General politics discussion thread

[ReturnOfTheMack]

The arabs lost the 6 day war and Israel gained territory as a result with any other country its to the victor go the spoils of war but when its Israel different rules apply.

 

International law since at least the end of WW2 has stipulated that no country can legally gain land as a result of war, not even if fighting as defenders.

 

Palestinians have greivences so what, sitting their sulking like a 5 year old about them whilst plotting death to Israel has got them fuck all. Israel has to be the one to make concessions without pre conditions whilst it still comes under attack, whilst those around it plot its distruction and refuses to recognise it as a legitimate state.

 

And yes - Israel IS the one who has to make concessions, because they're the one with all the weapons, all the finances and all the power. Let's not forget, also, that it's their actions that have led to all this in the first place.

 

 

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but wasnt it British actions that started it (by splitting the country) rather than Israel? Please correct me fi Im wrong, but I thought that the first signs of agression came from the Arab forces massing at Israels boarders.

[WWFChilli]

I am fucking loving these one on one contests in this thread now. We need a triple threat to shake shit up.

 

plus I want a rematch between David the Muslim and Dingo Warrior (in the vain of one of those kids from Outnumbered)

[David]

plus I want a rematch between David the Muslim and Dingo Warrior (in the vain of one of those kids from Outnumbered)

Dingo Warrior cleared out while he still had the chance

[WWFChilli]

plus I want a rematch between David the Muslim and Dingo Warrior (in the vain of one of those kids from Outnumbered)

Dingo Warrior cleared out while he still had the chance

 

you only get an hour at dinner time.

[Carbomb]

Actually, blueknowzit, you know what? This was a bad idea. Discussion of Israel/Palestine never ends well, and it always comes down to circular arguments based on your opinion rather than the facts. I don't think I'm ever going to change your opinion on the matter - you seem to have access to most of the facts, as do I, so it's not like you're going to be swayed by new information - and you're not going to change mine.

 

As with such discussions, I think we should agree to disagree and go on our merry ways.

[Carbomb]

Palestinians have greivences so what, sitting their sulking like a 5 year old about them whilst plotting death to Israel has got them fuck all. Israel has to be the one to make concessions without pre conditions whilst it still comes under attack, whilst those around it plot its distruction and refuses to recognise it as a legitimate state.

 

And yes - Israel IS the one who has to make concessions, because they're the one with all the weapons, all the finances and all the power. Let's not forget, also, that it's their actions that have led to all this in the first place.

 

 

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but wasnt it British actions that started it (by splitting the country) rather than Israel? Please correct me fi Im wrong, but I thought that the first signs of agression came from the Arab forces massing at Israels boarders.

 

Yeah, I did mention it was the British empire who started it all off, but let's be realistic here: just how involved are the British in the Middle East now? There's nothing we could do to salvage the sitution, and if we went in, we'd make it worse. Not only that, if it came down to conflict, there's a good chance we'd get our arses kicked - the Israeli army are among the best-trained in the world (seeing as we trained them initially), and they're much more experienced.

[Blueknowzit]

Actually, blueknowzit, you know what? This was a bad idea. Discussion of Israel/Palestine never ends well, and it always comes down to circular arguments based on your opinion rather than the facts. I don't think I'm ever going to change your opinion on the matter - you seem to have access to most of the facts, as do I, so it's not like you're going to be swayed by new information - and you're not going to change mine.

 

As with such discussions, I think we should agree to disagree and go on our merry ways.

 

fair enough i do think we are on the same page in that we both want peace in the region and for there to be a jewish state and a palistinan state in peace and security for all i think we just differ on the aspects of history and the practical methods to achieve the same.

 

I do find the delusion of the alleged superiority of Arab identity politics to be part of the problem and fascinating subject to read about and discuss. I have no doubt that you could say the same about Israel.

 

Agree to disagree, Certainly

[Blueknowzit]

International law since at least the end of WW2 has stipulated that no country can legally gain land as a result of war, not even if fighting as defenders.

 

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but wasnt it British actions that started it (by splitting the country) rather than Israel? Please correct me fi Im wrong, but I thought that the first signs of agression came from the Arab forces massing at Israels boarders.

