Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Israel - Palestine History

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    No relevance? The PLO was created on the basis that is wanted to see the destruction Israel. If the roles were reversed do you think the Palestinians would offer Israelis self determination?

    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/08/world/arafat-says-plo-accepted-israel.html

    You seem to be avoiding the questions put to you.

    "if the roles were reversed" is about as useful as "if hitler won the war" or "if Stalin had conqured western Europe" outside the premise for a video game.


  • Options
    #33
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »

    You seem to be avoiding the questions put to you.

    "if the roles were reversed" is about as useful as "if hitler won the war" or "if Stalin had conqured western Europe" outside the premise for a video game.

    The PLO was considered a terrorist organisation. In their original charter they wanted a Palestinian state in all of previous British Mandate meaning an Israel state couldn't exist. The question I asked is valid, think about what if the roles were reversed. It's nothing like "What if Hitler won the war".


  • Options
    #34
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.
    ........

    well, that clears that up I don't know what those Palestinian boys are on about I think we can all agree that it must be another case of antisemitism.


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    The PLO was considered a terrorist organisation.
    ".
    So was the IRA, PIRA, ANC, Irgun, etc. Irrelevant.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    In their original charter they wanted a Palestinian state in all of previous British Mandate meaning an Israel state couldn't exist. ".

    That charter is defunct, as shown above, so again, irrelevant.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    The question I asked is valid, think about what if the roles were reversed. It's nothing like "What if Hitler won the war".


    Speculation about alternative history is not conducive to healthy political discussion. Now

    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?


  • Options
    #36
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    So was the IRA, PIRA, ANC, Irgun, etc. Irrelevant.


    That charter is defunct, as shown above, so again, irrelevant.



    Speculation about alternative history is not conducive to healthy political discussion. Now

    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?

    Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan

    they have no right to force people from their land, hand it over to jewish settlers and then demand to be accepted as members of the civilised world. If you take over land from another country the original denizens of that land have rights. Don't they?


  • Options
    #38
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    sheesh wrote: »
    they have no right to force people from their land, hand it over to jewish settlers and then demand to be accepted as members of the civilised world. If you take over land from another country the original denizens of that land have rights. Don't they?

    We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs, we can't condone how either side has treated each other.


  • Options
    #39
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    iMrApex wrote: »
    We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs, we can't condone how either side has treated each other.

    the Arabs administration are not a particularly nice group of people but neither are the israeli government talk about being separated for over 2 thousand years and still cut from the same cloth!

    the cynical stealing of land is going to get peoples backs up and without recourse to some sort of binding arbitration where the Original owners get their land back with compensation this conflict will continue.

    the problem for israel is this, as i see it, All it takes is a technological change for them to be landed in trouble. at the moment they have the upper hand, this will change, I do not see the state of israel surviving the next 200 years if the current situation continues. they cannot kill all the Arabs. they are already at the very limits of what they can get away with and still be regarded as a western country.


  • Options
    #40
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Israelis are free to build what they please on land which they obtained from aggressors, those being Egypt and Jordan

    No, they are not. That's why you have the security council resolution mentioned earlier.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    We can't condone how Israel is treating Arabs,............

    Palestinians, and that's what you seem to be doing.

    Again -
    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?     Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.


  • Options
    #41
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, they are not. That's why you have the security council resolution mentioned earlier.


    Palestinians, and that's what you seem to be doing.

    Again -
    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?     Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

    Neither Arabs of Israelis appear to care about that resolution considering they've had three wars. Arabs in the British Mandate would have been content with winning the civil war and having all the land, Jordan was content on keeping the land they had gained, Egypt was, Israel was, etc.

    I have already said Israel is free to build what they wish in their land, likewise Jordan was free to build what they wanted in the West Bank and Egypt was free to build what they want in Gaza before Israel removed them in the Six Day war.

    Ethnic cleansing? The Israelis aren't rounding up Arabs and forcing them to leave, sending them to concentration camps, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    iMrApex wrote: »
    I'm starting to get a sense of anti-Semitism from you.

    That's the dirtiest little trick in the book, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It's the blood libel in reverse.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Do you not understand that two sides had wars? Two being started by the Arab coalition and one being started by Israel. Israel came out on top, it could have been the other way around and I would defend the Arab coalition in that case like I am defending Israel now. Let's say Arabs in the British Mandate were victorious. They prevented the creation of Israel and created Palestine. I would defend them. Have another read of my first post.

    Your whole contribution here is the classic apologia for old style imperialism. Might is right. It's ok to bully defenceless people out of their land. Ah yes, " if the shoe were on the other foot we would accept it. " Some chance!


