Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

@0bserver,

Look at the last time Labor was in power, 2001. Since then Kadima or Likud have been in power. Kadima was formed when all the reasonable(ish) member of Likud left leaving a teapartyesque group behind, and now they're in power. Benjamin Netanyahu is the most right wing prime minister since Benjamin Netanyahu.

1 Reply

@0bserver,

Quote:

How about the charter of PLO that still calls for the destruction of Israel?

They want the state of Israel out of the area.

Since there was relative peace between the parties before the creation of the state of Israel...

...that makes plenty of sense.

Why isn't everyone suggesting that the "solution" to the problem...is to get the state of Israel OUT OF THAT AREA?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
How about the charter of PLO that still calls for the destruction of Israel?

Sorry Frank, using you to respond to Observer because I'm too bloody idle. It's no different from Sinn Fein's constitution calling for a united Ireland. That is just as provocative to the Unionists. Didn't stop the peace process though.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Why isn't everyone suggesting that the "solution" to the problem...is to get the state of Israel OUT OF THAT AREA?

It would be much better for people in general, Frank, if ya got the US out of there and out of all the other places where they are terrorizing people, brutalizing people, stealing peoples wealth.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Kadima was invented by Sharon to implement the pull out from Gaza. I don't see your point. In Israel only a rightish PM is capable of peace agreements. The opposition can say nothing to that. A leftie PM will lose power the next day after a peace move. It's not as black and white as you present it

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Really? That's "just provocative" ans settlements are "very provocative"?

2 Replies

@0bserver,

The concept of being absorbed into a United Ireland is as upsetting for Unionists as the end of Israel is for Israelis.

I doubt you'll believe me, but that's because you don't know what the Unionists are like.

1 Reply

@0bserver,

The concept of being absorbed into a United Ireland is as upsetting for Unionists as the end of Israel is for Israelis.

I doubt you'll believe me, but that's because you don't know what the Unionists are like.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

Bit of a swerve. You said Israel wasn't getting more right wing. I pointed out the last time Labor were in power, and you change the subject.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I'm ignoring history for a moment. How do you propose to do that? Move Israel where?

Are you willing to give up half of your country to establish Israel there?

You realize that Iraqis and Syrians are killing each other with no relation to the presence of Israel in the region, right? That doesn't fit into your theory.

And I don't think Israelis will agree. Even assuming you ignore the IDF, and are you sure you want to be the one to propose another forced displacement of most of the Jews.. On trains and all?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I don't know them, but I know that Israelis see Israel as the only way for Jews not to be murdered again by the millions. You can't blame them for that. It's interesting that it is the very continent responsible for that who are opposing Israel the most. If its guilt related, it must have a funny form.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I see. You're assuming if the ruling party is Labor, then the public is more leftish? That's really not obvious. The winning party gets 30 seats in the 120 Knesset. That doesn't say anything about the public in general

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

0bserver wrote:
Palestinians aren't indigenous to the West Bank even. Let alone Israel

Yes, they are. Demographic history disagrees with you.

Not likely. The Palestinians may have neighbored the Kingdom of Israel, but they were not a part of it.

The boundaries of the West Bank are close to what the boundaries of the Kingdom of Israel were.

There might be a case to be made that the Palestinians are indigenous to the Gaza Strip though.

1 Reply

You will remember that the Israelites were not indigenous either. They invaded and conquered it. If you want to go that far back, it is the Canaanites who were indigenous. And if we're going to go that far back, the Neanderthals were in fact the indigenes, and everyone else is merely an invader. It's clearly a pointless exercise.

