| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| But the real reason it interests me is that, as Britain's Peel Commission long ago concluded, this is a case of right against right. |
Amos Oz might call it a case of right against right, but I wouldn't agree. It wasn't a very good solution, as more than 4 million (some say 6 million) refugees can testify. |
You mean 4 million people lost their land in 1948? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
megandadam
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Location: toronto, canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And where do you think "North America's native populations" came from? How about Central and South America, and how about Australia and New Zealand, as well? In fact, how about anybody on the planet, who finds themselves where they are today, hmm, including all the Arabs all over "the Arab Middle East" as well as the Turks in Turkey and Central Asia.
Do you think they just occurred there "naturally?" Or that they did not use "might makes right" to take what they took? |
i guess you are right in some ways, i had thought about this as a possible response to what i had wrote.
we;ll never know about the land-bridge/pangea theory for sure.
this was before state lines/borders so for all intents and purposes yes, they were native to those countries you list.
a bunch of different peoples used conquest but does that make it necessarily "right"? the israel creation only happened 60 years ago.
i was just commenting on what interested me about it and from a bird's eye view, it seems like the US/UN just plopped it on land being lived on by a number of different, coexisting peoples. that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| But the real reason it interests me is that, as Britain's Peel Commission long ago concluded, this is a case of right against right. |
Amos Oz might call it a case of right against right, but I wouldn't agree. It wasn't a very good solution, as more than 4 million (some say 6 million) refugees can testify. |
You mean 4 million people lost their land in 1948? |
Sigh. Joo. There are at least 4 million refugees who were either made homeless in 1948, or who are descended from those who were. 80% of those living in Gaza fall into that category, for example. They are stateless. But even just for the original refugees (3/4 million or so) it really was a tragedy that shouldn't have been permitted. So many are still suffering today because of it.
It was a stupid solution which no-one would dream up today. But in those days the UN was made up of mostly nations from the 1st world, who hadn't much concern for a bunch of 'sand niggers.'
Joo, I'm not going to get into a long 'cut and paste' duel with you. If you want to debate it, start a new thread. Leave this one for people to explain why they are interested in topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| But the real reason it interests me is that, as Britain's Peel Commission long ago concluded, this is a case of right against right. |
Amos Oz might call it a case of right against right, but I wouldn't agree. It wasn't a very good solution, as more than 4 million (some say 6 million) refugees can testify. |
You mean 4 million people lost their land in 1948? |
Sigh. Joo. There are at least 4 million refugees who were either made homeless in 1948, or who are descended from those who were. 80% of those living in Gaza fall into that category, for example. They are stateless.
It was a stupid solution which no-one would dream up today. But in those days the UN was made up of mostly nations from the 1st world, who hadn't much concern for a bunch of 'sand niggers.' |
Sure Israel was a foolish solution but that doesn't change what Israel's enemies did. And how they still rule.
Anyway for the record 1966 who ruled Gaza?
The UN might have been racist but they weren't the only racists around
were they?
I am not saying Israel isn't responsible for the wrongs they have done. but they are not the only ones guilty of wrongs and they are not the only ones responsible for the current situation.
I would be very happy to see all sides called to account for their wrongs but when only one side is called to account and the wrongs of the other side are ignored that isn't justice.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
megandadam
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Location: toronto, canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Sure Israel was a foolish solution but that doesn't change what Israel's enemies did. And how they still rule.
Anyway for the record 1966 who ruled Gaza?
The UN might have been racist but they weren't the only racists around were they? |
you mentioned this above? what exactly do you mean?
i've seen both hamas and the idf use some pretty gross tactics. but then again, maybe it would be different if i was living in a warzone....morality means nothing....and a wall is the sturdiest thing i know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
megandadam
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Location: toronto, canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, i was forbidden to access the first.
the second doesn't really tell me anything.
and the third - so what? this was after the creation of israel in traditionally arab lands. why don't you just write what you think?
did you even read that wikipedia article? unconclusive at best.
not trying to argue at all, but i wish you'd just say what you really think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In 1948 Israel�s enemies launched a war of annihilation. where all the jews of the area even arab jews would have been expelled or killed .
