Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Preparing the next generations

94 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener

Hmm... that's an interesting point.

Am I not right in thinking that the Israeli's only forbade the return of the refugees to the Jewish zone ?

Between 1948 and 1967 the original mandate "Arab Zone" for the future palestinians had actually been occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Did Jordan/Egypt allow palestinians from THOSE areas to return ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The key difference with Israel we're creatively missing here is that Palestinians are not occupied by Jordan and Egypt anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The key difference with Israel we're creatively missing here is that Palestinians are not occupied by Jordan and Egypt anymore.

Perhaps because the Palestinians are not constantly bombarding Egypt and Jordan?
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Only 500,000 Palestinians have died since 1948? I can't believe that.

The political will of Israel's founders created Israel first and foremost. The international community gave the land to Israel and Palestine, two autonomous states. But the Israelis forbade "the Arabs" from returning to their homes and created a new refugee crisis after just escaping from one themselves in Europe. Treating innocent people like they're guilty, denied every right in the book.

Denying people their self determination, property, mobility, economy, state, territory, materials -pretty much everything we take for granted- is a bold exhibition of hypocrisy and a slap in the face of humanity.

Yamato, you are absolutely correct. The people who precipitated that refugee crisis should be roundly pilloried by the world.

However, people don't pillory the people who precipitated that crisis.

They don't pillory the invading Arab League armies. And lets be really clear about this. The primary exodus of refugees ONLY happened when the Arab League invaded the Arab Zone, with the stated intention of invading - and destroying - Israel.

Oh no, they don't pillory them. Heck, that might be Islamophobic, or Racist. Or fattening. Or at the very least, detrimental to oil imports.

No, lets put the blame on the Israeli's, who offered the Arabs citizenship and brotherhood within the new nation.

So most - though by no means all - of the Arabs in Israel fled. In doing so they showed their commitment to the new Israel... e.g. zero.

There is a saying... "decisions are made by those who showed up..".

I'll offer a variant: "History is made by those who hold fast".

The ones who leave are - indeed - history.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Goodbye, and don't come back.

Oh.. you WAN'T to come back now do you ?

Tough !

This rant brought to you courtesy of a bottle of Westminster Fortified British Wine, ABV 15%

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

You and those like you can continue hating and disagreeing with the UN partition plan forever and it will never change a thing.

The UN partition plan was unfair 55% land were given to the minority group of 16% who at that time owned 6% of the total land and 84% group were given 45% land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Hmmm.... I tihink you have to factor in the quality of the land. After all, a lot of the Jewish Zone was the Negev Desert ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The UN partition plan was unfair 55% land were given to the minority group of 16% who at that time owned 6% of the total land and 84% group were given 45% land.

Jeem if you are honest you will admit that a Jewish state of ANY SIZE is what is unacceptable. The hatred between Arab and Jew is ancient and is never going to be solved by man. I think the whole conflict is a sort of test for humanity to finally show us what we do when we allow hate to rule our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Perhaps because the Palestinians are not constantly bombarding Egypt and Jordan?

Why would they? Egypt and Jordan aren't living on the tops of their hills.

So because of ridiculous accusations like "constantly bombarding", we have to jail them all, and it's up to their behavior in jail as to whether we let them out or not? What kind of justice is that? There is no justice in collective depravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Why would they? Egypt and Jordan aren't living on the tops of their hills.

True. They DID invade, and not only occupied, but actually annexed the land (permanently destroying any hope of a Palestinian State).

Fortunately, those awfully nice Israeli Defense Forces kicked the invaders out, and relinquished the land to the Palestinians.

Sadly, the PLO/Muslim Brotherhood - true to type - responded by bombing restaurants in Israel. Hence the liberation turned into an occupation, pending a peace agreement with the PLO. Thanks guys. Nice one.

So because of ridiculous accusations like "constantly bombarding", we have to jail them all, and it's up to their behavior in jail as to whether we let them out or not? What kind of justice is that?

I would rather hope that Israel would only Jail specific individuals that are found guilty - by due process - of bombing etc. And these are not just "accusation" - over 600 Israeli citizens killed between 1988 and 2012 inside Israel by palestinian bomb and gun attacks.

As for "behavior in jail...." .. that is a standard feature of most judicial systems.

There is no justice in collective depravity.

Very true.