However, Jews have not been the major occupants of what is now Palestine since the later days of the Roman Empire. They dispersed thru the lands around the Mediterranean. By the time of Mohammed, the majority of the population was probably Christian (with many converts) and other Roman citizens. And since the seventh century or so, the major population group has been the ancestors of present-day Palestinians (with a fairly large contingent of Chritians), and a large number of them were converts from the people who lived there under the Romans. Jews were only around 5% of the population at the turn of the last century. Which means that for all practical (and historical) purposes, Palestinians are the indigenous population. Unless you've been hiding some Neanderthals somewhere.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

I admit I didn't expect the Palestinian punchline after all the Neanderthal talk.

Many people will disagree with your history. A large portion of the ancestors of present-day Palestinians are from all over the Middle East. And looking at their often blue eyes - some European DNA too probably.

But all this ancestor talk doesn't rally change anything - neither Jewish nor Palestinian.

0 Replies

@0bserver,

Israel still has favoured nation status when trading with the EU.

In the UK we were fighting Nazi Germany when you were still sitting on your arses.

Nobody is calling for the destruction of Israel, we're calling for an end to the occupation.

You could just as easily say that America needs to continue occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to stop any more 9/11s

1 Reply

@0bserver,

0bserver wrote:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I'm ignoring history for a moment. How do you propose to do that? Move Israel where?

Are you willing to give up half of your country to establish Israel there?

Jesus...half of the United States to accomodate Israel!!!

How about Israel buying land equivalent to its size...and setting up shop there. Maybe Montana or South Dakota...or Arizona. How about ANYPLACE where Jews get along well with neighbors?

Quote:

You realize that Iraqis and Syrians are killing each other with no relation to the presence of Israel in the region, right? That doesn't fit into your theory.

Why is that?

I am not suggesting that there will be Utopia if Israel ceases to exist in the Middle East...but I am suggesting that the Jews and Arabs in that area got along relatively fine before the creation of the state of Israel...and probably could do so once again if the state of Israel were gone.

Quote:

And I don't think Israelis will agree. Even assuming you ignore the IDF, and are you sure you want to be the one to propose another forced displacement of most of the Jews.. On trains and all?

I don't think they will agree either.

I think all this talk about peace ought to be abandoned...and the people ought to be allowed to slaughter each other, because that seems to be what they have in mind. And I think that the US should keep its nose the hell out of the fight.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You will remember that the Israelites were not indigenous either. They invaded and conquered it. If you want to go that far back, it is the Canaanites who were indigenous.

The Canaanites were the Bronze Age civilization of the region.

The Israelites were the Iron Age civilization that was formed by former Canaanites of the West Bank area after their previous civilization collapsed.

There was no "invasion and conquest".

MontereyJack wrote:

However, Jews have not been the major occupants of what is now Palestine since the later days of the Roman Empire.

They remain the rightful owners however.

MontereyJack wrote:

Which means that for all practical (and historical) purposes, Palestinians are the indigenous population.

No. The Israelis are indigenous to the West Bank.

The Palestinians are likely indigenous to an area near the West Bank however.

BTW, check out BBC or al-Jazeera. Egypt is pulling a Tienanmen Square.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Well, then the EU has some economic insight after all.

Not that I don't appreciate the British contribution to the outcome of WWII. Royal AF and all. But wether we like it or not WWII was won mainly by the Russians. I have to give them that, even if I dislike many things they are doing lately. No country cared about stopping the Nazis before they started bombing that very country, or the Japanese in the case of US. I don't know who was sitting on what asses. I know that the UK military was sending Jewish refugees back to Nazi Germany from the port of Haifa.

I agree with you on the occupatoion issue if that's all you mean. The problem is that many BDSers et al actually want no Israel - they don't even hide it. I don't know who your "we" is. I wouldn't say "nobody" is calling for the destruction of Israel.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The funny part is that if Jews settle in Arizona, it won't be the Navajo they start fighting. After they set up start up companies and universities etc, I'm sure it will turn out that Mohammad tied his winged horse on the way to heaven in the antelope canyon too. And all of arizona is acually historic Muslim land. And the ALO will be fighting for a while untill it agrees to peace talks.. And then we go again.

1 Reply

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know