Israel and Palestine Again: Are we all hopeless and have given up?

12357

Comments

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 26
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?

    Maybe I'm missing something, but the options seem to be either a 1-state solution or a 2-state solution.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?

    That's what makes it so difficult.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 26
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    No. I "side" with victims of oppression. In the Middle East at the moment that's the Palestinian people. I have already said on this thread I do not support Hamas' actions.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic. Unfortunately every time there is an almost-agreement for a 2 state solution, there is a backing away because, mostly in my understanding the Palestinian-Arab groups hold out for more, deciding it is a bad deal and they cannot live with it. Then the right wing Israelis get wind in their sails and take over more land. I think that if it were possible, 1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 27
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    If anyone wants to hear from someone on the ground who understands and wants to move things forward, perhaps take time out to watch the Amos Trust video of a conversation with Sami Awad on 18th May.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Do you have a link for that?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited May 27
    Vox has an interesting article on "The Incomplete Education of American Jews." I would say it also applies to most Americans.

    Note to Telford. Palestine is recognized by over 150 different countries as a nation unto itself. (See https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-palestine) It also has observer status at the United Nations and has been allowed to present its case to the Security Council several times. It has a government as well. It was able to negotiate the Oslo Accords as a nation-state.

    So I stand by what I said. Go tell the Palestinians they aren't a country and Israel is not trying to eliminate them.

    BTW, you should thank your stars that I did not reply immediately after your comment, otherwise I would have made Hell look like a cakewalk for you.
  • Palestine is indeed a nation I think, some of the nation lives in the Israeli occupied territories, quite a few in Jordan, Lebanon, and in other countries. Not all nations are countries, hence First Nations (indigenous people in Canada), and Québec which is a nation not a country within Canada.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @Gramps49 your first ‘link’ has no URL - so it doesn’t go anywhere.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Palestine is indeed a nation I think, some of the nation lives in the Israeli occupied territories, quite a few in Jordan, Lebanon, and in other countries. Not all nations are countries, hence First Nations (indigenous people in Canada), and Québec which is a nation not a country within Canada.

    Good point, however, I specifically said Palestine is a "nation-state." That is a people with a recognized boundary, which is again recognized by over 150 other countries (or nation-states).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    @Gramps49 your first ‘link’ has no URL - so it doesn’t go anywhere.

    The link should have been https://www.vox.com/22455044/american-jewish-education-israel-palestine
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?

    @Martin54 you may feel provoked, but please take personal attacks like this to Hell. This thread is hot enough already without that.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited May 27
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
    You do know what righteousness is right?

    I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left

    Please explain how I am unrighteousness

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    I don't think Israel is going anywhere. I think further settlement in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank should stop because it is going to make the end state worse, and not better.

    I think Israel has made a two state solution impossible, and the next few decades are going to be about the working out of that situation.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    No that straw man is your idea.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
    You do know what righteousness is right?

    I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left

    Please explain how I am unrighteousness

    Since I have ruled that what Martin54 said amounted to a personal attack, he is not at Liberty to pursue it further in Purgatory, and, frankly, I take a dim view of you inviting him to.

    Interpersonal disputes belong in Hell, not in Purgatory.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness? You do know what righteousness is right?

    @Martin54 you may feel provoked, but please take personal attacks like this to Hell. This thread is hot enough already without that.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host

    I beg your pardon. I only just saw this.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial.

    A different tune from your previous reply claiming it was compensation:

    " 1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ???? "

    The flip side of your reasoning is that if the Arab countries - at some future date - manage to destroy Israel, then that would also be fine.

    No it wouldn't. Israel hasn't attempted to destroy any other country.

    Tell that to the Palestinians.

    What country would I be telling them about ?

    Oh God no, not the "Palestine never existed" argument...

    Palestine is an area, not a country.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    No he doesn't. Your moral compass is fucked. Been there. Completely fucked.

    and your use of bad language is totally unnecessary.
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    @Kwesi - To list some of the UN resolutions (link to Wikipedia list), the UN has been asking for Israel to respect the pre-1967 borders since 1967 (Resolution 3414), to allow Palestinian refugees to return home (Resolution 194), to treat those in the occupied territories respecting their human rights (Resolutions 2546 in 1969 and 3092 from 1973), and so on. Several of the resolutions that exist have been repeated several times.

