Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fight Club

Hamas Takeover

Recommended Posts

I'm somewhat pro Israel, but I'm Jewish, so I'm not biased or anything.

That being said, I've tried to divorce my predispositions and look at the situation as objectively as I can. And I think when one looks at the situation objectively, it's very difficult to take sides, because both sides have done terrible things, which is why I'm not entirely sure what should be done.

The Jews have been screwed over enough that they probably deserve a state . . . or something. But Israel probably shouldn't have been created under the circumstances it was, ie kicking a whole bunch of other people off their land. The Palestinians, however, have handled their grievances quite often in very unreasonable ways, and the Israelis have responded with unreasonable violence. Now I'm not sure I can be pro either of them.

I really think, then, that a two state solution is best. And I'm afraid that might be impossible.

Wow, that is a remarkably well informed point of view i more-or-less agree with.

 

At betty, how would you feel if you were promised a country after years of colonialism, and then, because of something someone did on another continent, you had half your land taken away from you and given to the people who had been bombing the british for years. If i were the arabs, i'd be pretty darned pissed off.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
israel shouldn't be blamed for having to exist in the world created by england's imperial meddling. the palestinians had a chance to have a two-state solution in 1948 but decided genocide was preferable. israel has done plenty of things worthy of criticism, but to weigh up the actions of both and come up even is absurd.

 

I'm not saying they're even-I'm making a point of not taking a stance on who is more in the wrong. I'm saying trying to weigh it in the first place is absurd, such an emotional and unreasonable conflict can't be put neatly into black and white, and I think trying to weigh up the actions of both is problematic. Or at best, it's not conducive to a solution, which is honestly what everyone (except extreme factions) probably want. I don't see what good placing blame can do for that, and I'd trade the relief of being able to squarely place blame on one side for a better possibility of resolution (if that's even possible--but we've got to hold out hope for it, or it's definitely not going to happen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that is a remarkably well informed point of view i more-or-less agree with.

 

At betty, how would you feel if you were promised a country after years of colonialism, and then, because of something someone did on another continent, you had half your land taken away from you and given to the people who had been bombing the british for years. If i were the arabs, i'd be pretty darned pissed off.

the arabs?

 

thats kind of ageneral statement.

 

thats like saying..."oh the germans lost a lot of land after wwII, i bet the whites are pretty pissed off".

 

all arabs aren't anti-israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At betty, how would you feel if you were promised a country after years of colonialism, and then, because of something someone did on another continent, you had half your land taken away from you and given to the people who had been bombing the british for years. If i were the arabs, i'd be pretty darned pissed off.

that is an absurdly simplistic view of what was involved in the creation of israel.

 

i love how most people here will back any nationalistic movement no matter how genocidal or backwards but balk at consideration of israel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is an absurdly simplistic view of what was involved in the creation of israel.

 

i love how most people here will back any nationalistic movement no matter how genocidal or backwards but balk at consideration of israel.

 

I'd like to preface this post by saying that I'm in no way anti-Israel; I have some distant family there and I've been raised to support it.

 

That being said, so what if Israel was created legitimately and wasn't at all in the wrong for the way it originally handled the Palestinians? Even someone who looks at the situation as objectively as possible must admit that Israeli troops in some instances have been overly harsh on Palestinians--that being said it was/is the terrorist tactics of the Palestinians that has caused such anger and brutality. But terrorism doesn't justify excessive brutality in return, and excessive brutality doesn't justify terrorism.

 

And even if Israel is more in the right (I'm not sure that it is) and there has been less brutality on the part of Israeli troops than terrorism on the part of Palestinians, how does recognizing that help anyone move forward from the status quo violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight, everything is 20/20. I think the conclusion that we need to come to is that the need for Palestinian statehood should have, by now, been placed below the need for geo-political stability.

 

I think that we can, for the most part, agree that Palestinian Arabs, at least as individuals, were entitled to one of two things; repatriation, or compensation for lost possessions. Individual Palestinians had it within their power the seek vindication of their civil and individual rights within existing state structures.

