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

[fskimospy]

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

It's really not my fault that you don't know history. Blame your teachers?

 

[Harabec]

International Law...ultimately meaningless, evidence -> reality.

The only thing that moves history along is the will of nations and people to adapt (which includes peace treaties) or conquer.
Everything else is white noise.

Either we kill em, they kill us, or we eventually decide to get along in one way or another. It is a long process, but that's all there is to it, and every other conflict today and tomorrow.

I personally think the "western" ideal of "no one is allowed to win a war" is harmful to mankind and goes against our nature of victory and defeat, 2 events which, although opposite to each other, both present an opportunity to move on.

 

[TreVader]

we kill em.

There you go. The standpoint of the average Israeli on arabs in general:


"We kill them"


Straight from the horses mouth.

 

[fskimospy]

International Law...ultimately meaningless, evidence -> reality.

The only thing that moves history along is the will of nations and people to adapt (which includes peace treaties) or conquer.
Everything else is white noise.

Either we kill em, they kill us, or we eventually decide to get along in one way or another. It is a long process, but that's all there is to it, and every other conflict today and tomorrow.

I personally think the "western" ideal of "no one is allowed to win a war" is harmful to mankind and goes against our nature of victory and defeat, 2 events which, although opposite to each other, both present an opportunity to move on.

While this opinion is monstrous and morally repugnant, I do at least appreciate your honesty as to what your goals are.

 

[TreVader]

Israel: Where genocide is OK, as long as it's not the jews.

 

[cabri]

Israel: Where genocide is OK, as long as it's not the jews.

And the Arabs attempted such but failed.

If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, they could have done it multiple times over the past years. But they held back.
Both in Gaza and also the West Bank.

What they have asked for is peace and security; the Palestinians and/or Arabs for the past 60+ years have refused to offer such.

Eventually the Arab neighbors realized the futility of trying to eradicate Israel, but the Palestinian leadership still clings to that hope.

And that leadership needs suffering for the Palestinian people in order to justify their continuance in power. Recursion.

 

[Exophase]

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.

You keep saying this, but how has history demonstrated that the UN's partition borders was defensible for Israel? Seeing as how historically they were never enacted.

 

[piasabird]

US should have just kept Japan. Japan would have kept the USA if they had won. I wonder sometimes if since the Mexicans like the USA so much maybe we should invade Mexico and take it over.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You keep saying this, but how has history demonstrated that the UN's partition borders was defensible for Israel? Seeing as how historically they were never enacted.

I'm curious as well.

 

[fskimospy]

You keep saying this, but how has history demonstrated that the UN's partition borders was defensible for Israel? Seeing as how historically they were never enacted.

Israel's borders at the time of the conflict were defensible, as proven by their successful defense. Frankly, considering the civil war going on in 1948 if anything the borders were even less well defined.

Claiming that they must conquer and occupy the territory of other countries in order to make their country defensible is a transparent attempt to shift the onus for their illegal activity away from the entity responsible.

 

[cabri]

Israel's borders at the time of the conflict were defensible, as proven by their successful defense. Frankly, considering the civil war going on in 1948 if anything the borders were even less well defined.

If they were defensible, then why were the attacks by the Arab armies able to cross the boundaries in both '48, '67.

Even the '67 truce boundaries were not able to keep Egyptian and Syrian forces away in '73

The initial boundaries were drawn based on settlements/villages expecting that the inputs from both sides would be honored.

Claiming that they must conquer and occupy the territory of other countries in order to make their country defensible is a transparent attempt to shift the onus for their illegal activity away from the entity responsible.

There never was a country to begin with. The Arabs rejected such for Palestine.
To do so (two state) would have required accepting/admitting Israel should exist - that was unacceptable then just as it is now for Hamas, Hezbollah and other Palestinians.

There was land, held in trust" by Egypt and Trans Jordan. Both of those countries essentially forfeited that land by attacking Israel multiple times along with the assistance of the inhabitants.

And neither country wanted/asked for the land back after the conflicts ended.

 

[dainthomas]

Israel's borders at the time of the conflict were defensible, as proven by their successful defense. Frankly, considering the civil war going on in 1948 if anything the borders were even less well defined.