    If the UN is getting nowhere, what do you suggest?

    This begs the question. The acceptance of the right of Israel to exist to start. Then the acceptance of a 2 state solution. These have sort of, almost been accepted, and then not, and then almost again, the not, etc.

    Israel had no right to exist to start, before it did. Now it exists it does. From an enlightened international perspective. Which we'd be stupid to expect of other less disinterested parties. Until we can guarantee there won't be another Holocaust, take responsibility for facilitating Zionism, for the Balfour Declaration, for Resolution 181 in 1947, for 1948, we have nothing to propose.

    There was a Jesish state untill the Romans took over. It was then in the Byzantine empire untill the rise of Islam. Isam allowed the Jews to live in Palestine but treated them as second class citizens for about `1,400 years. Israel does have a right to exist.

    Islam isn't a monolithic block, and the local residents of Palestine weren't in charge of the Ottoman Empire or it's predecessors. Dispossessing a bunch of Muslims for what another bunch of Muslims in a different time did doesn't sound much like justice.

    And the Palestinians aren't all Muslims anyway.

    Obtaining land by conquest has been going on since time immemorial. In 1967, Israel was at war with a number of hostile muslim countries which wanted to totally destroy them. Some of them still do.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    If you think they were treated badly in Muslim Spain or Turkey or Iraq or Palestine or Morocco how does that compare with Christian England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Spain?
    Some countries allowed them to exist. Some didn't
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    1,400 years of compensation for being treated so badly ????

    You really do hate the Palestinians don't you?

    During the Nakba they were massacred and forced out of their homes. Are you claiming you're cool with that?

    No to both questions.

    You appear to hate the Jews don't you.

    I've not claimed that mistreatment of Jews is some kind of compensation as you have regarding the Palestinians.

    You and others always appear to side with the Muslim terrorists. The answer to my question is that I do not think you hate Jews.

    Bless. My 'bad language' is more important, more unnecessary in fact, than your amorality? Than your complete lack of righteousness?

    It's pathetic when one can't make one's point without using foul language, written or spoken

    It's even more fucking pathetic when one is fucking blind to one's fucking amorality, to one's fucking pathetic fucking unrighteousness.

    And that has been me on this very subject, worse than you. Yeah. Fucking pathetic. And I was similarly distorted in that I pathologically righteously never fucking swore at the same time either.

    But there is hope if you're not too old.

    I refer you to my previous comment.

    What, that my verbal obscenity is worse than the obscenity of your unrighteousness?
    You do know what righteousness is right?

    I did not know that righteousness had a direction. It's neither right or left

    Please explain how I am unrighteousness

    Since I have ruled that what Martin54 said amounted to a personal attack, he is not at Liberty to pursue it further in Purgatory, and, frankly, I take a dim view of you inviting him to.

    Interpersonal disputes belong in Hell, not in Purgatory.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host

    I totally agree.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Why do discussions on this issue always avoid the central question: What to do?

    Maybe I'm missing something, but the options seem to be either a 1-state solution or a 2-state solution.
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    If there is no right to dispossess people then presumably any solution that you propose will be careful to ensure that nobody is dispossessed from the land they now occupy ?

    As long as they have legitimate title to the land through having purchased it. If they dispossessed the landowners in any way, then of course it must be returned with all development intact. It's literally stolen property.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    No that straw man is your idea.

    But it's not. To be fair, Hamas goes back and forth, but mostly against Israel's right to exist. This is from 2 ago. Senior Hamas Leader Says on British TV: Israel Has No Right to Exist. Probably when people say things in formal contexts we should take them seriously.

    So you're wrong to attribute a straw man to me.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited May 28
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    No that straw man is your idea.

    But it's not. To be fair, Hamas goes back and forth, but mostly against Israel's right to exist. This is from 2 ago. Senior Hamas Leader Says on British TV: Israel Has No Right to Exist. Probably when people say things in formal contexts we should take them seriously.

    So you're wrong to attribute a straw man to me.

    and as long as Israel keep hearing words like that, there cannot be a solution.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 28
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    No that straw man is your idea.

