and their descendants have lived in Britannia for more than two millennia now. There are plenty of examples of Roman architecture, archaeology, culture and heritage to be found on these islands.
So do you think the modern-day Italians have a valid claim to Great Britain today?