Claiming that they must conquer and occupy the territory of other countries in order to make their country defensible is a transparent attempt to shift the onus for their illegal activity away from the entity responsible.

Let's suppose that was a mean thing for Israel to do. The fact is that after 70+ years the palestinians have been able to do less than nothing about it. So why not just accept reality? Isn't that better than dying?

 

[senseamp]

Imagine if some native Americans showed up, bulldozed your house, and built an apartment building for themselves on your land, because they said it's the land of their ancestors. That would create some awkwardness and tension, I suspect.

 

[Exophase]

Israel's borders at the time of the conflict were defensible, as proven by their successful defense. Frankly, considering the civil war going on in 1948 if anything the borders were even less well defined.

Claiming that they must conquer and occupy the territory of other countries in order to make their country defensible is a transparent attempt to shift the onus for their illegal activity away from the entity responsible.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Israel never defended the UN's borders, they established new ones.

Had they tried to fortify no more than the UN's borders then the Palestinians along with their Arab League allies would have had a much easier time splitting off the tiny regions of land connecting the north and south region, and I don't see how Israel would have established defense of the northeast region at all since it's not even connected. Suffice it to say that at best they would have ended up with a much smaller partition than the UN determined, at worst they would have ended up with nothing. The whole partition plan was contingent on both sides and their neighbors agreeing to it.

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument makes no sense at all. Israel never defended the UN's borders, they established new ones.

Had they tried to fortify no more than the UN's borders then the Palestinians along with their Arab League allies would have had a much easier time splitting off the tiny regions of land connecting the north and south region, and I don't see how Israel would have established defense of the northeast region at all since it's not even connected. Suffice it to say that at best they would have ended up with a much smaller partition than the UN determined, at worst they would have ended up with nothing. The whole partition plan was contingent on both sides and their neighbors agreeing to it.

You aren't remaining logically consistent. You made a claim about the defensibility of their situation, now when confronted with the obvious statement that Israel was able to defend itself, you claim new things.

By the way, the primary argument isn't over the 1948 borders, it is the illegal occupation of land in later conflicts.

It doesn't change the absurdity of the statement that people had to take land after successfully defending themselves because otherwise they couldn't defend themselves though.

The point is simple. Israeli occupation of the occupied territories is illegal. If you don't mind them doing illegal things just say so. Don't try to pretend it isn't illegal though.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's suppose that was a mean thing for Israel to do. The fact is that after 70+ years the palestinians have been able to do less than nothing about it. So why not just accept reality? Isn't that better than dying?

No, probably not. History shows pretty well that insurgent campaigns eventually win.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's Religion vs. Religion.

There's very little to differentiate the two, other than their feeling of being superior, and that God is with them.

-John

 

[infoiltrator]

There is a great deal of domestic politics and religious politics involved including communist and usa meddling. Russia and usa post cold war.
Truth the Israels are doing the best they can. The Palestinians would form an accommodation except for outside support and meddling.
Israelis have nowhere to go.
Every giveback has led to atrocity attacks.
After the usa revolution (1776) about 1/3 the population left the country or moved to where unknown. Indians lost land and lives. Blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics (and Irish, and Jews) were not first rank Americans.
Nor Asians.
The Israelis have nowhere to go. There are genocidal Islamic groups.
Under war conditions resident aliens get treated like crap.
Does this help.
no

 

[senseamp]

It's Religion vs. Religion.

There's very little to differentiate the two, other than their feeling of being superior, and that God is with them.

-John

You should really educate yourself.
Jews were protected and given refuge in Islamic societies at the times during the middle ages when they were viciously persecuted in Christian Europe. Jews don't proselytize or try to convert others, so they weren't considered a threat by Muslims. All they had to do is pay a tax, and they could go on living their lives.
Jews and Muslims didn't have a beef until Israel. It's a territorial issue more so than religious. If anything, it's the Muslim tolerance of Jews that enabled them to safely settle in the Palestine under Ottoman and British rule.

 

[cabri]

You aren't remaining logically consistent. You made a claim about the defensibility of their situation, now when confronted with the obvious statement that Israel was able to defend itself, you claim new things.