    But it's not. To be fair, Hamas goes back and forth, but mostly against Israel's right to exist. This is from 2 ago. Senior Hamas Leader Says on British TV: Israel Has No Right to Exist. Probably when people say things in formal contexts we should take them seriously.

    Okay, let's see what people say in formal contexts, first from earlier in that interview:
    "However Dr Zahar said the two-state process had been proved to be a failure because Israel doesn't want it.

    "Practically, practically, that was proved," he said, arguing that the negotiations between Israel and the more moderate Fatah Palestinian faction in the West Bank had failed.

    "It is not my assessment. Go and ask (Palestinian president) Mahmoud Abbas 'are you now saying a two state solution is viable or not?'... He will say no... The Israelis are not going to accept a two-state solution."

    Now lets look at what the current Israeli ambassador to London had to say when she first took up post (from the Jewish Chronicle): https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/incoming-envoy-hotovely-attacked-board-over-two-state-commitment-1.500595
    Ms Hotovely, 41, who has served as Israel’s Minister of Settlement Affairs, added that the establishment of a Palestinian state “contradicts the official policy of the State of Israel in general and the Foreign Ministry in particular.

    “On the contrary, we are doing everything possible to advance the legal status of the settlements – the opposite of the idea of ​​dividing the land.

    What that tells me is that firstly Hotovely doesn't believe in a two state solution and as per your earlier post what Hotovely envisages is running down of the clock to the point where the settlements have been there for long enough that (in your words):
    "right of return" is not a sensible concept. It is about rights, but is can't happen. Advocating it means advocating violence. There's no end to it. Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back."

    Hotovely belongs to the Netanyahu's party. Specifically what message do you think they were sending when they sent her out as diplomat?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Martin54 wrote: »

    South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?

    A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.

    I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 28
    Martin54 wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Where did the right to dispossess the people already there come from?

    That is not a serious question when it already exists as a country. This has nothing to do with rights, it is about the facts. It is a country, and no amount of special pleading will change that.

    Except this process continues to this day in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, doesn't it. So you either accept it as something that needs to be stopped now, or you decide that dispossession isn't a crime you are going to pursue and rectify - ever.
    Oppressed people, refugees, have to accept there is no going back. It is not fair, but it is factual.

    Actually, if you are serious about the security of Israel you wouldn't be so sanguine about opening the door to people endlessly creating 'facts on the ground'.

    But I'm not sanguine about dispossession and creation of facts on the ground: it really sucks to lose your home, your land and your family killed. I only experienced this though my father (who was twice a refugee) , but I can tell you that there's an omnipresent sadness that is inherited. With fantasies of grandparents, cousins, and pictures of a home that doesn't exist. I'm not an apologist for any side in this, just trying to be realistic.

    But nevertheless excusing the dispossession by one side is taking a side isn't it ? In any case if the creation of 'facts on the ground' is allowed in perpetuity then that opens the door to people one day taking 'their land' back, doesn't it ?
    1967 borders would be the answer, which is, AFAIK still the Israeli official position- give up land for peace- notwithstanding the real politik.

    I am not sure what the value of the 'official policy' is when the actual policy of every recent Israeli government has been to increase settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, increase control of the West Bank (up to 60% currently) and assure the public that there won't be a Palestinian State.

    What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority? If I'm said to be taking a side, so are you. Particularly when you wish to focus on one side and not both.

    No that straw man is your idea.

    But it's not. To be fair, Hamas goes back and forth, but mostly against Israel's right to exist. This is from 2 ago. Senior Hamas Leader Says on British TV: Israel Has No Right to Exist. Probably when people say things in formal contexts we should take them seriously.

    So you're wrong to attribute a straw man to me.

    You to @chrisstiles, 'What is your idea then? Jews leave to ?somewhere, return to living in countries, including Palestine where they are a minority?'

    That is your straw man, attributing an idea to them. And it's irrelevant what Hamas say. Absolutely irrelevant. And yes the Jews need to leave all property they dispossessed the owners of, including property within their UN agreed borders. The latter only when the UN absolutely guarantees their security. Which would mean the UN, not Israel, responding to any missile firing from Palestine.
  • You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage. Some pages ago I wrote that all parties have to actually want peace and a settlement to make it happen. There may be straw but it's not mine.
  • However, your analogy of how to agree an amicable divorce was seen as misrepresenting what most see as an abusive relationship. And what the abuser (in this case Israel in the analogy) sees as peace is not what the abused partner (Palestine) will see as peace.

