Jump to content

Palestinians Storming Israeli Border


gazza
 Share

Recommended Posts

"personal opinion" OR "position of detachment"

 

They are your diametrically opposing quotes.

 

One thread you claim white amd on another you claim black figuratively speaking.

 

Your either an idiot, a troll, or both.

How would you describe someone who has a negative personal opinion about a thing, yet is able to offer an supportive argument about a single incident that is taking place at one moment in time?

 

My personal opinion about Israel and what it gets up to is my own and hardly supportive. And yet I can understand why they have done what they have done in response with the recent attack by Syrians against the Golan and even much of what they continue to do against deliberate attacks on their civilian population by savages. It doesn't mean I like what's takoing place, it only means that I can understand it.

 

Likewise I personally deplore the taking of land in war but it is nonetheless a fact of life.

 

Resolution 242 is riddled with holes and “get out clauses” in the wording so is it wrong to argue against presenting it as though it was clear, unambiguous, and specific?

 

Is that being a troll, is it being an idiot, is it being both?

 

Or is it simply someone with the ability to detach from personal bias and maybe even prejudice and comment from a position of detachment about a single incident in a litany of thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spook Compare and contrast:

 

Should the Israelis use deadly force to defend their country? Why not? They are not Christians and their attackers would certainly use deadly force in order to wipe Israel off the map which is their stated objective.

 

If the rightful owners didn’t want the jew in their lands then that would be up to them. Their land, their choice. If the jew didn’t want to live by the rules, then get out. Theres enough places the jews own or controls for them to go to.

 

 

There is no reason at all why what was created can’t be un created especially as it was created in an immoral way and even an illegal way. What is needed is the complete dismantle on Israel as a country and the whole land restored to the Palestinian people and for them to decide who they will allow to remain or get rid of.

 

In the first quote you are defending Israel's right to use force to defend occuppied Territory (and you then go on to defend the ambiguity in the UN resolutions to allow Israel to continue holding occupied land) while in second two you are saying Israel was created immorally and illegally and that the whole land should be restored to the Palestinian people.

 

These are not consistent positions. Which one do you really hold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spook Compare and contrast:

 

Should the Israelis use deadly force to defend their country? Why not? They are not Christians and their attackers would certainly use deadly force in order to wipe Israel off the map which is their stated objective.

 

If the rightful owners didn’t want the jew in their lands then that would be up to them. Their land, their choice. If the jew didn’t want to live by the rules, then get out. Theres enough places the jews own or controls for them to go to.

 

 

There is no reason at all why what was created can’t be un created especially as it was created in an immoral way and even an illegal way. What is needed is the complete dismantle on Israel as a country and the whole land restored to the Palestinian people and for them to decide who they will allow to remain or get rid of.

 

In the first quote you are defending Israel's right to use force to defend occuppied Territory (and you then go on to defend the ambiguity in the UN resolutions to allow Israel to continue holding occupied land) while in second two you are saying Israel was created immorally and illegally and that the whole land should be restored to the Palestinian people.

 

These are not consistent positions. Which one do you really hold?

I hold both. Let me explain.

 

In my opinion the creation of a jewish homeland was wrong, although it was understandable considering what was taking place in the world at the time the decision was reached.

 

When the war the extended the borders to those that were the borders de facto post '67 was over the land that Israel won was not declared to be returned in totality by resolution 242.

 

Should the whole region be restored to the Palestinian people?

 

In MY opinion yes, but not in the opinion of the UN who recognise it to be a sovereign nation. As such it is understandable that the Israelis should defend their internationally recognised nation and those borders established as being key defensive lines.

 

That is why I may seem to blow hot and cold on this matter. My personal biased opinion is less than positive about Israel but that is because I acknowledge that I am biased. My detached view after trying to take pesonal bias out of the equation is what the Israeli's are doing is at least understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Spook

Should the whole region be restored to the Palestinian people?
Why?

Because on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the lands should have reverted to the rightful owners.

 

We were particularly duplicitous in our dealings at the time. At the League of Nations Balfour presented the British stance as being supportive of the establishment of a jewish homeland in Palestine in order to get the US “on side” because of the massive jew lobby in the US Senate and House of Representatives while at the same time T.E. Lawrence was swanning around telling the regions Arabs that if they joined forces against the Ottoman Empire (and so the Germans) the UK would push for the self same land to revert to Arab ownership.

 

While there was legitimacy in the latter there was NO legitimacy in the former. It was done for no other reason than help drag the US into WW1 as an active participant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the lands should have reverted to the rightful owners.

 

There is no such thing as 'lands which have rightful owners.' As long as we continue to think that way, there will always be conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire the lands should have reverted to the rightful owners.

But that was then. I agree that a Jewish state should never have been created. But it has now and only way to resolve the situation is why compromise from both sides, of course this will involve Israel conceding far more, but then the Jewish state has taken so much.

 

When you say the whole area, are you talking about the lands of present-day Palestine and Israel becoming a Palestinian state? That's not going to happen and nor should it. However wrong the creation of the state was there are now millions of people who have settled in this country and consider it their home. That matters. And so do their need for democracy.

 

The only answer is to have the region split up into two states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I see no reason why Israel should give up any of their land. The Palestinians have no right to any of that land. They should be resettled in Arab nations. The Israelis took Jews from all over the Arab world who had been displaced yet the Arabs refuse to take back the Palestinians.

 

As for the Golan Heights, the Israelis should never give that back, teach the Syrians a lesson for 1967.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that be the lesson to attack first, be pre-emtive, start a war.

 

whilst trying to sink any neutral or allied observers in international waters.

Using un-marked aircraft, and torpedo boats flying another countries flag.

 

Whats the lesson, if your going to be cunts be right proper cunts.

Edited by pauld
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...