Israel vs. Gaza round 99

[Blubbartron]

That area called Palestine, was also called Israel a long time ago before the Jews were cast out during the Diaspora(you know, the reason that there are Jews all over the world because Muslims ans Christians chased them out/slaughtered them by the tens of thousands). It's also important to state, Jews were there just as long as Arabs, because they split off from the same source, only because of small differences. So to say they "dont have the right" to exist there is absolutely preposterous.

Addressing the bold part, Israel took that land after the surrounding Arab nations decided to attack Israel...not once but twice. Once on Yom Kippur, one of the holiest of holidays in the Jewish calender. Israel GAVE THE LAND BACK, and asked for peace. Egypt said yes, and everyone else said no and refused because they refuse to recognize Israels right to exist as a Jewish state.

I firmly believe that the Native Americans should not have helped the settlers, but did not expect the settlers to double cross and backstab them the way that they did.

When I say the only Jewish state in existence I'm saying that it is the only country in the world which has a primarily Jewish population. Again, it wasn't up to the Jews to make Israel a state, it was Britan as I keep saying over and over and you keep overlooking that. Jews have just as much right to be in that area as the Palestinians since they have clear and obvious history there.

As a general rule of thumb, if there's no one who could possibly be old enough to personally remember when their people had occupied a particular geographical location, they no longer have a claim to it. Trying to justify displacing people today because your ancestors were there a thousands years ago is absolutely insane.

The surrounding nations attacked Israel because they had a massive influx of refugees who were illegally removed from their homes. People wanted to go home, and the surrounding nations didn't want to support these people (because they were also outsiders). It's not about some "fuck the Jews" mentality or not accepting the right of Jews to have a country to call their own - it's about the Jewish state not having the right to exist there as it was currently occupied by others. That said, trying to pat Israel on the back for giving the land back is akin to being proud of a victim of bullying who ends up becoming a bully himself. Israel has all the power and support, then and now, and they've continually abused that power and support to the detriment of the original inhabitants of those lands.

Lastly, I'm definitely not overlooking the role of western nations in the creation of Israel. In the first block of mine you quoted, I called them out specifically for being wrong. Just to reiterate it once last time - having history in a land a thousand years ago is irrelevant if that was the last time your people lived there. If that was a legitimate justification to claim taking land from people that are currently there, then Native Americans should be able to go claim New York City as the capital of their newly-created country. Something something possession is 9/10 of the law. Maybe if Israel continues to exist for a long time it will become theirs in the eyes of history, but their history will never be morally justifiable, in the same way the history of the U.S. isn't morally justifiable.

[archibaldcrane]

Asking for a ceasefire while you blockade, expand settlements, continue military occupation etc. etc. is asking for unconditional, indefinite surrender from people living in a land you shouldn't be occupying in the first place.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't know what you want them to do when they have tried time and time again to give the land back and just ask for peace and a ceasefire, and get told no for over 5 decades, WHILE being constantly attacked.

More people have been murdered in the first 5 months of this year in Chicago (population 2.7 million) than Israelis (population 7.9 million) killed by Hamas in the past 9 years combined.

Your hyperbole, I see it.

[Aurara]

As a general rule of thumb, if there's no one who could possibly be old enough to personally remember when their people had occupied a particular geographical location, they no longer have a claim to it. Trying to justify displacing people today because your ancestors were there a thousands years ago is absolutely insane.

The problem here is that both sides have been there equally as long, both hold sacre/holy/religous ties to the land and both sides have ancestors so it's pretty frustrating right out the door. I agree with what you are saying here though.

The surrounding nations attacked Israel because they had a massive influx of refugees who were illegally removed from their homes. People wanted to go home, and the surrounding nations didn't want to support these people (because they were also outsiders). It's not about some "fuck the Jews" mentality or not accepting the right of Jews to have a country to call their own - it's about the Jewish state not having the right to exist there as it was currently occupied by others. That said, trying to pat Israel on the back for giving the land back is akin to being proud of a victim of bullying who ends up becoming a bully himself. Israel has all the power and support, then and now, and they've continually abused that power and support to the detriment of the original inhabitants of those lands.

I very much disagree. It is not because people were displaced, so stop saying that. They attacked because they did not recognize Israel's right to exist, the displacement did not help, but it really was because they were Jewish, and because of the long history that Jews and Arabs have had for over four thousand years.

[Waraji]

We could just find a way to supply both sides with Nuclear Weapons, and see where it goes from there. Worst case scenario, no one uses it.

[Blubbartron]

I very much disagree. It is not because people were displaced, so stop saying that. They attacked because they did not recognize Israel's right to exist, the displacement did not help, but it really was because they were Jewish, and because of the long history that Jews and Arabs have had for over four thousand years.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Seriously, there's a very large difference between "Israel does not have a right to exist where it currently does" and "Israel does not have a right to exist."