Fun perhaps, but no justice.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Reasonable and objective observers know that Israel is a legal entity justifiably defending itself. Just the rhetoric coming out of the other side proves the point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

"Permanently destroying any chance for a Palestinian state?" Well that's a rhetorical gnipgnob to keep the nonsense flowing.

As for "behavior in jail...." .. that is a standard feature of most judicial systems.

Punishing everyone for what someone might do is a standard feature of your imagination sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

"Permanently destroying any chance for a Palestinian state?" Well that's a rhetorical gnipgnob to keep the nonsense flowing.

Yamato - I'm flabbergasted. Never before has my Gasted been more Flabbered. Are you TRULY denying recorded history ? I mean... I may be wrong sometimes... perhaps lazy with my research... but are you TRULY saying that the mandate "Arab" zones (Palestinian, if you prefer) where NOT annexed by Egypt/Jordan ?

I mean... REALLY ? If so, PLEASE do rebut my post. But merely dismissing (as opposed to rebutting) with a glib statement of "rhetorical gnipgnob" is just... well...

this is not some peripheral ephemera of the debate: the annexation cuts to the core of it.

Punishing everyone for what someone might do is a standard feature of your imagination sure.

Ummmm.... ????? I understand the individual words, but as for the overall meaning.....

449px-EnigmaMachineLabeled.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I've never seen such a clear picture of the enigma - cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yamato - I'm flabbergasted. Never before has my Gasted been more Flabbered. Are you TRULY denying recorded history ? I mean... I may be wrong sometimes... perhaps lazy with my research... but are you TRULY saying that the mandate "Arab" zones (Palestinian, if you prefer) where NOT annexed by Egypt/Jordan ?

I mean... REALLY ? If so, PLEASE do rebut my post. But merely dismissing (as opposed to rebutting) with a glib statement of "rhetorical gnipgnob" is just... well...

this is not some peripheral ephemera of the debate: the annexation cuts to the core of it.

Ummmm.... ????? I understand the individual words, but as for the overall meaning.....

449px-EnigmaMachineLabeled.jpg

Things that aren't happening anymore vs. things that still are. I know you're having extreme difficulty with it. Maybe the Palestinians can forgive the sins of the past and you can't? Maybe they can see and feel what they're putting up with today and you can't. If Jordan did or didn't do something it does not determine what our principles are or what rights we're entitled to. "The Arabs" don't determine that. "The Jews" don't determine that. But I have to ask since you're so flabbergasted, do you have any principles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Jeem if you are honest you will admit that a Jewish state of ANY SIZE is what is unacceptable. The hatred between Arab and Jew is ancient and is never going to be solved by man. I think the whole conflict is a sort of test for humanity to finally show us what we do when we allow hate to rule our lives.

Jewish state would be acceptable if it was not forced upon the Palestinian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Jewish state would be acceptable if it was not forced upon the Palestinian.

So a Jewish state in the Outback of Australia or in the Antarctic or Africa maybe - that would be okay but to exist on land that once belonged to them cannot happen ever simply because Muslims once controlled it? Actually I think the Jews would be hated and warred against no matter where they tried to have a country. Just my opinion - based on their history.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

They would be hated by Christians and Muslims because of flaws in those religions that seems to fester hate. The Jews themselves are guilty of nothing more than holding together in spite of it all and prospering whenever conditions allow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Jewish state would be acceptable if it was not forced upon the Palestinian.

Yeah, right.

And if they created Israel in the Antartic, you would be siding with the poor, displaced Penguins and the IceHogging Jews, no doubt ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Things that aren't happening anymore vs. things that still are. I know you're having extreme difficulty with it. Maybe the Palestinians can forgive the sins of the past and you can't? Maybe they can see and feel what they're putting up with today and you can't. If Jordan did or didn't do something it does not determine what our principles are or what rights we're entitled to. "The Arabs" don't determine that. "The Jews" don't determine that. But I have to ask since you're so flabbergasted, do you have any principles?

So you have no interest in how things came to be ? At what point do events become "irrelevant" to you ? After a decade ? A year ? A month ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

So you have no interest in how things came to be ? At what point do events become "irrelevant" to you ? After a decade ? A year ? A month ?

It's not based on any unit of time. "How things came to be" isn't an excuse to oppress innocent people. But you're going to come back flinging more poop about ethnic groups again soon, as is your bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

So a Jewish state in the Outback of Australia or in the Antarctic or Africa maybe - that would be okay but to exist on land that once belonged to them cannot happen ever simply because Muslims once controlled it? Actually I think the Jews would be hated and warred against no matter where they tried to have a country. Just my opinion - based on their history.

