Seriously, explain like I am a child...what's the beef between Israel and Palestine?

[TreVader]

While you are welcome to imagine our exchange as an argument, the reality is that I just presented a question. And you responded with a barrage of insults.

Nonetheless, my Mexican friend's question remains.

If Obama thinks that Israel has a moral obligation to give back the land they took, doesn't the US have a similar obligation?

Insulting me doesn't constitute an argument...

We just have different perspectives. I'm okay with that.

If your not, that's your problem.

Uno

Is mexico asking for the land back? I have not heard anybody seriously request the land ceded in 1847 to the US Govt. by the mexican govt.


So what is your point? You are presenting a non-issue and claiming it's equivalent to a very real issue that people die every day over. Maybe if the Mexican government asked for the land back we would give it back.

 

[Whiskey16]

If Obama thinks that Israel has a moral obligation to give back the land they took, doesn't the US have a similar obligation?

Beyond practical issues of a relatively short and current time span versus from well beyond a century ago, this Israeli continuing implementation of annexing, expropriating, ethnic cleansing, and colonising occupied land beyond the state border of Israel isn't just that of failing a moral sniff test, but of present day policy to gravely violate law.

The international laws that weren't in existence in the 18th century certainly are now and can offer the State of Palestine not only great moral ammunition to degrade Israel's international diplomatic and public relations standing, but after a Palestinian appeal, provide with ease for ICC prosecutors causes to justly indict the Apartheid and colonising managing actors acting within the jurisdictional territory of a signatory party to the Statute of Rome.

The expansionist and rather extremist parties in Israel who actively act for a pure and Greater Israel (modernised and ironic policy of lebensraum) fear nothing more than the State of Israel becoming the international pariah as did the now failed and former Israeli ally, the Apartheid state of South Africa. The USA also resisted direct diplomatic condemnation of South Africa. Israel's few remaining allies cannot protect it from growing trend greater international isolation and from an active and participating International Criminal Court.

The Palestinian justified provocation of choosing to appeal to the ICC will return a predictable response of ethnic based retribution and greater colonial expansionist extremism by Israel. This will only accelerate the sinking international public relations of Israeli and even a cause for vigour by ICC prosecutors.

On all practical accounts, the Palestinian move to the ICC will be a strategic fail for Israel, and can only provide a bonus to the cornered State of Palestine who impotently continues to loose territory and social and financial viability to a more powerful and aggressive occupational and Apartheid state.

 

[unokitty]

...On all practical accounts, the Palestinian move to the ICC will be a strategic fail for Israel, and can only provide a bonus to the cornered State of Palestine who impotently continues to loose territory and social and financial viability to a more powerful and aggressive occupational and Apartheid state.

Some current context.

According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR):
There are more displaced people in Mexico, than there are Palestine. There are more displaced people in Guatemala, than there are in Palestine. There are more displaced people in Columbia, than there are in Palestine. And there are more displaced people in Peru, than there are in Palestine.

In fact, according to the UNHCR, globally there are currently over 10 million displaced people.

No doubt that the Palestinian issue is significant. But aren't the 10 million other refugees also significant?

Some historical context

By 1948, about 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from Israel. By some estimates 15,000 Palestinians were killed during that process.

By 1950, about 15,000,000 ethnic Germans were displaced (expelled their possessions confiscated), from Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other central and eastern European countries. Estimates are that about 2,000,000 died during that process. (Though, some estimate that only 650,000 died.)

Now, lets look at the Eric Hoffer quote from my initial post.

The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab...

Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.

So the question becomes why is it okay for Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Algeria, and Indonesia displace millions of people but not okay for Israel?

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that the actions of any of these countries was appropriate. I'm just saying it seems inconsistent to behave as if its only a problem when Israel does it.

Likewise, why does Obama think that Israel has a moral obligation to return what they have taken, when the US doesn't have a similar obligation to Mexico? Why are the rules of morality different for Israel?

In a similar way, I don't think that it is productive to fixate on the problems of 145,000 displaced people in Palestine while there are 10 million other displaced people that could use some attention as well.

Uno

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty simple. Israel's occupation of that land is in violation of international law that was in effect when they occupied it. They have a moral obligation to follow international law.

Same wasn't true for Mexico.

Easy enough?

 

[mizzou]

Is mexico asking for the land back? I have not heard anybody seriously request the land ceded in 1847 to the US Govt. by the mexican govt.


So what is your point? You are presenting a non-issue and claiming it's equivalent to a very real issue that people die every day over. Maybe if the Mexican government asked for the land back we would give it back.