 

But, by now, I think that the Palestinian claims to nationhood have been, or should have been, subordinated tot he maintenance of the political order established in the Middle East following the Arab-Israeli War.

 

Thats how I view it as a legal debate. On the personal level, I have a hard time coming to a conclusion. By this point, there are very few Palestinians who have deeply held roots in British Palestine, and I would hope that they conclude that expatriation is preferable to martyrdom, but, while the indivudual human being is capable of great feats and good deeds, people, in groups, are the most vile, disgusting, terrifying, destructive creature to ever inhabit the planet.

 

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this: while the Israeli-Jews have certainly reacted harshly to insurrection in the region, the insurrection they were reacting to was nothing more than a Palestinian attempt at genocide (as it seems.) Maybe my love for the Jewish people is a kind of Aryan-Guilt. I don't know, but I just feel my gut pulling me that way, even though there is, at this point, probably no chance for a logical conclusion to hostilities in the area.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love how most people here will back any nationalistic movement no matter how genocidal or backwards but balk at consideration of israel.

i dont think truer words have ever been spoken on cross-x.

 

like seriously, i'm going to pos rep you every chance i get now.

 

 

:edit: ok this is a fair warning. you are all about to be educated by my friend in a sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to preface this post by saying that I'm in no way anti-Israel; I have some distant family there and I've been raised to support it.

 

That being said, so what if Israel was created legitimately and wasn't at all in the wrong for the way it originally handled the Palestinians? Even someone who looks at the situation as objectively as possible must admit that Israeli troops in some instances have been overly harsh on Palestinians--that being said it was/is the terrorist tactics of the Palestinians that has caused such anger and brutality. But terrorism doesn't justify excessive brutality in return, and excessive brutality doesn't justify terrorism.

 

And even if Israel is more in the right (I'm not sure that it is) and there has been less brutality on the part of Israeli troops than terrorism on the part of Palestinians, how does recognizing that help anyone move forward from the status quo violence?

it probably doesn't really. talking about who's less bad is mostly useless and is basically the secular equivalent of asking how many angels can dance etc etc. i would raise it to counter the received depiction of palestinians as noble underdogs fighting a brutal colonial occupation, however.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would raise it to counter the received depiction of palestinians as noble underdogs fighting a brutal colonial occupation, however.

 

That's fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is an absurdly simplistic view of what was involved in the creation of israel.

 

i love how most people here will back any nationalistic movement no matter how genocidal or backwards but balk at consideration of israel.

First hamas is not nationalistic, but that is hardly important.

Secondly, i find it ironic that you call hamas genocidal when the ration of dead israelis to palestinians is 8-1. I find it funny how everyone is using the term 'genocide' to describe the actions of the palestinians when many more of them are killed then israelis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First hamas is not nationalistic, but that is hardly important.

Secondly, i find it ironic that you call hamas genocidal when the ration of dead israelis to palestinians is 8-1. I find it funny how everyone is using the term 'genocide' to describe the actions of the palestinians when many more of them are killed then israelis.

you don't know what nationalism means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This over-zealous support for Hamas and the guilt-ridden half-apologies for Israel need to end.

 

First of all, Israel wanted this to happen, at least earlier. As far back as the 1980s Israel secretly funded Hamas hoping they would start inner fighting. Israel knows they could crush any threat that comes there way from Islamic militants in the territories but don't want to deal with the international/internal ramifications. This act by Hamas has destabilized the region and effectively set back any chance of statehood by decades. No serious Western country will take the notion of a Palestinian state seriously now. They have an autonomous government funded by the International community (mostly Israel and the US) and they couldn't take care of themselves.

 

If you truly supported the rights of Palestinians you wouldn't support this disgusting intra-insurrection. You would hope that they would realize they are all on the same side of the boat and they have common interests. What exactly does Hamas overthrowing the PLO and claiming control of the territories accomplish? A lot of death, a lot of anger and an Israel that looks more necessary to "police" the area than ever before?