Well if we can dream, you forgot Europe. A place called Germany would at least make some sense - based on their history.

But as things are, the "Jewish State", which finds its limits by tolerating a small minority of Arabs apparently, should be Israel.

It shouldn't be outside of Israel on Palestinian land, Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The state of Israel is legal and it's right to existence is firmly established, and most of the Jewish population there is native. The have every right to defend themselves just as do any other group, and what happened in history is irrelevant. Otherwise the Americans would have to give their country back to the Indians and Britain back to the Celts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

It's not based on any unit of time. "How things came to be" isn't an excuse to oppress innocent people. But you're going to come back flinging more poop about ethnic groups again soon, as is your bag.

Ah, here we have the key phrase.... "innocent people". And this is where time and causuality IS important.

See the innocent Palestinian, walking down the street.

See how the fascist Israeli Defence Force pounce on him, drag him away, and incarcerate him in prison. See the oppression of the innocent Palestinian.

Now go back a few weeks.

See the same innocent Palestinian walking down the street in Israel. See how he throws the bag into a crowded restaurant, and then runs away. See the explosion. See the ambulances taking body parts away.

So is the imprisonment still an act of oppression ? Or an act of Justice ? Or a preventative measure to stop him bombing another restaurant ?

Your defense of human rights is laudable. However, you presumably acknowledge that there ARE some circumstances in which it is appropriate to take some of those rights away ? (e.g. to imprison - or restrict the movement of - those that would infringe the Human Rights of others ? ).

Here's another (somewhat random) thought. How about the "Security Wall" ? Israel was criticised by the usual suspects because the wall infringed some Palestinians Human Rights, in so far as it restricted their access to - and thence ability to work in - Israel.It may also have made it difficult for SOME Palestinians to access their own fields.... which is plain wrong. However, it reduced deaths from terrorist attacks by 99%. That's the equivalent of almost 100 lives per year, before we even consider serious crippling injuries.

So how do you balance the Human Rights when they are in conflict ?

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Ah, here we have the key phrase.... "innocent people". And this is where time and causuality IS important.

See the innocent Palestinian, walking down the street.

See how the fascist Israeli Defence Force pounce on him, drag him away, and incarcerate him in prison. See the oppression of the innocent Palestinian.

Now go back a few weeks.

See the same innocent Palestinian walking down the street in Israel. See how he throws the bag into a crowded restaurant, and then runs away. See the explosion. See the ambulances taking body parts away.

So is the imprisonment still an act of oppression ? Or an act of Justice ? Or a preventative measure to stop him bombing another restaurant ?

Your defense of human rights is laudable. However, you presumably acknowledge that there ARE some circumstances in which it is appropriate to take some of those rights away ? (e.g. to imprison - or restrict the movement of - those that would infringe the Human Rights of others ? ).

Here's another (somewhat random) thought. How about the "Security Wall" ? Israel was criticised by the usual suspects because the wall infringed some Palestinians Human Rights, in so far as it restricted their access to - and thence ability to work in - Israel.It may also have made it difficult for SOME Palestinians to access their own fields.... which is plain wrong. However, it reduced deaths from terrorist attacks by 99%. That's the equivalent of almost 100 lives per year, before we even consider serious crippling injuries.

So how do you balance the Human Rights when they are in conflict ?

The "wall" is actually a chain link barrier for most of it's length. The concrete portions Pallywood love to film were erected to stop line of sight sniper incidents and have been VERY effective. The problem the Palis and the left have with the barrier is that it stops the Palestinians cold.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

Yeah, right.

And if they created Israel in the Antartic, you would be siding with the poor, displaced Penguins and the IceHogging Jews, no doubt ?

And also no doubt that you guys will claim that those penguins has initiated the attacked first and Israel is just defending itself from the penguin

terrorist!!!!!!!!!!! :w00t:

So a Jewish state in the Outback of Australia or in the Antarctic or Africa maybe - that would be okay but to exist on land that once belonged to them cannot happen ever simply because Muslims once controlled it? Actually I think the Jews would be hated and warred against no matter where they tried to have a country. Just my opinion - based on their history.

You are just trying to divert my point

Edited by jeem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.