Israel Should Not Have the Bomb (wage, highway, fence, invasion)

[xander.XVII]

Originally Posted by shaker281

Rightful? Just? What does that have to do with history? The Palestinians may have gotten a bad deal, but their response has assured that generations of palestinians exist in poverty and violence. No one is persecuting them, they are acting the aggressor and harboring terrorism (Hamas). They could have assimilated and given their children a better life than the one they have chosen for them. It is akin to a ghetto becoming gentrified and it's previous inhabitants fighting for the good old days when being offered better opportunity. They chose a bad path and it has now become their legacy.

Rightful and just do have a role here since most Israeli supporters keep on using the Holocaust (not you or any poster I mentioned be it clear), mentioning the religion of Palestinians, thinking in they Israel=US vs Evil Muslims.
So it's their fault? They should have simply accepted the fait accompli like if they held no rights over that land?
Beware, I know that faults aren't one-sided but I honestly I don't see how they can be defined "the aggressor" when they are defending their right to live on their land.
Could it have been handled better? Sure no doubt.
Do Palestinians have their fault? No doubt.
But you can't simply blame the entire war only on Palestinians like if they are only criminals.
You mention terrorist attack, how many chances do they have when people armed with stones are facing a modern and well-equipped army?
In my opinion, there's only two viable option: two states but I don't know how possible it is.

Yeah, and we wont get into Italy's role in that war either. BTW, you DID comment on Poland.

I find ludicrous to accuse Poland of what they did to Germans when they suffered at Germans hands for 200 years suffering more dead than UK and US in all the wars since 1776 combined.
We can easily get into Italian role in the WWII in another topic if you want, I am more than prone to debate it but Italy has no role whatsoever in the Middle East.
Only the US and UK did all the meddling starting since 1917 (the UK).

Originally Posted by FireSmurf

Not all of the casualties is caused by Israel so lets be clear on that. Again Israel isn't committing terrorist attacks. Israel under siege is very fitting since they are under siege on a daily bases.

Dude, casualties have always been one-side and while Israel hasn't used terrorism (whose definition is debatable), it has bombed civilians (with phosphorus too) and invaded a sovereign country (twice).

1948 is just the official date for Israel statehood. In 1920 the world organization of nations [League of Nations] proclaimed that land was to be a homeland for the Jews. Heck in 70 CE the land was called Land of Israel before the Romans committed genocide against the Jews and smashed the temple

Actually it goes back to 1917 when Balfour promised his support after the war against the Ottomans (together with the Sykest-Picot agreement).
Are we seriously taken into consideration something happened 2000 years ago?

No one said Israel is a angel. Israel has nukes and for good reasons. International law? UN resolution? Oh you mean the bias UN that does nothing but try to condemn Israel for any and everything, the same UN that ignores all the other things happening around the world yet want to write up BS resolutions. The very neighbors that want all Jews dead. Again most of those Palestinians are from surrounding Arab countries.

The same UN created for the express will of the US to govern the world.
The same laws which the US have routinely been ignoring in the last 50 years by the way.
The point is simple, Iran, which is a country I am not fond of, technically and legally has the same rights on the nuke of Israel, end.
And before starting with the usual "tyranny, Muslim theocracy, human rights etc" (which I don't have any problem to admit: I am not Iranian and I don't gain a thing from defending it), I'd gladly remember you that the US have been supporting countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE which are much more disgusting than Iran (and much more dangerous), without mentioning all the Saddam affairs beginning since the 1980 war.

That is debatable.

There's little to debate.
Unless you want to take into the equation facts starting 2000 years old (by which standard most of Western Europe should be Italian then), Palestine belongs, legally and historically, to Palestinians.
Then, we can discuss endlessly about Hamas, terrorism, Islam vs Judaism, fundamentalism, Gaza, siege/non-siege etc , but the point remains: Israel was built on others' land.
The last time someone tried that in the US, with striking differences and similar points, you had the bloodiest war ever happened in the US.