 

As for the notion of a two-state solution. After these attacks, are you mad? What would be accomplished now by a two-state solution? The Palestinians would tear each other apart. They have no economy and no prospects for an economy to form. If Israel left them be they would continue fighting Israel, continue getting poorer and continue suffering. Shove your pathetic leftist pity aside and think rationally. You're telling a bunch of people with no tools to go out and build an automaton. Good luck.

 

If you want a two state solution you would need Israel to be involved for decades helping the Palestinians be ready for a state. Oslo gave them an autonomous state - corruption, inner-fighting, poverty and religious extremism tore that regime apart. Education breeds wealth and wealth breeds peace. If you want peace you need Israel to help build up their economy.

 

Also, we need to ask what exactly Israel owes to the Palestinian populous - I don't doubt that there are millions to be paid in reparations. The Israelis spilled a lot of blood. However, you can't write off the responsibility to the Palestinians on the Israelis alone. Jordan, in the 1970s, slaughtered thousands of Palestinians and pushed them into the West Bank. In fact, it's largely impossible to determine which refugees even originated in Israel because of this. The other arab nations have never lifted a real finger for the Palestinian people. They have given money to foment instability to further their own interests. While Israel may have some debt to the Palestinians, one has to ask why the Arab nations aren't stepping up.

 

In addition to that, if the Jews have to pay reparations to the Palestinians, the arab countries should pay for their ousting and mistreatment of Jews within their own borders.

 

To respond to the idea that Palestinians were promised their land and then denied it is patently untrue. Before England conquered the Ottomans it was largely under the control of Syrian and Egyptian landowners. After the English took the land, as early as the 1920s, they discussed setting up a Jewish homeland where modern day Israel stands. In the meanwhile they set up a Hashemite regime - a regime that is mostly unkind to its Palestinian brethren. The England never had the intention of helping the Palestinians and in reality probably would not have cared either way. Much of the pro-Israel propaganda that Zionists cite can actually be found in the English surveys of the land - questioning exactly how sympathetic the English were to the Palestinian cause. After WWII the story is well known - the original two-state solution was firmly rejected but nonetheless an Israeli state was planned where Israel is today. There was never a 'promise' to the Palestinians. This doesn't mean that they don't deserve a homeland. But the idea that they were let down is untrue - they were never even given hope. This is more of an attack on the English and their royal fucking up of the middle east. The French helped too.

 

At the end of the day - the argument for Palestinian statehood at this point is weak. There are more important things to focus on. They need education, an economy, health care and stability. That won't be provided by turning them loose on themselves. Not at this point.

 

Genocide is defined as a political act of extermination. Hamas calls for the active decimation of Jewry and Israelis. Thus genocide is built into their charter. The Israeli government does not have that sort of policy. They are hardly genocidal - perhaps too aggressive. Now, there are racist elements of the Israeli government and racist parties. But in and of itself the Israeli government has no written out policy of genocide.

Q F A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This over-zealous support for Hamas and the guilt-ridden half-apologies for Israel need to end.

 

First of all, Israel wanted this to happen, at least earlier. As far back as the 1980s Israel secretly funded Hamas hoping they would start inner fighting. Israel knows they could crush any threat that comes there way from Islamic militants in the territories but don't want to deal with the international/internal ramifications. This act by Hamas has destabilized the region and effectively set back any chance of statehood by decades. No serious Western country will take the notion of a Palestinian state seriously now. They have an autonomous government funded by the International community (mostly Israel and the US) and they couldn't take care of themselves.

 

If you truly supported the rights of Palestinians you wouldn't support this disgusting intra-insurrection. You would hope that they would realize they are all on the same side of the boat and they have common interests. What exactly does Hamas overthrowing the PLO and claiming control of the territories accomplish? A lot of death, a lot of anger and an Israel that looks more necessary to "police" the area than ever before?

 

As for the notion of a two-state solution. After these attacks, are you mad? What would be accomplished now by a two-state solution? The Palestinians would tear each other apart. They have no economy and no prospects for an economy to form. If Israel left them be they would continue fighting Israel, continue getting poorer and continue suffering. Shove your pathetic leftist pity aside and think rationally. You're telling a bunch of people with no tools to go out and build an automaton. Good luck.

