Israel Rejects Peace

[AnyOldIron]

I said the scenarios were different because of that.

But you still haven't answered my point.

Why would it be different for a tribal society than a nation state?

Why would it be considered less of a crime for a state to be imposed on a tribal society than a modern nation state?

 

[Damocles]

I said the scenarios were different because of that.

But you still haven't answered my point.

Why would it be different for a tribal society than a nation state?

Why would it be considered less of a crime for a state to be imposed on a tribal society than a modern nation state?

It was different because of the mores of the time. As I stated. First, saying that you moving in then attempting to take over the US government with terrorism isn't the same as the Israelis being granted a State because people felt guilty because of the holocaust and the fact that they were promised one when asked to help in the war by some nation that was controlling that area at the time.

It isn't the same as "manifest destiny" or any of your other scenarios because it is simply different. I stated it was different, I'll stand by it. Your silly scenarios don't fit because they simply aren't the "same" as you tried to put them forward.

Israel wasn't just granted statehood because of their terrorism, they were promised the exact same land as the Palestinians by the nation that controlled their territory for the same reason. They were promised that Land and forgiveness for past transgressions... The same thing the Palis were promised.

Pretending that it was only their terrorism that granted them that State is simply ignoring the third party in that particular scenario.

 

[AnyOldIron]

First, saying that you moving in then attempting to take over the US government with terrorism isn't the same as the Israelis being granted a State because people felt guilty because of the holocaust and the fact that they were promised one when asked to help in the war by some nation that was controlling that area at the time.

The plan for the state of Israel, and the terrorism, started before WWII, and was suspended whilst the British were fighting the Germans. The Israelis were granted the state because the British didn't have the man-power to fight the terrorism.

And still that doesn't give a people the right to move to another country (which they did since the late C19th) with the intentions of creating a state there, despite the wishes of the local people, and then using terrorism to get their own way.

This is what pisses me off the most, people just turn a blind eye to what really happened BECAUSE of guilt over the Nazis. (Misguided guilt when you consider that those feeling guilty fought the nazis and saved the Jewish religion in Europe).

Because this happened 60 years ago doesn't excuse it, it is very relevant today.

Israel wasn't just granted statehood because of their terrorism, they were promised the exact same land as the Palestinians by the nation that controlled their territory for the same reason.

It was entirely because of the terrorism, before and after WWII. Before the Israeli terrorism kicked off, the plan was for a single state combining the Palestinian locals and Jewish immigrants, not the state of Israel. Israeli terrorists kicked off and the Balfour plan was formed.

It was racism on the part of the British, who saw Europeanised Zionists as more important than Muslim Palestinians, and thus available to have the state imposed on them. They were promised land that didn't belong to those doing the promising.

Saying 'well the Pals were offered a state too' doesn't suffice, it was their land in the first place. They'd welcomed the immigrants, who turned on them because they wanted a return of the State of Israel.

 

[Damocles]

First, saying that you moving in then attempting to take over the US government with terrorism isn't the same as the Israelis being granted a State because people felt guilty because of the holocaust and the fact that they were promised one when asked to help in the war by some nation that was controlling that area at the time.

The plan for the state of Israel, and the terrorism, started before WWII, and was suspended whilst the British were fighting the Germans. The Israelis were granted the state because the British didn't have the man-power to fight the terrorism.

And still that doesn't give a people the right to move to another country (which they did since the late C19th) with the intentions of creating a state there, despite the wishes of the local people, and then using terrorism to get their own way.

This is what pisses me off the most, people just turn a blind eye to what really happened BECAUSE of guilt over the Nazis. (Misguided guilt when you consider that those feeling guilty fought the nazis and saved the Jewish religion in Europe).

Because this happened 60 years ago doesn't excuse it, it is very relevant today.

Israel wasn't just granted statehood because of their terrorism, they were promised the exact same land as the Palestinians by the nation that controlled their territory for the same reason.

It was entirely because of the terrorism, before and after WWII. Before the Israeli terrorism kicked off, the plan was for a single state combining the Palestinian locals and Jewish immigrants, not the state of Israel. Israeli terrorists kicked off and the Balfour plan was formed.

It was racism on the part of the British, who saw Europeanised Zionists as more important than Muslim Palestinians, and thus available to have the state imposed on them. They were promised land that didn't belong to those doing the promising.