The mufit was a huge supporter of Hitler.
Does it count?
In response to Israel, Israel�s enemies persecuted their arab jews.
http://theoccupation.net/images/NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg
Does it count. ?
Those who support Osama Bin Laden , Saddam Hussein , Ayatollah Khomeni or Hizzbollah and all those with a similar ideology are all fascist bigots who can�t be trusted to govern or protect their minorities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The solution to the arab Israel conflict is a liberal democratic Ottoman superstate. All middle east nations are fake nations anyway.
The price for the elimination of Israel.
Mommar Khaddafy must step down.
Ali Khamani must step down.
Assad must leave office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| megandadam wrote: |
| ...and from a bird's eye view, it seems like the US/UN just plopped it on land being lived on by a number of different, coexisting peoples. that's all. |
I doubt you have a bird's eye view on this at all -- especially if you begin the issue at the UN partition. "Unconclusive at best." ROFL.
Big_Bird: not Amos Oz. Rather, the Peel Commission. 1937. You claim that you have read all there is to read on this. You should know about this commission, its findings, and its language.
In any case, given the subsequent history, I would say that the Arabs fucked up the day they rejected this schema...
Peel Commission Partition Proposal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
megandadam
Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Location: toronto, canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| megandadam wrote: |
| ...and from a bird's eye view, it seems like the US/UN just plopped it on land being lived on by a number of different, coexisting peoples. that's all. |
I doubt you have a bird's eye view on this at all -- especially if you begin the issue at the UN partition. "Unconclusive at best." ROFL.
|
i would bet that most people would view this conflict as starting from the un partition. and i was referencing that wikipedia article as being inconclusive regarding the exodus of jews.
so what is your take? in general, doesn't it seem like one day israel was not there and the next it exists as a country? i am trying to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| megandadam wrote: |
| i am trying to understand. |
Unlikely.
You sound like a Moon Landing conspiracy-theorist or a 9/11 conspiracy-theorist who claims he is "just asking questions."
In any case, neither the Zionists nor the Arabs tend to start with the UN partition, especially when justifying their own claims or attacking the other side's claims. You could start with Homo sapiens's populating Palestine and the eastern Med through ancient history, including the Kingdom of Israel; you could start with that kingdom's destruction and the diaspora; you could start with the Arab conquests; you could start with the rise and fall of the Ottomans; you could start with the British Empire and its changing war aims and strategies from the First World War through the Second; you could start with the UN partition and 1948; or you could start with 1967. But if you want to claim a bird's-eye perspective on this conflict, I think you need to show that you can deal intelligently with any of these starting points.
My own view is this: immediate cease-fire on all sides. Then we untangle this one strand at a time with an eye towards the pre-1967, two-state end-game settlement D. Kurtzer and S. Lasensky proposed in their study-group report last year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| megandadam wrote: |
| ...and from a bird's eye view, it seems like the US/UN just plopped it on land being lived on by a number of different, coexisting peoples. that's all. |
I doubt you have a bird's eye view on this at all -- especially if you begin the issue at the UN partition. "Unconclusive at best." ROFL.
Big_Bird: not Amos Oz. Rather, the Peel Commission. 1937. You claim that you have read all there is to read on this. You should know about this commission, its findings, and its language.
In any case, given the subsequent history, I would say that the Arabs fucked up the day they rejected this schema...
Peel Commission Partition Proposal |
Years ago I read a shitload about the subject - can't remember where I read what - but I am pretty sure Amos Oz has described it as 'right against right.'
With the wonderful gift of 20/20 hindsight, most might say the Arabs should have gone with it. But I doubt anyone from any country would have found such a proposal reasonable if it were put to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
