So why should Palestinians lose land as a result of WWII? Were they responsible for the holocaust or something (and I suppose that we can forget about the holocaust too now, after all, it was such a long time ago).
As I said before I don’t think Israel can or should move but their stubborn insistence that their enemies have no real cause for do makes them unable to offer anything more than “we’ll stop bombing you if you stop bombing us”
Their unwillingness to recognize that they took the land from others who hadn’t done anything to deserve their treatment makes it difficult to achieve peace.
You ever see how much federal land we have out there?
I agree it won’t happen but if that is what all the fighting is about it makes the Israelis only slightly less murderous the guys that are willing to kill to re-establish a caliphate.
It definitely is negated by that. Yes, Jews moved into the Ottoman Empire lands, which later became British Mandate lands, with most of the land in the area owned by the state (that is, Ottoman Empire, then British mandate), then, in the process of dividing up that land, that created multiple Arab states, managed to carve out a portion for themselves. With most of the land in it, by the way, owned by the state - that is, Ottoman Empire, then British mandate, then Israel.
You may disagree but many people consider the creation of Israel to be an instance where a country was basically created out of nowhere. So if they can create one out in Idaho, for instance, I would consider that similar enough to Israel’s creation that I think people shouldn’t make a big deal out of moving people
No, I don’t find that much of a compromise if those choices were listed along the lines of forcible moving. But its all about choosing the lesser of two evils. Add these 3 choices into the two I was considering and you get a scale of most evil to least evil:
#1: Die #2: Continuous war #3: 2nd class citizenship #4: Convert #5: Move
That’s why I think they should move
I don’t think those things are nearly comparable
Its better than them waging constant war with the US and UK over it though. Out of a litany of bad results, we got the least bad. Or do you think its better that the Ilois people stayed and attacked the base the UK and US built on their island every few years? If the option to simply not build on the island wasn’t an option, then its either kill them all, move them all, or leave them there to fight. They were moved and its the least bad option, for the UK and US and for the Ilois people. Given the existence of such a forcible move, it also proves it can be done, and despite what Alessan said, moving an entire country full of people (albeit on a smaller scale) is possible
You have, but my plan doesn’t involve killing anyone, and its preferable to continuous warfare, AND I made it a point to mention that its the premise of the OP and I was merely answering it. I’m not personally in favor of moving the Jewish people, just that, if the choices were narrowed to one of continuous warfare or moving them, then I would favor moving them. So keep your subtle hints at Nazism to yourself and learn to respond to a premise without adding your own options
You were shown before that you are wrong. The partition territory that was supposed to be Israel was majority Jewish. And as we have talked about before, there was a huge Arab immigration into this area as well.
All of the nations in the ME were carved out arbitrarily by the Europeans. Prior to that, many Jews already lived in the area, and many more started moving back to the region in large numbers starting in the 1700 and more recently prior to the turn of the 20th century. Both groups were promised (by the British) lands of their own carved out from the mandate just after WWI, both attempted to move that forward leading up to and after WWII, and the UN stepped in and divided things up in the late 40’s. The Jews took the deal. The Palestinians and the other (arbitrarily defined) Arab neighbors chose to use force of arms to shoot for the whole thing (with the Palestinians foolishly thinking that if their Arab neighbors won they would actually get to keep the lands). They lost…Israel won. Bummer. You rolls the dice, you takes your chances.
What can I say, so I’m a supporter of the post-WW2 world order. Although I might secretly wish it was all contentedly under the British Empire, I’m happy enough that the peoples who supported the Allies basically got the better end of the deal worldwide.
If I compare Israel to other countries, I don’t see any compelling reason why it shouldn’t be just another mostly quiet, fringe-European nation like Cyprus or Malta. Why hold the neighboring people in this region to a lower standard?
So, since God is just a rolly-eyes thing to you…I really want you to make sure you say this in the Palestinian context too. Mohammed, the Koran, all just rolly-eyes mockery. You have to be equal in this, or else reveal a bias.
When the Palestinians say that Jerusalem is a Holy City to them, you must mock that equally.
There are other options: live peacefully with the neighbors is at the top of the list.
As far as Continuous War, Israel does happen to have a history of winning. You might as well condemn the U.S. or France for being at continuous war. It hasn’t always been our aggression.
You also might as well advocate for returning southern California to Mexico, and asking the citizens of Los Angeles to move back east somewhere. The idea is not meaningful in any realistic way. At least people in Tijuana aren’t lobbing rockets at us…
And I told you why you are wrong. The land from which israel was carved was majority non-Jew. Under the partition plan, Israel looked like it was gerrymandered to include almost every area with significant jewish populations. This resulted in a Palestine that was 99% non-Jew and an Israel that was 55% Jew. But the land from which they were carved was only 1/3 Jewish.
And yes there was arab immigration from other states in the region but it was nothing like the Jewish immigration to the area. At the time of the creation of the state of Israel the vast majority of Jews were immigrants. Most arabs at the time were not. Virtually all of the non-Jewish immigrants came from the region. Most of the Jewish immigrants came from outside the middle east.
And I’ve acknowledged that Israel has a “might makes right” claim to the land but that claim is only as strong as their might. If their might ever wanes, their claim to legitimacy wanes with it.
Israel was still formed overwhelmingly by immigrants.
Yep. I think we should give Jerusalem to the Buddhists or rastafarians and let all the crazy religions of the country visit their centuries old holy places and worship (AFAICT) the same fucking god and wait until they leave jerusalem to kill each other over who their collective god loves best.
The claim the natives have over the immigrants should be pretty clear regardless of who GOD loves best.
Is there a similar treaty for the cessation of hostilities between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
But to be fair, aside from the initial aggressive act of declaring a nation, I can’t think of a major war that was “started” by israel. 1967 might be the closest only because it was pre-emptive (in the “hey this guys drawing his gun and aiming it at me” sense rather than the George Bush “we really oughta invade iraq” sense)
I hate to break it to you, but the traditional German city of Danzig is now… called Gdansk and it’s full of Poles! :eek:
Seriously, crying foul over decisions made in 1945 is akin to being one of those Japanese soldier still fighting in the jungle long after the war is over.
Is there a large refugee camp of millions of former Danzig residents outside of Gdansk that are being oppressed by Poles?
Japan signed a peace treaty. Where is the Palestinian peace treaty? Does injustice simply fade if the perpetrator gets away with it for long enough regardless of whether or not the victims continue to struggle for justice?
Since you do not know what the Levant is, and you do not know the history of the people living in the Levant, you should hold off on forming opinions concerning the Levant.