  • Options
    #43
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Neither Arabs of Israelis appear to care about that resolution considering they've had three wars. .


    What three wars? Why mention them in relation to the resolution?
    iMrApex wrote: »
    ...........have already said Israel is free to build what they wish in their land,
    .

    It is not Israeli land, as pointed out earlier. It is outside Israels borders.
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Ethnic cleansing? The Israelis aren't rounding up Arabs and forcing them to leave, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

    More vague waffle that doesn't answer the question asked. You are the one whose statement seems to support ethnic cleansing.

    To repeat -

    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?     Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.


  • Options
    #44
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    feargale wrote: »
    That's the dirtiest little trick in the book, equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It's the blood libel in reverse.

    Your whole contribution here is the classic apologia for old style imperialism. Might is right. It's ok to bully defenceless people out of their land. Ah yes, " if the shoe were on the other foot we would accept it. " Some chance!

    As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.


  • Options
    #45
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    What three wars? Why mention them in relation to the resolution?

    Before posting you should read all posts within a thread. The 1948 war, the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War.


  • Options
    #46
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    iMrApex wrote: »
    As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.

    Might is right. Yes?


  • Options
    #47
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    As I've said before, I can't simplify this any more. Both sides refused to accept the UN resolution and since then there has been three wars. The first we can say was both parties, the second was the Arab states and the third was Israel. Israel has been victorious in the three, they have every right to that land.

    You seem to be confused about resolutions.


    There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?


  • Options
    #48
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    You seem to be confused about resolutions.


    There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

    You seem to be the one who is confused. Resolution 181(II), the partition of the British Mandate territory. Neither side accepted it resulting in Wars. Did you read my original thread explaining the history?


  • Options
    #49
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Before posting you should read all posts within a thread.


    As you keep posting irrelevant material, its hard to see what point you're at.

    The fact is that the colonies in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, the Golan are illegal. Israel has no right to the territory, and that UN resolution 242 cites the fact that territorial expansion by military means is illegal.


  • Options
    #50
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    You seem to be the one who is confused. Resolution 181(II), the partition of the British Mandate territory. Neither side accepted it results in wars.


    Again, more irrelevant nonsense. We are talking about the present day and the building of colonies and the matters pertaining to that.

    Again -

    There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?     Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.


  • Options
    #51
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    Again, more irrelevant nonsense. We are talking about the present day and the building of colonies and the matters pertaining to that.

    Again -

    There is no such thing as 'right of conquest' in law. It does not exist. Why do you keep repeating this false notion?

    It's been relatively peaceful in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem for the last decade. Yet the building goes on. Why is that, if the obstacle to "peace" is the Palestinians? Why is there settlement building in the first place, if the concern is solely security?

    How can your earlier post be read as anything other than support for colonialism and ethnic cleansing?     Please be specific in your answer, as this 'evasion by sweeping statement' is getting a bit much, tbh.

    According to you the past is irrelevant nonsense, in that case isn't resolution 242 irrelevant? Israel can build what they wish where they wish in land which they have annexed from Jordan and Egypt. Please read the original post explaining the history of the situation again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    According to you the past is irrelevant nonsense, in that case isn't resolution 242 irrelevant? Israel can build what they wish where they wish in land which they have annexed from Jordan and Egypt. Please read the original post explaining the history of the situation again.


    Your original post was a potted history ignoring Israeli expansionism since 1967.

    It has never been revoked, there is still no right of conquest in law, therefore its entirely relevant.


    Israel has not annexed the West Bank, though all building is still illegal one way or the other.


  • Options
    #53
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    Your original post was a potted history ignoring Israeli expansionism since 1967.

    It has never been revoked, there is still no right of conquest in law, therefore its entirely relevant.


    Israel has not annexed the West Bank, though all building is still illegal one way or the other.

    Ignoring Israeli expansionism? Read it again. I clearly state how Israel launched an attack against the Arab states in the Six Day War.


  • Options
    #54
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Ignoring Israeli expansionism? Read it again. I clearly state how Israel launched an attack against the Arab states in the Six Day War.


    Israeli expansionism = building colonies in the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, the Golan and wherever.


  • Options
    #55
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    Israeli expansionism = building colonies in the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, the Golan and wherever.

    You have to understand that this is land taken from countries that have attacked Israel. They've effectively annexed these lands from countries which attacked them in 1948. Golan Heights from Syria, West Bank from Jordan, etc.


  • Options
    #56
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    You have to understand that this is land taken from countries that have attacked Israel. They've effectively annexed these lands from countries which attacked them in 1948. Golan Heights from Syria, West Bank from Jordan, etc.