[shaker281]

Originally Posted by xander.XVII

Rightful and just do have a role here since most Israeli supporters keep on using the Holocaust (not you or any poster I mentioned be it clear), mentioning the religion of Palestinians, thinking in they Israel=US vs Evil Muslims.
So it's their fault? They should have simply accepted the fait accompli like if they held no rights over that land?
Beware, I know that faults aren't one-sided but I honestly I don't see how they can be defined "the aggressor" when they are defending their right to live on their land.
Could it have been handled better? Sure no doubt.
Do Palestinians have their fault? No doubt.
But you can't simply blame the entire war only on Palestinians like if they are only criminals.
You mention terrorist attack, how many chances do they have when people armed with stones are facing a modern and well-equipped army?
In my opinion, there's only two viable option: two states but I don't know how possible it is.

I find ludicrous to accuse Poland of what they did to Germans when they suffered at Germans hands for 200 years suffering more dead than UK and US in all the wars since 1776 combined.
We can easily get into Italian role in the WWII in another topic if you want, I am more than prone to debate it but Italy has no role whatsoever in the Middle East.
Only the US and UK did all the meddling starting since 1917 (the UK).


...

I'll address your final point first. I'm not accusing Poland of anything. They got a raw deal. That falls on the Allies. BTW, there were plenty of Polish Jews who fought valiantly against the Nazi occupation with rocks against tanks, but they did not target children and non-combatants! And while my crack about Italy may have been a low blow, they did in fact side with the Nazis. Point being no nation has clean hands.

I do not blame the Palestinians for what happened 70 years ago. But, unlike the Jews (historically speaking), they have chosen a path that has led to a horrible and dead end future for their children. It is completely unrealistic to assume they will get what they want out of this strategy. And even if they do, their collective morality is deeply damaged. Had they chosen to assimilate, they could now be a part of building a great society in the middle east. And with enough foresight they could have already begun influencing their own future. Instead , due to ancient hatreds, they have elected to propagate a war they simply cannot win. What will they have if Iran nukes the region? Iran is using them , by supporting Hamas, for their own agenda. And will sell them down the river at a moments notice. The Palestinians have no true friends in the middle east, just puppet masters using then to do their bidding. Their best future is to get along and build something for their children.

"Right" and "just" are the crutches that have gotten them to this point! How does that seem to be working?

[Devon011]

Dude, casualties have always been one-side and while Israel hasn't used terrorism (whose definition is debatable), it has bombed civilians (with phosphorus too) and invaded a sovereign country (twice).

Casualties is casualties regardless of how many. It also doesn't change the daily attacks committed by them in Israel.

Actually it goes back to 1917 when Balfour promised his support after the war against the Ottomans (together with the Sykest-Picot agreement).
Are we seriously taken into consideration something happened 2000 years ago?

You haven't posted anything that changed anything I already said.

The same UN created for the express will of the US to govern the world.
The same laws which the US have routinely been ignoring in the last 50 years by the way.

Doesn't change anything I said about the UN. It is bias and extremely hateful towards Israel.

The point is simple, Iran, which is a country I am not fond of, technically and legally has the same rights on the nuke of Israel, end.

Not when you openly say you will destroy an entire country

And before starting with the usual "tyranny, Muslim theocracy, human rights etc" (which I don't have any problem to admit: I am not Iranian and I don't gain a thing from defending it), I'd gladly remember you that the US have been supporting countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE which are much more disgusting than Iran (and much more dangerous), without mentioning all the Saddam affairs beginning since the 1980 war.

Such countries are not more disgusting then Iran.

There's little to debate.

Plenty to debate

Unless you want to take into the equation facts starting 2000 years old (by which standard most of Western Europe should be Italian then), Palestine belongs, legally and historically, to Palestinians.

There is no legal place called Palestine and again the Palestinians we are talking about just Arabs from surrounding Arab nations trying to lay claim to something not theirs.

“It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”- Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council

“There is no such country [as Palestine]! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

In the words of the late military commander of the PLO as well as member of the PLO Executive Council, Zuhair Muhsin:

“There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity….yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.”

Then, we can discuss endlessly about Hamas, terrorism, Islam vs Judaism, fundamentalism, Gaza, siege/non-siege etc , but the point remains: Israel was built on others' land.

Putting a terrorist group in the same sentence as Israel as if they are somewhat comparable just shows your position on the subject. The State of Israel was built on their land. Don't give me that lame excuse saying it belong to the Arabs when Jews been on the land for more than 3700 years.