 

The aim of the arab league armies was the destruction of israel and capture of its land within its 1967 borders so in context i have no problem with Israel position. As I have pointed out Israel will trade land for peace so if an agreement will be struck in the future concessions over land will have to be made

 

your second quote was half right Arab armies attacked on Israel first day in 1948, and it was the troops of the Arab armies massing at its borders that lead to a pre emptive strike in 1967.

 

As CB has pointed out and we have discussed there is a bit more to it than that but lets not go there

[Kiffy]

Finally, I don't think the term "classic rape" is particularly nice

 

True, in this day and age one really needs to aim for vintage rape, to my mind.

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Palestinians have greivences so what, sitting their sulking like a 5 year old about them whilst plotting death to Israel has got them fuck all. Israel has to be the one to make concessions without pre conditions whilst it still comes under attack, whilst those around it plot its distruction and refuses to recognise it as a legitimate state.

 

And yes - Israel IS the one who has to make concessions, because they're the one with all the weapons, all the finances and all the power. Let's not forget, also, that it's their actions that have led to all this in the first place.

 

 

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but wasnt it British actions that started it (by splitting the country) rather than Israel? Please correct me fi Im wrong, but I thought that the first signs of agression came from the Arab forces massing at Israels boarders.

 

Yeah, I did mention it was the British empire who started it all off, but let's be realistic here: just how involved are the British in the Middle East now? There's nothing we could do to salvage the sitution, and if we went in, we'd make it worse. Not only that, if it came down to conflict, there's a good chance we'd get our arses kicked - the Israeli army are among the best-trained in the world (seeing as we trained them initially), and they're much more experienced.

 

Yeah, but that didnt really answer what I was asking. Maybe I wasnt clear about it, my written/typed communication skills are dire. You said that Israels actions that have led to this, I was asking if thats fair as it was the British who split the land, and then the first signs of agression came from outside Israel.

 

Im not too clued up on this one, as you may see.

[Carbomb]

Palestinians have greivences so what, sitting their sulking like a 5 year old about them whilst plotting death to Israel has got them fuck all. Israel has to be the one to make concessions without pre conditions whilst it still comes under attack, whilst those around it plot its distruction and refuses to recognise it as a legitimate state.

 

And yes - Israel IS the one who has to make concessions, because they're the one with all the weapons, all the finances and all the power. Let's not forget, also, that it's their actions that have led to all this in the first place.

 

 

Maybe I missed this in the thread, but wasnt it British actions that started it (by splitting the country) rather than Israel? Please correct me fi Im wrong, but I thought that the first signs of agression came from the Arab forces massing at Israels boarders.

 

Yeah, I did mention it was the British empire who started it all off, but let's be realistic here: just how involved are the British in the Middle East now? There's nothing we could do to salvage the sitution, and if we went in, we'd make it worse. Not only that, if it came down to conflict, there's a good chance we'd get our arses kicked - the Israeli army are among the best-trained in the world (seeing as we trained them initially), and they're much more experienced.

 

Yeah, but that didnt really answer what I was asking. Maybe I wasnt clear about it, my written/typed communication skills are dire. You said that Israels actions that have led to this, I was asking if thats fair as it was the British who split the land, and then the first signs of agression came from outside Israel.

 

Im not too clued up on this one, as you may see.

 

It's fair enough, I see what you mean. For the most part, it was the British, but the European Jews who went on to become the Israelis were all involved, and they didn't exactly try to make the transition easier - no compensation for the land was given, Palestinians were given no option to stay, they were forced off their land.

 

My point was, in terms of parties who are still actively involved in the conflict, the Israelis' actions are what started this whole conflict and created such resentment. I don't think it's stated enough just how dangerous an emotion resentment is - it's the cousin of hatred, and they're both very difficult to get rid of once they're started. Pretty much every long-running conflict in this world is fuelled by hatred born from resentment. Ireland, India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, South Korea/North Korea, they've all been destructive for everyone involved.

 

Either way, though, Israel has had the upper hand throughout - it would mean much more if they took the first step to peace. It's like a fight between two guys - one gets battered and bloodied by the other, who completely dominates; it's going to seem a bit hollow if the guy who's gotten battered says "OK, I'm ready to call a truce now."

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Sorry, I still dont understand why you're saying

 

My point was, in terms of parties who are still actively involved in the conflict, the Israelis' actions are what started this whole conflict and created such resentment.