 

If you want a two state solution you would need Israel to be involved for decades helping the Palestinians be ready for a state. Oslo gave them an autonomous state - corruption, inner-fighting, poverty and religious extremism tore that regime apart. Education breeds wealth and wealth breeds peace. If you want peace you need Israel to help build up their economy.

 

Also, we need to ask what exactly Israel owes to the Palestinian populous - I don't doubt that there are millions to be paid in reparations. The Israelis spilled a lot of blood. However, you can't write off the responsibility to the Palestinians on the Israelis alone. Jordan, in the 1970s, slaughtered thousands of Palestinians and pushed them into the West Bank. In fact, it's largely impossible to determine which refugees even originated in Israel because of this. The other arab nations have never lifted a real finger for the Palestinian people. They have given money to foment instability to further their own interests. While Israel may have some debt to the Palestinians, one has to ask why the Arab nations aren't stepping up.

 

In addition to that, if the Jews have to pay reparations to the Palestinians, the arab countries should pay for their ousting and mistreatment of Jews within their own borders.

 

To respond to the idea that Palestinians were promised their land and then denied it is patently untrue. Before England conquered the Ottomans it was largely under the control of Syrian and Egyptian landowners. After the English took the land, as early as the 1920s, they discussed setting up a Jewish homeland where modern day Israel stands. In the meanwhile they set up a Hashemite regime - a regime that is mostly unkind to its Palestinian brethren. The England never had the intention of helping the Palestinians and in reality probably would not have cared either way. Much of the pro-Israel propaganda that Zionists cite can actually be found in the English surveys of the land - questioning exactly how sympathetic the English were to the Palestinian cause. After WWII the story is well known - the original two-state solution was firmly rejected but nonetheless an Israeli state was planned where Israel is today. There was never a 'promise' to the Palestinians. This doesn't mean that they don't deserve a homeland. But the idea that they were let down is untrue - they were never even given hope. This is more of an attack on the English and their royal fucking up of the middle east. The French helped too.

 

At the end of the day - the argument for Palestinian statehood at this point is weak. There are more important things to focus on. They need education, an economy, health care and stability. That won't be provided by turning them loose on themselves. Not at this point.

 

Genocide is defined as a political act of extermination. Hamas calls for the active decimation of Jewry and Israelis. Thus genocide is built into their charter. The Israeli government does not have that sort of policy. They are hardly genocidal - perhaps too aggressive. Now, there are racist elements of the Israeli government and racist parties. But in and of itself the Israeli government has no written out policy of genocide.

 

QFFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

First of all, Israel wanted this to happen, at least earlier. As far back as the 1980s Israel secretly funded Hamas hoping they would start inner fighting. Israel knows they could crush any threat that comes there way from Islamic militants in the territories but don't want to deal with the international/internal ramifications. This act by Hamas has destabilized the region and effectively set back any chance of statehood by decades. No serious Western country will take the notion of a Palestinian state seriously now. They have an autonomous government funded by the International community (mostly Israel and the US) and they couldn't take care of themselves.

I'll agree with the first part about the secret funding. I'll even go so far as to say that the actions may have set the timeframe back, in the short run. But only in the short run. If fatah was always in power, then true peace would never have existed. The PA would always be a proxy of the IDF, Israel would always have control over water, land, air rights in the OT. In short palestinians would always have existed as occupied without rights. However, by hamas forcing israel to truly recognize palestine as a autonomous entity, only then can the attaining of rights begin.

 

 

If you truly supported the rights of Palestinians you wouldn't support this disgusting intra-insurrection. You would hope that they would realize they are all on the same side of the boat and they have common interests. What exactly does Hamas overthrowing the PLO and claiming control of the territories accomplish? A lot of death, a lot of anger and an Israel that looks more necessary to "police" the area than ever before?