I don't know if it was ww1 or ww2, but enemies of the USA actually tempted Mexico with historical land returns if they fought us.

 

[TreVader]

I'm sure if thousands of Mexicans were dying in terrorist attacks all over CA and Arizona we would very much reconsider the land grab.

Israel has thousands of its citizens die, often in their own legitimate Terrorist attacks, and asks for more....

 

[moneer]

the Arabs even though in attempting to murder the Arab World and the Muslim religion is still the world's most primitive and backwards, even to this day.

Why do you think this? Do you not know that some Arab countries are the richest nations on earth? Look at Abu Dhabi, for example. Just because there's conflict doesn't mean it's primitive. Also, Islam is the last major religion to show up, how is that primitive? Because Muslims actually pray and worship God??? Explain yourself.

 

[unokitty]

I don't know if it was ww1 or ww2, but enemies of the USA actually tempted Mexico with historical land returns if they fought us.

Zimmerman Telegram

In January of 1917, British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause. This message helped draw the United States into the war and thus changed the course of history.

The telegram had such an impact on American opinion that, according to David Kahn, author of The Codebreakers, "No other single cryptanalysis has had such enormous consequences." It is his opinion that "never before or since has so much turned upon the solution of a secret message.

Its an interesting story.
The Zimmerman Telegram was encrypted. While the British had cracked the German Code and intercepted the telegram, they didn't want the Germans to know. To maintain plausible denialability, the British first arranged a break in at the German Embassy in Mexico City at the same time that the German Ambassador had the decrypted telegram on his desk. Only then, did they give a decrypted telegram copy to the Americans.

A copy of the original encrypted telegram is on display at the National Cryptologic Museum.

Uno

 

[Whiskey16]

JEDIYoda, you lying, misinforming, thread crapping, Hasbara troll:

P&N's posting guidelines, which serve to supplement the AnandTech Forum posting rules, are as follows:

1. No thread-crapping, thread-derailment, off-topic posting, trolling, the intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.
(rule permanently adopted by community vote Jun 06, 2012)​

Enforced or not, that is a prime rule of the P&N, and one that you regularly and gleefully violate:

hahahaha and your the guy who said Israel should commit genocide against itself by not defending itself....rofl~~

No, I never said anything of the sort, nor would I ever as my posting record is consistently against bigoted hatred and such violence. JEDIYoda you regularly become so desperate as to troll with misinformation whenever your fairly tale of Israeli "defence" is trounced as a '1984' type double speak for aggressive annexation, colonisation, and the implementation of Apartheid upon the native population.

 

[Black Octagon]

I know something about it being a holy land that Israel lost in the late 60s, and now they want it back? Why in the world can't they simply share the area?
How'd they lose it in the first place?

Am I the only one to have noticed the OP's (apparent) total lack of contributions to this thread?

I am 100% sure this thread will blow up somehow, but I ask everyone that posts in it, post like a kid in elementary school is going to read it (no profanity, racial bias, personal attacks...)

Surely I'm not the only one to have noticed how closely some people have bothered to follow these guidelines.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Pretty simple. Israel's occupation of that land is in violation of international law that was in effect when they occupied it. They have a moral obligation to follow international law.

Same wasn't true for Mexico.

Easy enough?

Did not Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have a moral obligation to follow international law on May 15, 1948?

 

[QuantumPion]

Did not Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have a moral obligation to follow international law on May 15, 1948?

No silly, law only applies when it is in his favor to apply it (i.e. as a way of attacking jews while hiding the real anti-semetic agenda).

 

[fskimospy]

Did not Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have a moral obligation to follow international law on May 15, 1948?

What's your point? If someone else breaks the law are you suddenly no longer obligated to follow it yourself?

This is truly a novel legal theory.

 

[fskimospy]

No silly, law only applies when it is in his favor to apply it (i.e. as a way of attacking jews while hiding the real anti-semetic agenda).

I find it funny that people who so consistently complain about people playing the race card and how people are always calling poor innocent conservatives racists love playing the race card when it comes to Israel.

The lack of self awareness is hilarious.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What's your point? If someone else breaks the law are you suddenly no longer obligated to follow it yourself?

This is truly a novel legal theory.

My point is that you only seem to be only concerned about Israel "breaking the law" without recognizing the illegal events that justified Israel's response. Israel was under a great threat that included the possibility of genocide. The UN borders were indefensible and they did what they needed to do to assure their future survival by not giving back all the land they secured during the war. There are consequences to starting and losing wars...I have trouble finding very much empathy for their loss of territory.