 

If it was started by the invasions by the Arabs in 1948, then the threats from them later on, why is it their actions that started it? They, as far as I can see, werent the ones who forced the Arabs out, that didnt happen until after the invasion of Israel by the Arab countries forces. This is just what I have gotten from Wiki, so obviously could be bollocks.

 

After 1945, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule.[67] At the same time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe sought shelter in Palestine and were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[68] The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states

[Carbomb]

Sorry, I still dont understand why you're saying

 

My point was, in terms of parties who are still actively involved in the conflict, the Israelis' actions are what started this whole conflict and created such resentment.

 

If it was started by the invasions by the Arabs in 1948, then the threats from them later on, why is it their actions that started it? They, as far as I can see, werent the ones who forced the Arabs out, that didnt happen until after the invasion of Israel by the Arab countries forces. This is just what I have gotten from Wiki, so obviously could be bollocks.

 

After 1945, Britain found itself in fierce conflict with the Jewish community, as the Haganah joined Irgun and Lehi in armed struggle against British rule.[67] At the same time, thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe sought shelter in Palestine and were turned away or rounded up and placed in detention camps by the British. In 1947, the British government withdrew from the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[68] The newly created United Nations approved the Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, which sought to divide the country into two states

[ReturnOfTheMack]

There are certain interpretations of history, and what is allowed on Wiki is not necessarily the gospel truth, but it's good you recognise that. What that bit of the article fails to point out is that just because the Arabs rejected the UN plan does not mean they were being unreasonable - hundreds of thousands of people were to be uprooted and shifted somewhere else; if the Jewish community accepted the plan, it would have been seen as a horrible betrayal by the Arabs. Why should they give up their homes?

 

Either way, throughout the history of the conflict, the actions of the Israeli government and its right-wing have been those of an oppressor and an invader, rather than those of a nation trying to find its own bit of the world.

 

Anyway, I really don't want to get too further into this, although I appreciate the discussion - like I said, the Israel/Palestine discussion never ends well, if it ends at all.

 

 

Of course, I'm a history student so Im fully aware of interpretations and wiki. Though my history is Greek myth and Falklands Islands mostly, though also a smattering of Napoleonic Europe and military warfare pre 1900 in general.

 

But Wiki also points out, on a page linked to that bit of info, that the Arab reaction to the plan was that the Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague". I'd call that unreasonable myself. And given the historical persecution of the Jews I would say that its utterly and totally understandable that it would be enough to make them more hardline since, especially as Hamas have continued the stance since.

 

Mind, hopfully Hamas will soften and that will also make Israel come to the table properly.

 

But I guess we can leave it there if you want, no worry mate.

[Carbomb]

There are certain interpretations of history, and what is allowed on Wiki is not necessarily the gospel truth, but it's good you recognise that. What that bit of the article fails to point out is that just because the Arabs rejected the UN plan does not mean they were being unreasonable - hundreds of thousands of people were to be uprooted and shifted somewhere else; if the Jewish community accepted the plan, it would have been seen as a horrible betrayal by the Arabs. Why should they give up their homes?

 

Either way, throughout the history of the conflict, the actions of the Israeli government and its right-wing have been those of an oppressor and an invader, rather than those of a nation trying to find its own bit of the world.

 

Anyway, I really don't want to get too further into this, although I appreciate the discussion - like I said, the Israel/Palestine discussion never ends well, if it ends at all.

 

 

Of course, I'm a history student so Im fully aware of interpretations and wiki. Though my history is Greek myth and Falklands Islands mostly, though also a smattering of Napoleonic Europe and military warfare pre 1900 in general.

 

But Wiki also points out, on a page linked to that bit of info, that the Arab reaction to the plan was that the Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague". I'd call that unreasonable myself. And given the historical persecution of the Jews I would say that its utterly and totally understandable that it would be enough to make them more hardline since, especially as Hamas have continued the stance since.

 

Mind, hopfully Hamas will soften and that will also make Israel come to the table properly.

 

But I guess we can leave it there if you want, no worry mate.

 

No probs, man. Glad for a bit of decent discussion anyway.

 

EDIT: I'm a bit of a Greek mythology buff myself - 's how I got into reading as a kid. May I ask how a history degree looks at such a subject? I'm guessing it has something to do with investigating the origins of such myths and the potentially true aspects of them?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Carbomb