Yes, i fully agree that in the short term, israel may crack down harder on the territories, and more people will die. However, like i said above, it is the long term that matters. When the world continually sees pictures like that of faris odeh and mohammed al-durra, the palestinians gain international sympathy, and the whold world, besides of course, america are seeing those pictures and are comiserating with the palestinian david vs. the israeli goliath, even if that is not taking into account palestinian terror. And because of the terror attacks, a large portion of israelis are now pushing for disengagment from the occupies territories. Whether we like it or now, terrorism is an effective tool for policy change by those entities (i.e. hamas) who have no other viable alternative.

 

As for the notion of a two-state solution. After these attacks, are you mad? What would be accomplished now by a two-state solution? The Palestinians would tear each other apart. They have no economy and no prospects for an economy to form. If Israel left them be they would continue fighting Israel, continue getting poorer and continue suffering. Shove your pathetic leftist pity aside and think rationally. You're telling a bunch of people with no tools to go out and build an automaton. Good luck.

Now that is ridiculous, the economy is bad b/c of israels subjugation and curfews. Do you think britain should not have withdrawn from its colonies because the colonies had no economies besides that of mercantilism. No. And it is obvious that the majority of the people support hamas, it is only through israel and america helping out fatah, can they even begin to start. Notice in all the videos, hamas is using russian weapons, while fateh is using american buit m-16's.

 

If you want a two state solution you would need Israel to be involved for decades helping the Palestinians be ready for a state. Oslo gave them an autonomous state - corruption, inner-fighting, poverty and religious extremism tore that regime apart. Education breeds wealth and wealth breeds peace. If you want peace you need Israel to help build up their economy.

The oslo accords were a joke, nothing more, under that israel would still retain rights over, private israeli roads, all border crossings (exclusively), water rights, and air rights, and still have lots of control over internal politics, autonomy.

 

I'll have to answer the rest later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the above statement is that Palestine, in terms of international law, doesn't meet the criteria necessary to be defined as a state.

 

For Example: When the PLO was sued in a federal court in the United States for alleged involvement in the killing of a passenger aboard a cruise ship in the Mediterranean Sea, it sought to avoid the litigation by asserting that it was a state and thus immune from suit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered the 1988 Declaration of Independence, but decided that the PLO was not a state because it neither controlled territory nor had a permanent population. Many writers agreed with the Second Circuit's determination that the PLO, int he period immediately following its Declaration of Independence, did not satisfy criteria for statehood.

 

Incidentally, the British, in their meddling, created what was meant to be a Palestinian State, known as Transjordan. But, as was enumerated earlier, even the Palestinian State drove out the Palestinians. It seems that maybe, just maybe, if this whole thing wasn't about a Palestinian perpetration of flagrant Genocide, the population would agree to expatriation to Jordan, unless even that great beacon of Muslim prosperity will have nothing to do with them. If Jordan wants nothing to due with the Palestinians, then what obligations do the Israeli's have?

 

Also, Ayyash, I fail to see how your claim that Hamas is supported by the majority of Palestinian people makes them the best option for Palestinian self government. Most notably because there was an organization in Germany in the 1930's, called the National Socialist German Workers Party (you may have heard of it). Anyway, what this group decided it would do, is rally the people of a complete governmental failure behind them, attempt, and indeed almost pull off, the complete eradication of the Jewish race, and then proceeded to precipitate the single most destructive act in the history of mankind.

 

Militaristic (read HAMAS) aspirations in the Palestinian districts are nothing short of the complete eradication of the "Zionist Swine". How is everyone so blind to this?

 

ALSO: I know that in this post I brought Godwin's Law into play, which I agree is usually a repugnant act of intellectual absurdity, but it is my feeling, and I'm sure many of you agree, that in this case it is totally warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is ridiculous, the economy is bad b/c of israels subjugation and curfews. Do you think britain should not have withdrawn from its colonies because the colonies had no economies besides that of mercantilism. No. And it is obvious that the majority of the people support hamas, it is only through israel and america helping out fatah, can they even begin to start. Notice in all the videos, hamas is using russian weapons, while fateh is using american buit m-16's.

wow...

 

no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in this situation is the ideology on which Hamas bases its actions. Its all out islamic fundamentalism doens't help the people of palestine, the only reason its become more powerful then secular factions is due to the outside funding from countries like Iran that have a vested interest in seeing a strong fundamentalist movement.

 

Ultimately, this infighting only hurts the palestinian people. The infighting leaves them in a bad position, without stable leadership and without foreign aid that they desperately need. Its really too bad that hamas wasn't moderated by its mainstream political victories. This however, was most likely prevented by the reaction of the west to a democratically elected hamas, which lost all outside aid for the country and radicalized anti-west factions. I think we need to continue sending aid, even with this hamas uprising. Cutting off aid really only hurts the palestinian people and helps to further alienate them from the west, pushing them to iran and radical islam for consolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem in this situation is the ideology on which Hamas bases its actions. Its all out islamic fundamentalism doens't help the people of palestine, the only reason its become more powerful then secular factions is due to the outside funding from countries like Iran that have a vested interest in seeing a strong fundamentalist movement.

 

Ultimately, this infighting only hurts the palestinian people. The infighting leaves them in a bad position, without stable leadership and without foreign aid that they desperately need. Its really too bad that hamas wasn't moderated by its mainstream political victories. This however, was most likely prevented by the reaction of the west to a democratically elected hamas, which lost all outside aid for the country and radicalized anti-west factions. I think we need to continue sending aid, even with this hamas uprising. Cutting off aid really only hurts the palestinian people and helps to further alienate them from the west, pushing them to iran and radical islam for consolation.

True, we should send aid to the Palestinian people. I don't know whether it will "de-radicalize" Hamas or not, but it is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone think we SHOULD be arming the sunni insurgents in Iraq?

 

Considering the fact that every time the US (or another Western power) has armed a Middle Eastern faction, pretty much any Middle Eastern faction, it has turned out badly for both the US and the Middle East, it seems like my gut reaction would be . . . ummmm . . . no, maybe we should just . . . stay the hell out of it and not cause more violence for once.

Aid, helping in peace talks, these are things we could consider . . . (Not necessarily specifically to the Sunnis, just as a general statement)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you truly supported the rights of Palestinians you wouldn't support this disgusting intra-insurrection. You would hope that they would realize they are all on the same side of the boat and they have common interests. What exactly does Hamas overthrowing the PLO and claiming control of the territories accomplish? A lot of death, a lot of anger and an Israel that looks more necessary to "police" the area than ever before?

 

As for the notion of a two-state solution. After these attacks, are you mad? What would be accomplished now by a two-state solution? The Palestinians would tear each other apart. They have no economy and no prospects for an economy to form. If Israel left them be they would continue fighting Israel, continue getting poorer and continue suffering. Shove your pathetic leftist pity aside and think rationally. You're telling a bunch of people with no tools to go out and build an automaton. Good luck.

 

If you want a two state solution you would need Israel to be involved for decades helping the Palestinians be ready for a state. Oslo gave them an autonomous state - corruption, inner-fighting, poverty and religious extremism tore that regime apart. Education breeds wealth and wealth breeds peace. If you want peace you need Israel to help build up their economy.

 

oh the jewish burden of helping those childish palestinians. Palestine is getting more desparate by the day. The jooz weren't exactly "helping" the democratically elected government to begin with, so I don't see how this hurts recognition from Israel:

In 2006, Hamas won legislative control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), triggering a halt in international aid from countries labelling it a terrorist organization, including the United States, members of the European Union, and Israel.[citation needed]

 

As of December 2006, unemployment has risen from 23% in 2005[1] to over 50%. Two-thirds of Palestinians are living below the poverty line. In the last four months, approximately 10,000 have emigrated from the territories, and approximately 50,000 have applied to do so. For the past nine months, the 160,000 civil service workers, who are the primary breadwinners for a third of households, have not received their full salaries due to the cuts in foreign aid.[2]

 

1 ^ (French) "Le Quartet cherche une solution à la banqueroute palestinienne", Le Monde, May 9, 2006. Retrieved on May 9, 2006.

2 ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6597213

 

The hamas takeover amounts to Ya Basta moment.

 

Also, we need to ask what exactly Israel owes to the Palestinian populous - I don't doubt that there are millions to be paid in reparations. The Israelis spilled a lot of blood. However, you can't write off the responsibility to the Palestinians on the Israelis alone. Jordan, in the 1970s, slaughtered thousands of Palestinians and pushed them into the West Bank. In fact, it's largely impossible to determine which refugees even originated in Israel because of this.

 

so? The Israeli colonialist control of Palestine in the past decade, the IDFs quite indescriminate killing, the economic striation and starvation, its genocidal efforts to control water supplies, etc. etc. warrant some notion justice. A few million in reparations is scratching the surface.

 

The other arab nations have never lifted a real finger for the Palestinian people. They have given money to foment instability to further their own interests. While Israel may have some debt to the Palestinians, one has to ask why the Arab nations aren't stepping up.

 

its a very difficult process, but every once in a while, leaders come back with suitcases full of cash.

 

In addition to that, if the Jews have to pay reparations to the Palestinians, the arab countries should pay for their ousting and mistreatment of Jews within their own borders.

 

this sounds zionist. im going to ignore it.

 

 

To respond to the idea that Palestinians were promised their land and then denied it is patently untrue. Before England conquered the Ottomans it was largely under the control of Syrian and Egyptian landowners. After the English took the land, as early as the 1920s, they discussed setting up a Jewish homeland where modern day Israel stands. In the meanwhile they set up a Hashemite regime - a regime that is mostly unkind to its Palestinian brethren. The England never had the intention of helping the Palestinians and in reality probably would not have cared either way. Much of the pro-Israel propaganda that Zionists cite can actually be found in the English surveys of the land - questioning exactly how sympathetic the English were to the Palestinian cause. After WWII the story is well known - the original two-state solution was firmly rejected but nonetheless an Israeli state was planned where Israel is today. There was never a 'promise' to the Palestinians. This doesn't mean that they don't deserve a homeland. But the idea that they were let down is untrue - they were never even given hope. This is more of an attack on the English and their royal fucking up of the middle east. The French helped too.

 

At the end of the day - the argument for Palestinian statehood at this point is weak. There are more important things to focus on. They need education, an economy, health care and stability. That won't be provided by turning them loose on themselves. Not at this point.

 

i dont buy your argument the jews have to educate and care for and stabilize the palestinians. what i do buy, is the ability for the palestinians to do this: they need a state.

 

Genocide is defined as a political act of extermination. Hamas calls for the active decimation of Jewry and Israelis. Thus genocide is built into their charter. The Israeli government does not have that sort of policy. They are hardly genocidal - perhaps too aggressive. Now, there are racist elements of the Israeli government and racist parties. But in and of itself the Israeli government has no written out policy of genocide.

 

and they don't need one when they have an unlimited bankroll for weapons, total disrepect for international law, use clusterbombs in neighborhoods, attack refugee camps, economically and spatial ghettoize the palestinians, bulldoze anything worth value (like olive exports), and when they get rocks thrown at them, they shoot kids in the stomach.

 

so, they dont' need to write down, they just do it.

 

by the sounds of things, hamas has got a few reasons of its own. I don't support genocide, but its fine by me if hamas wants to take out an imperial power and theres some collateral damage.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this sounds zionist. im going to ignore it.

this basically sums up your respect for honesty or truth in the matter. good work. just reply to this post with some histrionics about made-up israeli atrocities and spare us the trouble of bothering with you.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this basically sums up your respect for honesty or truth in the matter. good work. just reply to this post with some histrionics about made-up israeli atrocities and spare us the trouble of bothering with you.

 

i guess my point is if you want two hold to groups to the same standards, perhaps both should have the same means, like a state.

 

what part of the israeli genocide is made up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can Palestine possibly deserve a state when there is too much infighting to even control a small, provisional government, of a land that isn't even theirs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...