[shaker281]

Point of fact: the Jews occupied Israel before the Muslim religion even existed. If who was there first even means anything.

"The Jewish people have long maintained both physical and religious ties with the land of Israel. The first appearance of the name "Israel" in the historic record is the Merneptah Stele, circa 1200 BCE. During the biblical period, two kingdoms occupied the highland zone, the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (circa 722 BCE) and the Kingdom of Judah by the Neo-Babylonian Empire (586 BCE). Upon the defeat of the Babylonian Empire by the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great, the Jewish elite returned to Jerusalem and the Second Temple was built.
In 165 BCE, the independent Hasmonean Kingdom was established. Although coming under the sway of various empires and home to a variety of ethnicities, the area of ancient Israel was predominantly Jewish until the Jewish–Roman wars. After this time, Jews became a minority in most regions, except Galilee. The area became increasingly Christian after the 3rd century and then largely Muslim from the 7th century conquest until well into the 20th century."

[xander.XVII]

Originally Posted by shaker281

I'll address your final point first. I'm not accusing Poland of anything. They got a raw deal. That falls on the Allies. BTW, there were plenty of Polish Jews who fought valiantly against the Nazi occupation with rocks against tanks, but they did not target children and non-combatants! And while my crack about Italy may have been a low blow, they did in fact side with the Nazis. Point being no nation has clean hands.
I do not blame the Palestinians for what happened 70 years ago. But, unlike the Jews (historically speaking), they have chosen a path that has led to a horrible and dead end future for their children. It is completely unrealistic to assume they will get what they want out of this strategy. And even if they do, their collective morality is deeply damaged. Had they chosen to assimilate, they could now be a part of building a great society in the middle east. And with enough foresight they could have already begun influencing their own future. Instead , due to ancient hatreds, they have elected to propagate a war they simply cannot win. What will they have if Iran nukes the region? Iran is using them , by supporting Hamas, for their own agenda. And will sell them down the river at a moments notice. The Palestinians have no true friends in the middle east, just puppet masters using then to do their bidding. Their best future is to get along and build something for their children.

"Right" and "just" are the crutches that have gotten them to this point! How does that seem to be working?

I do agree with this, I am convinced that the actual strategy doesn't work.

Originally Posted by FireSmurf

Casualties is casualties regardless of how many. It also doesn't change the daily attacks committed by them in Israel.

Nice tautology.
The point is simple: casualties are for both sides, the fact is that one side suffers much less and gains much more, the other side which suffers much greater casualties has little to nothing.
Terrorist attacks for sure, it doesn't change that Palestinians live in refugee camps as well.

You haven't posted anything that changed anything I already said.

Let's rephrase then, the whole story of the Israel state (because in Roman times there was no "state", there was a king who ruled over a Jews population) dates back to 1917 (1890s if you want to take into the equation Zionism), not so much to claim the entire land.

Doesn't change anything I said about the UN. It is bias and extremely hateful towards Israel.

So bias and hateful that Israel does as it prefers.

Not when you openly say you will destroy an entire country

By these standards, the US should have no WMD either and let's remember you some points:
1) Iran has never invaded anyone in the last century
2) It was the US which meddled into Iranian politics
3) It was the US which kept the Sha in power
4) It was the US which supplies weapons to Iraq to invade Iran
5) It was the US which destroyed Iraq (going against any international law), which embargoed Cuba (against all international laws), which financed half of the Fascist dictatorships in the world

Such countries are not more disgusting then Iran.

Really?
Financing the terrorism worldwide, meddling into other countries politics, financing and creating ISIS (with the US support), holding as slaves the workers, being an even more tyrannical theocracy than Iran, having medieval laws etc.
Are you really sure of what you are saying?

Plenty to debate

According to this logic, all non-Native Americans should die then.

There is no legal place called Palestine and again the Palestinians we are talking about just Arabs from surrounding Arab nations trying to lay claim to something not theirs

And "Israeli" are just Jews from all over the world, much less important if we consider that, at least, Arab means an ethnicity.

Putting a terrorist group in the same sentence as Israel as if they are somewhat comparable just shows your position on the subject. The State of Israel was built on their land. Don't give me that lame excuse saying it belong to the Arabs when Jews been on the land for more than 3700 years.