    It's not just peace, it's agreeing what would be an acceptable peace for everyone in the area. Because the situation is so asymmetric it seems likely that an outside body is going to have to force Israel to accept terms they won't agree with. So then Israel won't want peace on those terms.

    So how does that work?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Kwesi:. What to do?

    Martin49: Maintain the status quo. Nothing else can or will be done.

    It may well be that the Israel-Palestine conflict is intractable for the foreseeable future, but the geo-political context in which it operates will not remain for ever, though I have no idea how the cookie will crumble. One suspects, however, that there are not a few interested parties on either side believing that to continue on the present anomic course is likely to result in a calamity for all concerned.

    My question: What to do? is to invite us to put ourselves in the shoes of Biden: What is my policy goal? How do I get there? What series of decisions do I have to make starting tomorrow? Who do I have to get on side? How do I achieve that?

    IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights. The residency rights of Israelis living within the 1947 borders should be recognised and the rights of settlers in the occupied territories the subject of negotiation. Any settlement should also include agreement on compensation to dispossessed Palestinians where property cannot be/ is not to be returned following the negotiation. 'There would be no 'right of return' for Jews and exiled Palestinians. The state should be secular, privileging neither Jews nor Muslims. It might be advisable to have elements of Pillarisation in the provision of services, such as education and health, to accommodate the cultural needs of ethnic communities, however identified, with funding proportionate to numbers. In foreign policy it should be non-aligned and have its neutrality guaranteed by the United States, Russia and the EU.

    A major player in any process will have to be the United States giving strong support to those on either side seeking accommodation, which means indicating to the Israelis that commitment to its security is less than unconditional. For an American administration, especially a Democratic one, that could prove highly problematic.

    I have tried as far as possible to recognise that the problem is structural rather than moral and a matter of praise and blame, but to try and think how a solution might be constructed that recognises opposing interests. It also supposes that the parties are seriously desirous of a peaceful settlement, which I recognise is possibly a fatal flaw in any proposal at the present time. I'm just glad I don't live there.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?

    A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.

    I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

    To be fair, Martin54 was replying to a comment I made.

    In context, he had said Israel would not change its ways as long as the US supports it.

    I replied that the US supported South Africa until it did not, only as an example that US support of any country is not always guaranteed.

    Then Martin54 made the comment above.

    I did not take his reply as a tangent. Don't make it one yourself, Barnabas.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Since @Barnabas62 is posting in his capacity as a Purgatory Host, @Gramps49, any question about the propriety of his post belongs in Styx.

    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited May 28
    You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage.

    The Sky News link you posted contains this before the interview:

    "In 2017 a revised charter essentially called for a two-state solution along the 1967 borders and it claimed that its conflict was no longer with Jews but with Zionism."

    ISTM that if you have decided that Hamas is inconsistent based on what the 'senior member of Hamas' says in the interview, then you should also concede that Israel is being inconsistent based on what their Ambassador to London is saying in the bits I quote (at the very least, as I can't find a record of the current government supporting a two state solution).
  • edited May 28
    However, your analogy of how to agree an amicable divorce was seen as misrepresenting what most see as an abusive relationship. And what the abuser (in this case Israel in the analogy) sees as peace is not what the abused partner (Palestine) will see as peace.

    It's not just peace, it's agreeing what would be an acceptable peace for everyone in the area. Because the situation is so asymmetric it seems likely that an outside body is going to have to force Israel to accept terms they won't agree with. So then Israel won't want peace on those terms.

    So how does that work?

    Also I noted that the analogy breaks down. The surrounding nations were surprised in 1948, 1967, 1973 that they didn't win. It flipped from expectations.

    Again, no outside agency or nation can make them find peace, sort out land for peace. Opportunities keep getting missed.

    I think what happens is that the parties' leaders get to agreement, and everyone looks so optimistic, then they leave (e.g
    Oslo ~2000 or somewhere else), and those who they lead threaten them when they return. So they repudiate.