Is there a lot of cultural tension between Arabs and Jews? Sure. Did that contribute to the animosity against an occupying force that declared itself the country of Israel? Absolutely. But if you think that culturally-motivated hatred was the primary factor for people to fight back against an occupation, then you're nearly as delusional as the "War on Christmas" Christians with a persecution complex.

[archibaldcrane]

Egypt, Syria, Lebannon, and Jordan don't really matter anymore in the current I-P situation. Stop talking about them. The "We're surrounded by anti-semitic countries who want to destroy us" argument isn't particularly relevant anymore. Israel's greatest "threat" comes from the people they have penned into Gaza and the West Bank and keep under constant threat and reality of violence, occupation, hopelessness - not their neighboring countries.

[BaneTheBrawler]

We could just find a way to supply both sides with Nuclear Weapons, and see where it goes from there. Worst case scenario, no one uses it.

nah, see, i thought about that and worst case scenario is that they sell them to fund more conventional weaponry.


best plan is to develop a time-acceleration bubble, put it in israel and activate it, and then when skynet comes lurching out of the bubble we use our right to defend ourselves and nuke the whole middle east.

[Aurara]

Israel also has nukes already...so

[Waraji]

Well even if that could be the case, who at the moment is in the market for Nuclear Weapons? I would think only groups who would use it, would cause complete nuclear retaliation at this point.

Israel also has nukes already...so

Yeah, remembered that after I posted it.

[Aurara]

best plan is to develop a time-acceleration bubble, put it in israel and activate it, and then when skynet comes lurching out of the bubble we use our right to defend ourselves and nuke the whole middle east.

It's the only plan that will fucking solve this issue, lol glass the whole region and start from square one. But you know, that's A LOT of dead people.

[Viserdes]

I thought that the jews, christians, muslims, and other ethnicities coexisted up until relatively recently ( (late 1800's) the fall of the ottoman empire and the turkish nationalism movement) under the millet system. Although the groups werent on exactly equal footing they weren't always trying to kill each other solely based on their religion. This palestinian/israel conflict i feel is based on political agendas at its root (power and land) and religion is a secondary factor. Not saying that having something like the ottoman empire is a solution, but at least they kept the people it ruled from going after each others throats most of the time.

[Aurara]

Heavens no, this is a conflict that has been going on for thousands of years over land both sides claim rights to, but nobody wants to peacefully coexist.

[Waraji]

But you know, that's A LOT of dead people.

God killed a whole lot more people in the Old Testament, and for a lot less too.

[Aurara]

To quote a line from the movie Some Like it Hot: Nobody's perfect.

[SamanosukeShiva]

hitler's definitely not perfect

[Blubbartron]

God killed a whole lot more people in the Old Testament, and for a lot less too.

Striving to emulate a narcissistic serial-killing psychopathic cunt like YHWH probably isn't something we should do. Granted, it's entirely likely that leaving their "holy" land a glowing, uninhabitable crater for a couple centuries is the only way that religious folks will stop giving such a shit about it. Either that or they'll continue their pilgrimages and hajjes (hajjis? whatever the pluralization is) and end up forming a mutant civilization a la Fallout.

[thetruepandagod]

As a small aside, you keep saying "ONLY Jewish state in existence" as if it's a good thing that there be a nation specifically for Jews. That's pretty fucked up, man. No country should be reserved for people of a particular faith (or race, or whatever); all countries should treat all people equally. Imagine if the U.S. said it was the "ONLY Christian state in existence" or some other such nonsense, and actively refused people of other faiths from gaining citizenship, or paid people of the faith in other countries to emigrate and concentrate their global population.

Why exactly should a country like South Korea or Iceland be barred from being able to control what sort of people they allow in to their country? Just curious. Alternatively is there a problem with homogenous societies?

And if a country bars immigration, who is to say that they would treat foreign tourists negatively or view them as unequal.

[Blubbartron]

Why exactly should a country like South Korea or Iceland be barred from being able to control what sort of people they allow in to their country? Just curious. Alternatively is there a problem with homogenous societies?

And if a country bars immigration, who is to say that they would treat foreign tourists negatively or view them as unequal.

Is this a serious question? It's discrimination. Allowing countries to refuse immigrants based on race or creed is discrimination. What the actual fuck?

[thetruepandagod]

Why should a country be beholden to those from another country with another belief and set of societal beliefs if they don't want to be? Why should a country be forced to allow people into it that may or may not assimilate and mesh with the fabric of their society?

edit: one very minor example of un-meshable beliefs meeting in a rather homogenous country. http://www.japancrush.com/2014/stori...t-sensoji.html Saudi Wahhabi follower goes around smashing Buddha statues in a Buddhist country because of his belief. If Wahhabi is a religion that will be in constant conflict with my countries beliefs why should i be forced to let Wahhabi followers into my country if i don't want to, by letting them into my country either the person would have to go against his own beliefs or my country would have to change to accommodate him neither of which should be forced on an individual or a country.