There were less than 5 % of Jews in 1920 in Palestine/Judea, do your math.
By the way, saying that "Jews been on the land for more than 3700 years" has no relevance whatsoever from any legal standpoint, end.
You can brag as much as you want about the "Jewishness" of Israel, it wasn't a Jewish land before 1948, end.
Romans wiped them out and their diaspora spurred them away from their land for 2000 years or you consider that remaining 5 % to hold more rights than the 95 % ?

[Devon011]

The point is simple: casualties are for both sides, the fact is that one side suffers much less and gains much more, the other side which suffers much greater casualties has little to nothing.
Terrorist attacks for sure, it doesn't change that Palestinians live in refugee camps as well.

One side suffers more because they are bend on killing an entire group. Israel used to suffer way more casualties from suicide bombing until they put up the wall.I have actually been to Israel dozen of times and seen the situations up front. Palestinians do not live in a refugee camps. Stop being so dramatic.

So bias and hateful that Israel does as it prefers

No UN so bias that it can't be neutral in anything considering Israel

By these standards, the US should have no WMD either and let's remember you some points:
1) Iran has never invaded anyone in the last century
2) It was the US which meddled into Iranian politics
3) It was the US which kept the Sha in power
4) It was the US which supplies weapons to Iraq to invade Iran
5) It was the US which destroyed Iraq (going against any international law), which embargoed Cuba (against all international laws), which financed half of the Fascist dictatorships in the world

1) Iran does it dirty work by sending fighter and use the excuse we aren't directly involved. Gaza uses weapons supplied by Iran.
2) Someone has to meddled in Iran politics since they are creating extreme problem indirectly, you can make all the excuses you want for Iran, it doesn't change everything they do
3) Doesn't change what Iran is doing
4) And?
5) See there you go again trying to use international law

Are you really sure of what you are saying?

Obviously I am or I wouldn't say it

According to this logic, all non-Native Americans should die then.

And "Israeli" are just Jews from all over the world, much less important if we consider that, at least, Arab means an ethnicity.

No Israeli means citizens or nationals of the modern state of Israel. That is a horrible comparsion

There were less than 5 % of Jews in 1920 in Palestine/Judea, do your math

Before you tell someone else to do math, you need to do yours first because there was more than 5% of Jews.

By the way, saying that "Jews been on the land for more than 3700 years" has no relevance whatsoever from any legal standpoint, end.

It has every relevance when you claim such land belong to Arabs. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't change the facts.

You can brag as much as you want about the "Jewishness" of Israel, it wasn't a Jewish land before 1948, end.

Nothing to brag about as I stated facts that the land has always had Jews. Yet you keep trying to say it was Arab land when it wasn't. Even Arab leaders admitted this, yet you want to keep saying differently

Romans wiped them out and their diaspora spurred them away from their land for 2000 years or you consider that remaining 5 % to hold more rights than the 95 % ?

While the Romans did commit genocide against the Jews. A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, the Jews suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. Again you need better math because it was more than 5%.

[Scratch33]

Originally Posted by shaker281

Point of fact: the Jews occupied Israel before the Muslim religion even existed. If who was there first even means anything.

"Might makes right" is about the only historical lesson with any meaning.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by xander.XVII

You seem to expect Palestinians to accept silently their fate like if the creation of Israel was something rightful and just.
I won't even comment about Poland, perhaps you forgot how the US and UK blatantly sold it to Stalin without a thought.

But have the Poles been suicide-bombing Americans or Russians? And is the U.N. supporting committees to keep Poles cooped up in refugee camps so that they are a continued source of tension?

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by PeaceOut001

I don't think I need to do any kind of brief history leading to Israel but it was a strategic area for them that was given to them by the allies after WWII. It was likely a strategic placement and may have been on land the allies didn't own (like Palestinian land).

The British did own that land. The Ottomans picked the wrong side of WW I and lost. Losing a war has consequences, unless of course you believe the U.N. can give you a mulligan.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

Mutual Assured Destruction was a term used during the arms race and it helped to keep the cold war in check but it is rather outdated today in this PC world with Sanctions being the preferred way of dealing with upstarts.

Especially when the sanctions are dropped every time they start to bite.