    To my mind, it's very much like current conservative gov'ts in various places coddling right wing fringe people, whether "both sides", anti-maskers, nationalists. Radicals frequently influence more than expected. The leadership is defective everywhere. I've seen several media things with average people from opposite sides finding common ground. Other than temporary good feelings, it doesn't go. It does show everyone's humanity.

    I understand it's difficult to maintain a middle view and not take sides. But this requires that. It doesn't matter if it outrages emotions, sense of justice or fairness, immediate outrage over people killed.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    IMO the aim should be to establish a one state solution where Israelis, Palestinians, and any others living in the territory enjoy a common citizenship, based on individual not group rights.

    This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »

    South Africa was a Cold War pawn and even then it and its cannibal Zairean allies were constrained by the US in Angola. What will lack of full US support for Israel look like in the next disproportionate response to Hamas? Or in the piecemeal annexation of the West Bank?

    A tangent, Martin. And I don’t want to derail the thread.

    I suspect “cannibal” is a metaphor but on the face of it, it’s a racist slur re Zaire. Feel free to explain if you like but be more careful,

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host

    Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.
  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    Returning to the original thread title: yes, I am hopeless and yes I have given up. I do not see a likely and positive resolution any time soon.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    KarlLB: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.

    You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    You're still wrong. I wrote that Hamas is inconsistent. I wrote that there's official Israel policy and that their right wing takes advantage. Some pages ago I wrote that all parties have to actually want peace and a settlement to make it happen. There may be straw but it's not mine.

    You're being strange now. I quoted your straw man.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    KarlLB: This will never happen. Such a state would not guarantee a majority Jewish population and so would be unacceptable to a considerable Jewish Israeli contingent.

    You could well be right Karl. The problem, of course, is that the maintenance of an ethnically (racially)- based state will not solve the problem.

    The argument is that only in a majority Jewish country can Jews feel safe from becoming an oppressed minority. The problem is what then happens to the people whose existence upsets the demographics.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited May 29
    Zaire tangent

    Thanks, Martin54.

    I Googled Zaire cannibalism and found an Independent News report re allegations of cannibalism by a couple of terrorist groups in the north of Zaire. The victims were pygmies. (I know that term is considered pejorative but it is used in the article. I don’t know a substitute). The year was 2002. It’s a dreadful story and I’m not giving a link.

    I couldn’t find any connection with those terrorist groups in Zaire and any involvement by Zaire in Angola.

    End Tangent
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Zaire tangent

    Thanks, Martin54.

    I Googled Zaire cannibalism and found an Independent News report re allegations of cannibalism by a couple of terrorist groups in the north of Zaire. The victims were pygmies. (I know that term is considered pejorative but it is used in the article. I don’t know a substitute). The year was 2002. It’s a dreadful story and I’m not giving a link.

    I couldn’t find any connection with those terrorist groups in Zaire and any involvement by Zaire in Angola.

    End Tangent

    If memory serves cannibalism targetting pygmies, under the guise of "bush meat", is far from rare. The treatment of pygmies in central Africa is horrendous even by the standards of the conflicts in the DRC.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited May 29
    @Martin54 I'm just pulling out something you said here.

    Sir. I cannot substantiate it with regard to Zaire, but as I recall it is ascribed to Zairean forces in Angola by Ryszard Kapuscinski in Another Day of Life, or it may have been The Shadow of the Sun. So, no, I didn't mean it as metaphor, but as I cannot substantiate it yet, I apologize and withdraw it.

    I know you've quoted Ryszard Kapuściński before with great admiration, but one of the most disillusioning experiences I've had, as someone who has spent considerable time in Luanda, was reading Another Day of Life and realising it was full of lies and fictions. He was writing for the West and didn't think his work would be read by Angolans, except for that small elite who wanted his invented spin on that war. As a paid informer and collaborationist for Polish intelligence, Kapuściński was not free to write about much of what was going on. He was a brilliant fiction writer but not a trustworthy journalist.

    One of the problems and it is pertinent to a thread like this is the experiential gap between those of us who actually live and work in places that are just armchair debate topics for others. My own understanding of the catastrophic event called the battle of Cuito Cuanavale between South African and Cuban forces backing UNITA or the MPLA is partial, fallible and open to revision. It haunts all of us who lived through that time. Ryszard Kapuściński turned other people's lived history into a grandiose fantasy.
Sign In or Register to comment.