By the way, the primary argument isn't over the 1948 borders, it is the illegal occupation of land in later conflicts.

It doesn't change the absurdity of the statement that people had to take land after successfully defending themselves because otherwise they couldn't defend themselves though.

The point is simple. Israeli occupation of the occupied territories is illegal. If you don't mind them doing illegal things just say so. Don't try to pretend it isn't illegal though.

Land was retained to provide a buffer zone against being attacked.
History has showed that Israel would be attacked even with the buffer; so the buffer needed to be expanded to protect the core.

Cease the attacks and the buffer zone can be reduced.
The above has not happened.

Israel voluntarily reduced the buffer in Gaza, the attacks still happened from that area.

So history has shown that a buffer reduction in exchange for peace has not worked with the Palestinians.

Unless you are willing to differentiate the Palestinians into different groups; Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank and others. And treat each uniquely.


Hold Israel and her opponents to the same standard as the rest of the world.

 

[fskimospy]

Hold Israel and her opponents to the same standard as the rest of the world.

EXACTLY! I'm so glad we can agree on this. Now can I expect you to condemn Israel's illegal occupation? If not, do you then support Russia's illegal occupation of land?

Hold everyone to the same standard. I'm against illegal occupations regardless of who is doing the occupying. Are you?

 

[QuantumPion]

Imagine if some native Americans showed up, bulldozed your house, and built an apartment building for themselves on your land, because they said it's the land of their ancestors. That would create some awkwardness and tension, I suspect.

But that's not what happened.

Imagine if you went to some Indian territory and bought land from them. They sell it willingly because it is useless desert and they think you are a sucker but take your money. Your family lives on the land you bought and makes it prosperous and wealthy over a couple generations.

Now the land is valuable. Some descendants of the Indians that sold you the land claim you stole it from them. They try to take it back by breaking into your house in the middle of the night and murdering half of your family. In order to protect yourself, you fight back and force them them to flee their house because they were shooting at you from their back porch.

They claim you stole their house and demand the court give it back to them, while simultaneously shouting how they can wait to kill the rest of your family as soon as they get it back so they can take over all of your land. That is the situation.

Did you steal their house? No. You protected yourself from violent aggressors. The law did not protect you from them or punish them for their violent acts. Therefore, it does not apply to your defensive measures, since you have the right to exist.

 

[senseamp]

But that's not what happened.

Imagine if you went to some Indian territory and bought land from them. They sell it willingly because it is useless desert and they think you are a sucker but take your money. Your family lives on the land you bought and makes it prosperous and wealthy over a couple generations.

Now the land is valuable. Some descendants of the Indians that sold you the land claim you stole it from them. They try to take it back by breaking into your house in the middle of the night and murdering half of your family. In order to protect yourself, you fight back and force them them to flee their house because they were shooting at you from their back porch.

They claim you stole their house and demand the court give it back to them, while simultaneously shouting how they can wait to kill the rest of your family as soon as they get it back so they can take over all of your land. That is the situation.

Did you steal their house? No. You protected yourself from violent aggressors. The law did not protect you from them or punish them for their violent acts. Therefore, it does not apply to your defensive measures, since you have the right to exist.

Who sold Israel the land they are taking for settlements in the West Bank?

 

[QuantumPion]

Who sold Israel the land they are taking for settlements in the West Bank?

edit - sorry I misread the question.

The Jordanians did, when they invaded and tried to annihilate the Jews. At that time, they forfeited all legal claim to the land.

 

[cabri]

EXACTLY! I'm so glad we can agree on this. Now can I expect you to condemn Israel's illegal occupation? If not, do you then support Russia's illegal occupation of land?

Hold everyone to the same standard. I'm against illegal occupations regardless of who is doing the occupying. Are you?

And who is doing anything about Russia and Red China.
Every since WWII, it is always condemnation of Israel; where is the condemnation of Russia & China? What talk, let alone punishment was ever done.

Economic sanctions again Russia now, 70 years after they started the steam roller. And Russia/USSR was not being attacked externally within that time frame.

Please complain about Israel when she is not being attacked externally for 70 years.

I am still trying to figure out which country Israel is occupying. Trans-Jordan or Egypt.

Neither country is complaining about their territory being occupied.