 

[fskimospy]

My point is that you only seem to be only concerned about Israel "breaking the law" without recognizing the illegal events that justified Israel's response.

Nope, I care about all of the violations. We just happen to be talking about Israel's violation of international law right now. International law makes no exception for "they started it".

Israel was under a great threat that included the possibility of genocide. The UN borders were indefensible and they did what they needed to do to assure their future survival by not giving back all the land they secured during the war. There are consequences to starting and losing wars...I have trouble finding very much empathy for their loss of territory.

The borders were indefensible as shown by... Israel's successful defense? Also, Israel is a nuclear armed nation and has been for a long time. You are free to be okay with Israel violating international law and illegally occupying territory, that's your moral compass. You can't expect other people to follow though.

 

[HomerJS]

Religion

 

[piasabird]

First of all around 1948-1949 the UN or NATO created Israel as a recognized country with set borders. Jewish people started trying to migrate to Israel from Europe and abroad where they were being persecuted at the time. This kind of opened a Pandora's box. Israeli settlers keep trying to take over land belonging and occupied by Palestinian people. There was of course a war with many different countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Palestinian Refugees, Lebanon, etc. I know some countries like Iraq, and Iran might have also given them some money, soldiers, or supplies for aid. Israel defeated all of them at once in a pre-emptive battle and took over some of their land.

Since then Israel and the Palestinians have been at war non-stop.

On one hand many Muslim and Arab countries attacked them because they were Jews or non-Muslim. On the other hand Israel allowed settlers to also steal even more land from the Palestinians. At this point neither side is exactly right or wrong. The whole situation is rather messy. Countries like Saudi Arabia does things like pays the families money if their son becomes a suicide bomber. So Muslims give the Palestinians supplies and aid, and the west gives Israel supplies and aid. So they perpetuate this war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The borders were indefensible as shown by... Israel's successful defense?

Sigh...you're smarter than this.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh...you're smarter than this.

So now we have two threads where you're digging in instead of admitting you said something dumb. Nice.

Today I learned that working in a pet shop is more dangerous than being a coal miner and that Israel's successful defense of its borders means its borders were indefensible.

Any more gems you want to share with us?

 

[QuantumPion]

Nope, I care about all of the violations. We just happen to be talking about Israel's violation of international law right now. International law makes no exception for "they started it".

So I take it you are also in favor of giving China and Korea back to Imperial Japan, and Austria, Poland and France back to Germany? I mean, we illegally invaded them what right do we have to occupy their rightful territory?

 

[fskimospy]

So I take it you are also in favor of giving China and Korea back to Imperial Japan, and Austria, Poland and France back to Germany? I mean, we illegally invaded them what right do we have to occupy their rightful territory?

Interesting, I was unaware that we had signed the instruments of surrender with Germany and Japan after the UN Charter went into effect. Modern international law dealing with annexation through conquest is a direct result OF the 2nd world war, it did not predate its results.

History, yo.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So now we have two threads where you're digging in instead of admitting you said something dumb. Nice.

Today I learned that working in a pet shop is more dangerous than being a coal miner and that Israel's successful defense of its borders means its borders were indefensible.

Any more gems you want to share with us?

A pet shop is more dangerous from an injury perspective and a coal mine is more dangerous from a fatality perspective. This is clearly shown in the BLS data. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

It's obvious to most that Israel's original borders were indefensible and that they had to go beyond them to stop the 1948 aggression...the real question is whether the 1967 borders are defensible. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more.

 

[QuantumPion]

Interesting, I was unaware that we had signed the instruments of surrender with Germany and Japan after the UN Charter went into effect. Modern international law dealing with annexation through conquest is a direct result OF the 2nd world war, it did not predate its results.

History, yo.

lol. I don't even. You are just delusional. Anything to maintain the doublethink I guess.

 

[fskimospy]

A pet shop is more dangerous from an injury perspective and a coal mine is more dangerous from a fatality perspective. This is clearly shown in the BLS data. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

That you're now backpedaling to try and find some way in which your argument isn't ridiculous.

Also, if you think a pet shop is more dangerous than a coal mine from an injury perspective you are goddamn delusional.

It's obvious to most that Israel's original borders were indefensible and that they had to go beyond them to stop the 1948 aggression...the real question is whether the 1967 borders are defensible. But I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more.

Ah, so you've decided that it's just 'obvious to most', despite clear historical evidence otherwise. This is what happens when you substitute faith for reality.