    You're using loose language. Israel has, in its own legal system, annexed Arab East Jerusalem and the Golan. These annexations are null and void, with no international recognition - not even by the US. Israel has not annexed the West Bank.

    The fact that these areas belonged to other states engaged in a war at some stage or other is irrelevant. There is no such thing as right of conquest.


  • Options
    #57
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    According to you the past is irrelevant nonsense, in that case isn't resolution 242 irrelevant? Israel can build what they wish where they wish in land which they have annexed from Jordan and Egypt. Please read the original post explaining the history of the situation again.

    How do you figure peace is possible when you continue to kick Palestinians off their land and steal it? A lot of Israelis will say they don't agree with that thing yet they don't appear to be doing much to halt it (secret tacit agreement?,maybe) so why do you keep stealing their stuff and oppressing them. and why are you surprised and angry when they resist even if I disagree with their method of resistance - targeting civilians is not on and what they do isn't hitting the people they need to I.e Israeli military .either Israelis are phucking thick or lots of them actually agree with theft and oppression but just won't openly admit as much. Keep treating people like animals and they will bite back. Is that really so hard to understand.


  • Options
    #58
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    You're using loose language. Israel has, in its own legal system, annexed Arab East Jerusalem and the Golan. These annexations are null and void, with no international recognition - not even by the US. Israel has not annexed the West Bank.

    The fact that these areas belonged to other states engaged in a war at some stage or other is irrelevant. There is no such thing as right of conquest.

    Palestine never existed. It was the British Mandate prior to 1948. There was a civil war and then the Arab countries intervened, the Jewish population "won" and Israel was formed. Israel did not have all of the British Mandate territory. Jordan annexed the West Bank, any person living there was now a citizen of Jordan. They had American and British support. Gaza belonged to Egypt. In 1967, the Six Day War resulted in Israel removing Egypt and Jordan from prior British Mandate land.

    It's double standards, why can Jordan annex the West Bank?


  • Options
    #59
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Palestine never existed. It was the British Mandate prior to 1948. There was a civil war and then the Arab countries intervened, the Jewish population "won" and Israel was formed. Israel did not have all of the British Mandate territory. Jordan annexed the West Bank, any person living there was now a citizen of Jordan. They had American and British support. Gaza belonged to Egypt. In 1967, the Six Day War resulted in Israel removing Egypt and Jordan from prior British Mandate land.

    It's double standards, why can Jordan annex the West Bank?

    America never existed, the vast majority of states in Africa didn't exist. There is a Palestinian people however.


    According to your simplistic analysis its "double standards". Jordan has since ceded all negotiating rights to the West Bank to the Palestinian population, so I am confused as to why you're using the present tense there.


  • Options
    #60
    iMrApex
    Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭iMrApex


    Nodin wrote: »
    America never existed, the vast majority of states in Africa didn't exist. There is a Palestinian people however.


    According to your simplistic analysis its "double standards". Jordan has since ceded all negotiating rights to the West Bank to the Palestinian population, so I am confused as to why you're using the present tense there.

    I'll rephrase the question. Why, with the support of the international community, was Jordan allowed to annex the West Bank?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    iMrApex wrote: »
    Palestine never existed. It was the British Mandate prior to 1948. There was a civil war and then the Arab countries intervened, the Jewish population "won" and Israel was formed. Israel did not have all of the British Mandate territory. Jordan annexed the West Bank, any person living there was now a citizen of Jordan. They had American and British support. Gaza belonged to Egypt. In 1967, the Six Day War resulted in Israel removing Egypt and Jordan from prior British Mandate land.

    It's double standards, why can Jordan annex the West Bank?
    iMrApex wrote: »
    Palestine never existed. It was the British Mandate prior to 1948. There was a civil war and then the Arab countries intervened, the Jewish population "won" and Israel was formed. Israel did not have all of the British Mandate territory. Jordan annexed the West Bank, any person living there was now a citizen of Jordan. They had American and British support. Gaza belonged to Egypt. In 1967, the Six Day War resulted in Israel removing Egypt and Jordan from prior British Mandate land.

    It's double standards, why can Jordan annex the West Bank?

    That's all well and good you seem to have all the answers. So why do Israelis keep stealing Palestinian land and oppressing them? why has Gaza been turned into an open air prison camp it's such an easy target they have no army to protect them and no way out . I've just been looking at some pictures in hindsight I wish I didn't but I did, of Palestinian kids laying on hospital beds with half their heads blown off harrowing stuff. What did they ever do on Israel. Fighter jets against a defenceless people is cowardice in the extreme the same way lobbing missiles indiscriminately at civilians is. back to my original question why do Israelis keep stealing their land? and think this is an ok civilised way for a so called democratic country to behave?


Advertisement