Saying 'well the Pals were offered a state too' doesn't suffice, it was their land in the first place. They'd welcomed the immigrants, who turned on them because they wanted a return of the State of Israel.

The Palis hadn't controlled their own territory for centuries. "It was theirs" is simply wordplay. The controlling authority offered the Israelis a deal, then offered the same deal to the Palis. They screwed it up and now pretend like it was all terrorism that got it done. It wasn't and if you were being truthful you would own that.

"It was all because of terrorism" is just plain rubbish. They used the fact that both nations wanted that land to use them both by promising them the same things. Pretending that this is all the same as an invasion when the controlling authority made those promises is oversimplifying the issue to make another nation look better, that of the controlling authority.

 

[AnyOldIron]

The Palis hadn't controlled their own territory for centuries. "It was theirs" is simply wordplay.

Insomuch as they lived there....They might have been occupied by the Ottoman but does that negate anything?

Does that mean that India should still be under the British control?

They screwed it up and now pretend like it was all terrorism that got it done.

You are aware that the Zionists were using terrorism before WWII weren't you?

After WWII Britain didn't have the military capacity nor inclination to deal with this violence, and as the international community offered no support, instead of attempting to get a deal that both peoples liked, they simply gave in to the Israeli demands for an Israeli homeland and so gave half of the Palestinian's land to the Israelis.

You can paint that as, 'The Israelis accepted the offer in good faith', but history denies this.... Simply, the Israelis terrorised their way to statehood.

 

[AnyOldIron]

If the Israelis simply accepted an offer from the British, why all the terrorism?

Was that just for a laugh?

 

[Damocles]

If the Israelis simply accepted an offer from the British, why all the terrorism?

Was that just for a laugh?

The offer was to forgive that terrorism and to grant them a state. They were the controlling authority. Pretending that this doesn't change the entirety of the situation is once again more simplification in order to create a more rosy scenario for that controlling authority.

Saying that the Indians held the control over their nation if the British had made some decision about their land is more of that same thing. That they should or should not be in control of their own territory is a sideline to the actuality.

Just as the Native Americans should have been left to life without intervention... You are again, however, using the mores of today to judge those working on an entirely different group of mores. The Brits believed they were in the right in controlling these territories, they mucked with the locals then attempt to blame it entirely on terrorism? Come on. Own some of your nation's decisions as they most certainly effected that region for decades after those decisions were made.

 

[Damocles]

Also, it was a long-held plan that the Brits were creating a home for the Jews in Israel, it was their stated plan after the League of Nations gave them control of that territory. They even separated the region into two parts and enforced strict guidelines on where each could live. All of this long before they ever had a terrorist attack by the Jews. During that time there were several "riots" and attacks by the Arabs on the Jews.

The whole "the Palestinians graciously accepted them until they started terrorism" is a bunch of bullcrap too... You must be speaking of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement where Arabs at a Paris Peace Conference in 1919 proclaimed "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement..." This of course was an agreement made without ever consulting the Palestinian Arabs.

Haqanah wasn't even created until after a violent 3 day riot against the Jews in Jerusalem's Old City on June 15, 1920.


In 1922, the Churchill White paper clarified the position of the Brits on Palestine... that clarified the position of the Brits on the Balfour Declaration promising a homeland for the Jews in Israel. Notice this is still long before any terrorism on the Jew's part.

In that same year the League of Nations granted the Brits a mandate to administer Palestine, soon after the British express interest in Zionism and describe their main goal was to make an Jewish national home...

Pretending that the Jews were the aggressors in Terrorism ignores the 1929 Hebron massacre, as well as the activities of the Black Hand Islamist group led by Shaych Izz ad-Din al-Qassam against Jewish civilians and the Brits....

Then the Brits announced a limit to Jewish immigration in the region in 1930.

Then there came the time when the Jews began to answer...

In 1936 to 1939 there was an Arab revolt in Palestine, the general strike quickly deteriorated into a violent rebellion that lasted those three years. The mainstream group of Jewish Defense, the Haganah, maintained a policy of restriant but the smaller Irgun group adopted a policy of retaliation and revenge... (introduce Israeli terrorism, it was against the Arabs here)

Shall I go on? The Brits involvement in the region makes a ton of difference in what was done by what side. Pretending it was all the Jews is just simplification in the hope we can ignore what was done by the Controlling authority...

Here is a nice timeline..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline