Palestine UN Bid

BladeGunner14 wrote:

polska. wrote:Yah right, they were regularly prosecuted throughout Europe, especially in Germany during the middle ages. (Jews make fine traders and merchants, which obviously angered the Hansa, and many other trading states in medieval and early modern Europe) Besides the point, they were as hated in Europe after WWII as the Germans are. I'd wager the majority of Poles still blame the jews for WWII, not even going to start with what happened to Jews in the Soviet Union.

It was either Israel or America. Most jews chose America, a minority chose the Holy Land and thus this issue today.

I'm aware that they were persecuted throughout history but I sincerely doubt that this would have been the case after the Second World War. And do you reckon that it makes sense to throw them in Palestine and dispose of hundreds of thousands of people to compensate for the odious treatment they received by Europeans? That strikes me as rather odd.

I never said what they did was right, just that it happened.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

polska. wrote:Jews were the majority in the Levant before WWII started and before 1949.

Do you want to back that up with a source? I sincerely doubt that.

I've already done the numbers awhile back arguing with Ahly.... Basically according to the statistics by the British Empire there were x many people living in the levant, y many were muslim, x-y=z which were Jews/Christians/Druze. The z actually outnumbered the y by quite some bit(and keep in mind that y includes not only palestinians but many muslim Lebanese, in fact Lebanese probably were the vast majority). There was also an ongoing steady migration of Jews to the Levant since back in the 1800's fleeing persecution in Europe so it is hardly a surprise.

If you really want to press me for the numbers, I'll look for the numbers again later, but I've already done the research and posted it here, I've got no reason to lie. Palestinians were mostly tribes of farmers and herders with low population density before mobilizing in the 30's against the British/local Jewish-Christian-Druze forces. (you'll be surprised the conflict dates back before the formation of Israel, it's irrelevant today though because it was Britain that was the bad guys, Israel didn't exist yet ) Since the formation of Israel, the Palestinians have had a national idea of "outbreeding the infidels", thus why there are so many of them today.

Later this month, the Palestinian Authority intends to go before the United Nations to request recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Although there is strong backing for the bid, the United States, in the name of supporting Israel, has stated its willingness to use its Security Council veto power to keep the Palestinians from joining the U.N. as a full voting member. The U.S. has also refused to join in a more symbolic General Assembly vote that could change the Palestinians' status from a "nonvoting observer entity" to a "nonvoting observer state."

Here are five reasons why the U.S. should support the Palestinian bid and not exercise its veto at the U.N.

Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.

But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.

The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.

A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."

It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.

Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being."

President Obama has utterly failed to advance the Middle East peace process.

Obama came into office vowing a more active and evenhanded approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Yet beyond a few lofty speeches about Palestinian suffering, he has offered no substantive policy shifts or specific proposals for moving negotiations forward. Obama's attempt to temporarily stop Israel from building settlements in the occupied territories backfired when he caved in to Israeli intransigence. The administration then had the nerve to veto a nonbinding U.N. resolution condemning the very settlements Obama himself had condemned. The president's barely newsworthy suggestion that negotiations for a two-state solution be based on the 1967 borders with land swaps (which, as the basis for the Oslo accords, has been the principle advanced, if not publicly announced, by every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter) was ridiculed by the Israeli prime minister, and in the Capitol building, no less. The president's kowtowing to Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing has made the U.S. look weak on the global stage. If for no other reason than to prove to the world that the U.S. is not Israel's lap dog, the president should refrain from vetoing a Palestinian state.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not political suicide to defy the will of Israel.

There is no doubt that American public opinion remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But polls show that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. should not favor one side over the other in the conflict. Among thoughtful leaders in the media, military and foreign affairs, there has been a consensus that our policy toward Israel is severely damaging America's interests and image around the world. According to a 2008 J Street poll, 78% of American Jews said they supported a two-state solution and 81% wanted the U.S. to pressure both sides to end the conflict.

Of course, the Republicans will try to paint Obama and the Democrats as "anti-Israel" if the president fails to veto the U.N. vote. But this has been a consistent strategy on the part of the GOP for years, and it has always failed. In any case, the same J Street poll found that only 8% of Jews cite Israel as an issue in deciding whom to vote for for president.

Palestinians are doing almost exactly what Israelis did 60 years ago.

Israel maintains that the Palestinians cannot declare statehood and seal it through the U.N. Yet the Palestinians are merely following the trail blazed by Israel six decades ago. In 1948, after the U.N. voted for the partition of Palestine, debate among the world powers about how to divide the land dragged on and violence between Jews and Arabs grew worse. The Jewish Agency simply preempted negotiations and unilaterally declared the state of Israel; the United States immediately recognized it, and the U.N. accepted Israeli sovereignty the following year.

The Palestinian Authority has come to the same conclusion that the Jews apparently came to in 1948: Negotiations will not lead to an independent state; the only way forward is unilateral action. By rejecting that strategy outright, Israel is not only being hypocritical; it is invalidating its own existence as a state.

There is one more reason to support the Palestinians' bid at the United Nations. It is the moral thing to do. During his first presidential campaign, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Now, he has the opportunity to live up to his own beliefs and promises, and to provide the Palestinian people with the same sense of dignity that Harry Truman gave Israel 60 years ago.

ahlycotc wrote:Negotiations have failed.

Two decades of negotiations have not brought the Palestinians a state of their own. Israelis and Palestinians blame each other for the current impasse.

But the question of who is at fault is irrelevant. What matters is that in 1993, when the Oslo accords set up a framework for a negotiated settlement for a two-state solution, there were a little more than 100,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. Now that number stands at more than 300,000. According to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, about half a million Israelis now live "over the Green Line" in what is designated as the future Palestinian state. Every day the Palestinians wait for a negotiated state, another sliver of that state is absorbed into Israel. A few more years and practically nothing will remain.

As Netanyahu said in his speech today, it has been and always has been the Palestinians who do not wish to negotiate peace. Netanyahu has always had his door open to peace, the first thing he did when coming into power was to contact the Palestinian leaders and invite them over to negotiate peace. The Palestinians rejected the invite not once, but many times. Netanyahu and Abbas have only met once since he came to office.

And who is stopping them? In his speech, Netanyahu himself said and askked that today both leaders are in New York, and can negotiate peace.

The current Likud-led Israeli government is unlikely to ever agree to a sovereign Palestinian state.

A decade ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, vying for Likud Party leadership, made his position clear in a speech to the group's central committee: "My friends," he said in 2002, " we must present the situation in the clearest possible way: We won't lend a hand to the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.... We must vote as one in favor of the draft resolution against a Palestinian state."

It is true that seven years later, under intense pressure from the Obama administration, Netanyahu, as Israeli prime minister, grudgingly accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in principle. But the unprecedented conditions he called for — that it have no military, no control over its borders, no capital in East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinian refugees and that it recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" — seemed deliberately designed to negate the possibility of true Palestinian sovereignty.

Even if Netanyahu were to begin pushing for a Palestinian state, it is highly unlikely that his ultra-right-wing coalition would allow him to succeed. Indeed, immediately after Netanyahu's 2009 speech, powerful members of his party demanded that he retract his statement entertaining the possibility of a Palestinian state. As one of Likud's most influential Knesset members, Danny Danon, vowed: "I will attempt to cause this sentence, which was said under American pressure, never to come into being."

Are those unreasonable demands? For the time being, Palestine should be armless. They should be under the security and protection of UN forces. I don't see why there is any reason they shouldn't be. They are an unstable threat and if allowed to be armed, would pose a security threat for their neighbors (as Israel should be concerned with)

Israel won't allow East Jerusalem to become part of the Palestinian state. Like Netanyahu said, Israel have to make some sacrifices as do the Palestinians.

The last point seems rather obvious. Israel is a Jewish state. If you don't like it, you can fuck off. It is basically the extreme of what is happening across Western Europe. This isn't to say that if Palestinians wish to live in Israel that they couldn't. Israel accepts many refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and has many many non-Jewish immigrants, and even more non-Jewish minorities(particularly the Druze and Christians)

Yes, if Netanyahu does succeed in finding peace with Palestine and the formation of the Palestinian state, it likely means he is dead politically. That is just how much he is putting on the line for peace.


I don't care about American Politics so I skipped that part.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

When you are an uneducated, ignorant moron making bold, and frankly, stupid declarations, it would be prudent not to comment. Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a moron, than open your mouth and remove any doubt.

Nothing of what I said was either bold or stupid. I said the Holocaust was an abnormality. Had the Jews been persecuted in such a large scale previously? Obviously not, so I'm not wrong at all. I wanted people to avoid making the suggestion that the Jews had always been dealt with in such an abhorrent manner. I never said that they hadn't been mistreated previously because that would have been bold and stupid. I am more then capable of accepting criticism if I'm wrong but I have no tolerance for unfounded vulgarities. Next time, please read properly, you illiterate cretin.

You said the Jews should learn to deal with being persecuted, that I cannot abide.

The reason Palestinians are refusing to negotiate because of the preconditions Israel are putting. What's the use of having your own country if you can't do anything in it without Israel's approval? You also didn't respond to the whole illegal settlements issue. Are you trying to avoid it? It's clearly decreasing the likelihood of peace and agreement between the two people.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Nothing of what I said was either bold or stupid. I said the Holocaust was an abnormality. Had the Jews been persecuted in such a large scale previously? Obviously not, so I'm not wrong at all. I wanted people to avoid making the suggestion that the Jews had always been dealt with in such an abhorrent manner. I never said that they hadn't been mistreated previously because that would have been bold and stupid. I am more then capable of accepting criticism if I'm wrong but I have no tolerance for unfounded vulgarities. Next time, please read properly, you illiterate cretin.

You said the Jews should learn to deal with being persecuted, that I cannot abide.

No, he said something other than dumping them in Palestine should have happened.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Nothing of what I said was either bold or stupid. I said the Holocaust was an abnormality. Had the Jews been persecuted in such a large scale previously? Obviously not, so I'm not wrong at all. I wanted people to avoid making the suggestion that the Jews had always been dealt with in such an abhorrent manner. I never said that they hadn't been mistreated previously because that would have been bold and stupid. I am more then capable of accepting criticism if I'm wrong but I have no tolerance for unfounded vulgarities. Next time, please read properly, you illiterate cretin.

You said the Jews should learn to deal with being persecuted, that I cannot abide.

You shouldn't have to because that would be a quite disgusting thing to say. They should have dealt with their status as a minority (this is what I said) and the UN ought to have ensured that they were not persecuted in Europe. And even if I had said this, please don't attempt to take the moral high ground on this, you'll just lose. You've suggested previously that the Palestinian people should be left to suffer and eventually die out, as well as that the Arab countries should be nuked. I do not accept this crap and have deemed it ridiculous nonsense in my mind, yet I did not feel the need to infringe your freedom of speech.

ahlycotc wrote:The reason Palestinians are refusing to negotiate because of the preconditions Israel are putting. What's the use of having your own country if you can't do anything in it without Israel's approval? You also didn't respond to the whole illegal settlements issue. Are you trying to avoid it? It's clearly decreasing the likelihood of peace and agreement between the two people.

Without Israel's approval? You mean without UN's approval. Netanyahu is just asking for any Palestinian state to have parameters so it isn't a failure. (because Israel will have to clean up after words)

As far as I am concerned, the illegal settlements are a non-issue. They can be dealt with through negotiations. Palestine don't want to negotiate period.

As Netanyahu said in his speech, the settlements have been there only since 1967. Abbas and Netanyahu both clearly made it obvious in their speeches, whether intentionally or unintentionally that the issue isn't the settlements, the settlements are a result of the issues. Abbas and Palestine don't want to negotiate with Israel, they don't want to recognize Israel's independence, they as far as both parties are concerned, are at (proxy-)war with Israel, and they I believe want to punish any Palestinian who sells their land to a Jew by death.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

You said the Jews should learn to deal with being persecuted, that I cannot abide.

You shouldn't have to because that would be a quite disgusting thing to say. They should have dealt with their status as a minority (this is what I said) and the UN ought to have ensured that they were not persecuted in Europe.

No no, their status was that they were being persecuted, you said they should deal with it. The UN did ensure that they were not persecuted in Europe.

And even if I had said this, please don't attempt to take the moral high ground on this, you'll just lose. You've suggested previously that the Palestinian people should be left to suffer and eventually die out, as well as that the Arab countries should be nuked. I do not accept this crap and have deemed it ridiculous nonsense in my mind, yet I did not feel the need to infringe your freedom of speech.

I didn't infringe your freedom of speech either, I told you what you should and should not say, not what you could and could not say.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

You shouldn't have to because that would be a quite disgusting thing to say. They should have dealt with their status as a minority (this is what I said) and the UN ought to have ensured that they were not persecuted in Europe.

No no, their status was that they were being persecuted, you said they should deal with it. The UN did ensure that they were not persecuted in Europe.

And even if I had said this, please don't attempt to take the moral high ground on this, you'll just lose. You've suggested previously that the Palestinian people should be left to suffer and eventually die out, as well as that the Arab countries should be nuked. I do not accept this crap and have deemed it ridiculous nonsense in my mind, yet I did not feel the need to infringe your freedom of speech.

I didn't infringe your freedom of speech either, I told you what you should and should not say, not what you could and could not say.

I will respond to you but please do not take such a long time to respond as I don't have all day.

You cannot assume that I meant "their status" as a reference to their status as recipients of persecution. Don't try putting words in my mouth. If I wanted to suggest that then I would have. If you misunderstood then I will take the time to explain but do not maintain something that is evidently not true particularly when I've made it clear that that was not what I meant, it's simply rude.

And you did infringe my right to freedom of speech. Here is the quote from you:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't even speak about this subject any more.

That is clearly an order. It is not suggesting what I should or should not say, it is clearly commanding me not to speak of the subject.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

No no, their status was that they were being persecuted, you said they should deal with it. The UN did ensure that they were not persecuted in Europe.



I didn't infringe your freedom of speech either, I told you what you should and should not say, not what you could and could not say.

I will respond to you but please do not take such a long time to respond as I don't have all day.

You cannot assume that I meant "their status" as a reference to their status as recipients of persecution. Don't try putting words in my mouth. If I wanted to suggest that then I would have. If you misunderstood then I will take the time to explain but do not maintain something that is evidently not true particularly when I've made it clear that that was not what I meant, it's simply rude.

And you did infringe my right to freedom of speech. Here is the quote from you:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:Don't even speak about this subject any more.

That is clearly an order. It is not suggesting what I should or should not say, it is clearly commanding me not to speak of the subject.

Well you're still fucking going aren't you? Doesn't seem like you've had any rights infringed by me whatsoever.

And it's clear that you meant 'Fuck the Jews, I don't care about their predicament, they shouldn't be there'.

Polska, please quote Abbas' speech saying that he does not want to recognize an Israeli state.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:And it's clear that you meant 'Fuck the Jews, I don't care about their predicament, they shouldn't be there'.

You attempted to infringe my rights which stands directly against everything you've preached on your time here, regardless of whether you succeeded or not. And I don't give a shit what you think I said, I've made it clear what I meant and if you persist in thinking that then you can frankly sod off.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:And it's clear that you meant 'Fuck the Jews, I don't care about their predicament, they shouldn't be there'.

You attempted to infringe my rights which stands directly against everything you've preached on your time here, regardless of whether you succeeded or not. And I don't give a shit what you think I said, I've made it clear what I meant and if you persist in thinking then then you can frankly sod off.

I didn't attempt to do anything, I gave you an instruction which you were free to ignore, simple. You are just trying to take this off topic because I have exposed your blatant anti-semitism - Jews had been persecuted in Europe for many many years, a more drastic solution had to be taken to stop it. As it happened, it worked. Great success. Unfortunately the Arabs tried to attack them and made the area war torn, fortunately they were not successful in destroying Israel.

And by the way, the Jews didn't take that land from anyone, that's the important point people seem to be missing here. The Ottoman Empire owned it, it then ended up in the hands of the UN, who gave control to the British, who then abandoned it, and the Jews took over. The only attempts to take the land by force in centuries have come from Arabs.

Bringing up the Holocaust in defense of what Israel is doing right now is ridiculous. Why should the Arabs in the region have to suffer because of what happened to the Jews during WWII? It's unfortunate what happened to them, but I'm definitely not going to suffer because of it. If anyone has to suffer or give something up for it, it should be Germany. They should have taken a piece of their land and establish a Jewish state for them.

ahlycotc wrote:Bringing up the Holocaust in defense of what Israel is doing right now is ridiculous. Why should the Arabs in the region have to suffer because of what happened to the Jews during WWII? It's unfortunate what happened to them, but I'm definitely not going to suffer because of it. If anyone has to suffer or give something up for it, it should be Germany. They should have taken a piece of their land and establish a Jewish state for them.

Yeah, that's what the Jews would have wanted isn't it? Go and live in the country where your population was decimated. I'm sure that would have been good for anti-semitism in Europe as well, forcing Germans to give up even more of their land for Jews to live on. Honestly, are you fucking mental or what?

In any case, the relatively sensible thing you asked for already happened - a European state did give up a piece of it's land so the Jews could settle there, the United Kingdom.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

You attempted to infringe my rights which stands directly against everything you've preached on your time here, regardless of whether you succeeded or not. And I don't give a shit what you think I said, I've made it clear what I meant and if you persist in thinking then then you can frankly sod off.

I didn't attempt to do anything, I gave you an instruction which you were free to ignore, simple. You are just trying to take this off topic because I have exposed your blatant anti-semitism - Jews had been persecuted in Europe for many many years, a more drastic solution had to be taken to stop it. As it happened, it worked. Great success. Unfortunately the Arabs tried to attack them and made the area war torn, fortunately they were not successful in destroying Israel.

I wasn't trying to take this off topic at all and I'll gladly take it back on topic too. Primarily, I'd like to clear the misconception that I am anti-Semitic, I am not and you can keep on iterating this all day long, it still won't make it true. You're definitely right though about the fact that a more drastic course of action had to be taken to eradicate the persecution of the Jews. However, it should not have come at the expense of the Palestinian people. The UN should have attempted to allow the peaceful coexistence of the Jewish people wherever the fuck they were at the time after the Second World War, instead of just throwing them in Palestine. That was simply an inconsiderate and frankly lazy attempt at solving the problem. If the state of Israel had never been created then many lives would have been spared, many more than if the Jews had remained in Europe and the UN had tried to accommodate them properly. Which brings us back to SBSP's initial quote which I have always had in mind when responding. I can't say the same for your responses though.

BladeGunner14 wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

I didn't attempt to do anything, I gave you an instruction which you were free to ignore, simple. You are just trying to take this off topic because I have exposed your blatant anti-semitism - Jews had been persecuted in Europe for many many years, a more drastic solution had to be taken to stop it. As it happened, it worked. Great success. Unfortunately the Arabs tried to attack them and made the area war torn, fortunately they were not successful in destroying Israel.

I wasn't trying to take this off topic at all and I'll gladly take it back on topic too. Primarily, I'd like to clear the misconception that I am anti-Semitic, I am not and you can keep on iterating this all day long, it still won't make it true. You're definitely right though about the fact that a more drastic course of action had to be taken to eradicate the persecution of the Jews. However, it should not have come at the expense of the Palestinian people. The UN should have attempted to allow the peaceful coexistence of the Jewish people wherever the fuck they were at the time after the Second World War, instead of just throwing them in Palestine. That was simply an inconsiderate and frankly lazy attempt at solving the problem. If the state of Israel had never been created then many lives would have been spared, many more than if the Jews had remained in Europe and the UN had tried to accommodate them properly. Which brings us back to SBSP's initial quote which I have always had in mind when responding. I can't say the same for your responses though.

"A more drastic course of action had to be taken....The UN should have attempted to allow the peaceful coexistence of the Jewish people wherever the fuck they were at the time after the Second World War."

Very drastic solution there, maybe no-one ever tried it before because it was too bold. And they didn't throw the Jews anywhere, the Jews voluntarily moved to Israel.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Bringing up the Holocaust in defense of what Israel is doing right now is ridiculous. Why should the Arabs in the region have to suffer because of what happened to the Jews during WWII? It's unfortunate what happened to them, but I'm definitely not going to suffer because of it. If anyone has to suffer or give something up for it, it should be Germany. They should have taken a piece of their land and establish a Jewish state for them.

Yeah, that's what the Jews would have wanted isn't it? Go and live in the country where your population was decimated. I'm sure that would have been good for anti-semitism in Europe as well, forcing Germans to give up even more of their land for Jews to live on. Honestly, are you fucking mental or what?

In any case, the relatively sensible thing you asked for already happened - a European state did give up a piece of it's land so the Jews could settle there, the United Kingdom.

Right, let's instead surround them by Arabs and Muslims where they would fight for years to come.

I don't doubt for a second that an Israel in Germany would have been a better solution than the current one we have on our hand right now. Unless of course, you are suggesting that Europeans hate and do not tolerate Jews more than Arabs do; therefore, pick the lesser of the two evils.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Yeah, that's what the Jews would have wanted isn't it? Go and live in the country where your population was decimated. I'm sure that would have been good for anti-semitism in Europe as well, forcing Germans to give up even more of their land for Jews to live on. Honestly, are you fucking mental or what?

In any case, the relatively sensible thing you asked for already happened - a European state did give up a piece of it's land so the Jews could settle there, the United Kingdom.

Right, let's instead surround them by Arabs and Muslims where they would fight for years to come.

I don't doubt for a second that an Israel in Germany would have been a better solution than the current one we have on our hand right now. Unless of course, you are suggesting that Europeans hate and do not tolerate Jews more than Arabs do; therefore, pick the lesser of the two evils.

I would love to have see you present that idea to the Jew King or whoever their leader is.

'Right, you know those guys who tried to exterminate you a few years ago, because they resented you, the wealth you had and such? Well we'd like to forcibly take some of their land, what's left of it that the Russians didn't conquer anyway, and fill it with you guys, we think this will stop you being persecuted.'

Are you stupid? Are you absolutely fucking brain dead?

And what would you say when they asked 'Why can't we have that British land that was granted to us by God?', and explained that they were happy for Jerusalem to be an International City?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Right, let's instead surround them by Arabs and Muslims where they would fight for years to come.

I don't doubt for a second that an Israel in Germany would have been a better solution than the current one we have on our hand right now. Unless of course, you are suggesting that Europeans hate and do not tolerate Jews more than Arabs do; therefore, pick the lesser of the two evils.

I would love to have see you present that idea to the Jew King or whoever their leader is.

'Right, you know those guys who tried to exterminate you a few years ago, because they resented you, the wealth you had and such? Well we'd like to forcibly take some of their land, what's left of it that the Russians didn't conquer anyway, and fill it with you guys, we think this will stop you being persecuted.'

Are you stupid? Are you absolutely fucking brain dead?

And what would you say when they asked 'Why can't we have that British land that was granted to us by God?', and explained that they were happy for Jerusalem to be an International City?

Let's use the same thing for the other scenario.

"Hey guys, you know those Arabs/Muslims that you have been fighting with 1500 years ago? Well here's a good idea. Why not establish a Jewish state in the same area as those Arabs and have you surrounded by more Arabs who are at the moment stirring up ideas about Arab nationalism? You will finally have your own state and not have people wanting to kill you or throw you out to the sea. It's brilliant, isn't it?!!"

A) Why should the British give up their land for the Jews? They don't owe them anything. Like I said, the only people who should feel guilty and try to make it up for them are the Germans.
B) Jerusalem should be a neutral, UN controlled city. However, Israel has made it very clear that they want the whole city to be the capital of Israel.

Let me repeat my question one more time...are you suggesting that Europeans are more intolerant and anti-Jewish than the Arabs?

ahlycotc wrote:Polska, please quote Abbas' speech saying that he does not want to recognize an Israeli state.

I'll have to rewatch his speech first, and I don't intend to tonight.

But it's a well known fact Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel. Regardless, last time you said I was ignoring your points. This time it feels you are ignoring mine and just nitpicking a tiny piece of it.

Since you nitpicked only that, I'll just assume you agree with me about a fully independent Palestine being a future failure, and all the other points I've brought up.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

I would love to have see you present that idea to the Jew King or whoever their leader is.

'Right, you know those guys who tried to exterminate you a few years ago, because they resented you, the wealth you had and such? Well we'd like to forcibly take some of their land, what's left of it that the Russians didn't conquer anyway, and fill it with you guys, we think this will stop you being persecuted.'

Are you stupid? Are you absolutely fucking brain dead?

And what would you say when they asked 'Why can't we have that British land that was granted to us by God?', and explained that they were happy for Jerusalem to be an International City?

Let's use the same thing for the other scenario.

"Hey guys, you know those Arabs/Muslims that you have been fighting with 1500 years ago? Well here's a good idea. Why not establish a Jewish state in the same area as those Arabs and have you surrounded by more Arabs who are at the moment stirring up ideas about Arab nationalism? You will finally have your own state and not have people wanting to kill you or throw you out to the sea. It's brilliant, isn't it?!!"

A) Why should the British give up their land for the Jews? They don't owe them anything. Like I said, the only people who should feel guilty and try to make it up for them are the Germans.
B) Jerusalem should be a neutral, UN controlled city. However, Israel has made it very clear that they want the whole city to be the capital of Israel.

Let me repeat my question one more time...are you suggesting that Europeans are more intolerant and anti-Jewish than the Arabs?

Well they accepted it, didn't they? They sure as fuck wouldn't have accepted your solution, if they had they'd be extinct.

A) Kindness, we could have done more to stop what happened, particularly in the aftermath of World War One.
B) It should have been, I agree, it might have been until the Arabs tried to conquer Israel. The numerous wars the Arabs have caused thanks to their hatred of Jews have made the Israelis somewhat reluctant to give any concessions to them.

I think that Germans were a lot more likely to destroy a state like Israel within West Germany's borders, than Arabs were, or are, likely to destroy Israel.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

I would love to have see you present that idea to the Jew King or whoever their leader is.

'Right, you know those guys who tried to exterminate you a few years ago, because they resented you, the wealth you had and such? Well we'd like to forcibly take some of their land, what's left of it that the Russians didn't conquer anyway, and fill it with you guys, we think this will stop you being persecuted.'

Are you stupid? Are you absolutely fucking brain dead?

And what would you say when they asked 'Why can't we have that British land that was granted to us by God?', and explained that they were happy for Jerusalem to be an International City?

Let's use the same thing for the other scenario.

"Hey guys, you know those Arabs/Muslims that you have been fighting with 1500 years ago? Well here's a good idea. Why not establish a Jewish state in the same area as those Arabs and have you surrounded by more Arabs who are at the moment stirring up ideas about Arab nationalism? You will finally have your own state and not have people wanting to kill you or throw you out to the sea. It's brilliant, isn't it?!!"

A) Why should the British give up their land for the Jews? They don't owe them anything. Like I said, the only people who should feel guilty and try to make it up for them are the Germans.
B) Jerusalem should be a neutral, UN controlled city. However, Israel has made it very clear that they want the whole city to be the capital of Israel.

Let me repeat my question one more time...are you suggesting that Europeans are more intolerant and anti-Jewish than the Arabs?

I haven't been paying attention to this thread since the last time I posted, but how the fuck did we even get on this conversation.

Ahly, you are delusional if you think Europe would've given Jews a piece of their land. And yes, at the time Europeans HATED Jews. Jews were blamed for WWII by the majority uneducated populace just as much as the Germans. Especially in Germany, Poland, Holland, France, Scandinavia and the Soviet Union.

polska. wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Polska, please quote Abbas' speech saying that he does not want to recognize an Israeli state.

I'll have to rewatch his speech first, and I don't intend to tonight.

But it's a well known fact Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel. Regardless, last time you said I was ignoring your points. This time it feels you are ignoring mine and just nitpicking a tiny piece of it.

Since you nitpicked only that, I'll just assume you agree with me about a fully independent Palestine being a future failure, and all the other points I've brought up.

You clearly stated that Abbas is not interested in either peace or recognizing Israel. I think that's a ridiculous and false statement. If you actually watched the speeches, both leaders offered peace to the other side.

I think Palestine would face very difficult situations if were to become independent today, if not fail. However, I can see it succeed with the partnership of Egypt and Turkey until it can establish and maintain a reasonable financial stability. It would also help to have a unified Palestine with free and fair elections. All these points were pointed out by Abbas in his speech today. He actually offered a brief roadmap for the future. What did Netanyahu do other than criticize Iran, the Holocaust, the UN, and Hammas?

@Polska and RR, the way I see it is Europe wanted to get the Jews out of Europe and not have to deal with them again. They didn't give a toss if they were not wanted in the Middle East, they just wanted them to be someone else's problem. If more care was given to the situation in the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess.

ahlycotc wrote:

polska. wrote:I'll have to rewatch his speech first, and I don't intend to tonight.

But it's a well known fact Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel. Regardless, last time you said I was ignoring your points. This time it feels you are ignoring mine and just nitpicking a tiny piece of it.

Since you nitpicked only that, I'll just assume you agree with me about a fully independent Palestine being a future failure, and all the other points I've brought up.

You clearly stated that Abbas is not interested in either peace or recognizing Israel. I think that's a ridiculous and false statement. If you actually watched the speeches, both leaders offered peace to the other side.

I think Palestine would face very difficult situations if were to become independent today, if not fail. However, I can see it succeed with the partnership of Egypt and Turkey until it can establish and maintain a reasonable financial stability. It would also help to have a unified Palestine with free and fair elections. All these points were pointed out by Abbas in his speech today. He actually offered a brief roadmap for the future. What did Netanyahu do other than criticize Iran, the Holocaust, the UN, and Hammas?

1. Abbas isn't. He has never been or else he would've met with Netanyahu by now. Palestinian platform is independence, not peace.

2. Netanyahu was putting things into perspective, telling the UN what Palestinian independence means, the consequences and how to make an independence state work with compromise from both parties, and above all, offered peace.

ahlycotc wrote:@Polska and RR, the way I see it is Europe wanted to get the Jews out of Europe and not have to deal with them again. They didn't give a toss if they were not wanted in the Middle East, they just wanted them to be someone else's problem. If more care was given to the situation in the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Except you are failing to realize that it was Jewish leaders ideas to make a Jewish state, and they are the ones that pushed to and agreed to the UN proposal.