Yes, Israel is a huge ally in the War on Terror. No doubt about it.
However, Israel is like a wonder drug with major side effects. Taking the cure may kill you.
-Robert
Originally posted by: palehorse
I only wish to comment on that single phrase...Originally posted by: Arkaign
I don't think Israel is an ally
If you truly believe that, then you obviously have no idea just how much they are doing to aid us in the global war against terrorism... everywhere... every day.
Their reasons for doing so may include self-interest, but that is certainly understandable for any nation.
They are fighting the war alongside our own forces on thousands of "fronts."
That, my friend, makes them my ally.
It's almost like somebody somewhere 60 years ago decided that the jews and muslims were in the way and figured out a way to get them to destroy each other. It is an ongoing epic battle, kind of like david and goliath, part 2. The thermonuclear part you throw in there would finish the plan, with goliath falling on top of and smothering david.Originally posted by: Arkaign
This is not a flame thread, and I'm certainly not taking sides with either the Israeli, Arab, Palestinian, or otherwise.
That said, it seems fundamentally idiotic that Israel was formed as a country in this century, in that place. Hmm, of all the places in the world we could choose to settle, why not jump right into the cauldron? Let's displace a bunch of people (not getting into who had rights to what, fact is the land there is far older than any human beings, so personally I don't think anyone has a righteous claim to it), aggravate millions upon millions of diametrically opposed Islamic ideologues, and become a permanent burden to the global peace.
It seems downright selfish to me. Surely there was SOME place better than there, pretty much any place would do. Truman should have claimed Baja California and given it to them. Call it New Israel. Whatever.
The point is, if you throw religion out of the argument pro/con as a reasoning, there isn't any supportable logical reason to set Israel up, displace a bunch of already disagreeable locals, and start a shit-storm that exists to this day.
I have precious little patience for any of the so-called 'sides' in that exchange. I don't think Israel is an ally, I don't think they should have been there in the first place. For anyone who thinks that's 'God's land, it would be better off for everyone if we leveled the whole stretch with hundreds of megatons of H-bombs, and give it back to God.
/rant off
I'm only partly kidding here
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Jews generally don't like non-Jews and are very xenophobic--that's a fact. All these clowns rallying for Israel and Jews are laughed at in close quarters, I know this b/c my gf is Jewish (who is hardcore pro-israel so we have interesting convos) and all our mutual friends are as well.
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard come out of the mouth of somebody who claims to be intelligent!
I was born and raised in Israel. Most of my friends are Jewish! What you just stated is so far from the norm that its appalling IMO for you to think that your friends and your girlfriend`s friends are the norm!!
I have a son who did his time in the IDF and he will tell you there are quite a few people who believe the palestinians should have there own land to call a country!
The sad part is.......quite a few people can`t believe that there is no solution other than Fatah or hamas.......
so pathetic!!
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Jews generally don't like non-Jews and are very xenophobic--that's a fact. All these clowns rallying for Israel and Jews are laughed at in close quarters, I know this b/c my gf is Jewish (who is hardcore pro-israel so we have interesting convos) and all our mutual friends are as well.
That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard come out of the mouth of somebody who claims to be intelligent!
I was born and raised in Israel. Most of my friends are Jewish! What you just stated is so far from the norm that its appalling IMO for you to think that your friends and your girlfriend`s friends are the norm!!
I have a son who did his time in the IDF and he will tell you there are quite a few people who believe the palestinians should have there own land to call a country!
The sad part is.......quite a few people can`t believe that there is no solution other than Fatah or hamas.......
so pathetic!!
I understand, you don't want the truth getting out What I stated was the truth and you and I both know it.
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Jews generally don't like non-Jews and are very xenophobic--that's a fact. All these clowns rallying for Israel and Jews are laughed at in close quarters, I know this b/c my gf is Jewish (who is hardcore pro-israel so we have interesting convos) and all our mutual friends are as well.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse
Who is then?Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not our strongest Ally in the M.E.
This ought to be good...
Turkey has done far more for the U.S than all of the M.E nations combined when it comes to military operations. Their air force is by far the most trained air force outside of the region flying missions for NATO.
Kuwait has gave us more AID than ALL M.E nations and continues to give us AID to this day.
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse
Who is then?Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not our strongest Ally in the M.E.
This ought to be good...
Turkey has done far more for the U.S than all of the M.E nations combined when it comes to military operations. Their air force is by far the most trained air force outside of the region flying missions for NATO.
Kuwait has gave us more AID than ALL M.E nations and continues to give us AID to this day.
"Turkey has done more for the U.S. than all of the ME nations combined when it comes to military operations?"
Umm, I don't think so. Were they our great ally when:
American troops began to withdraw from logistics bases in south-eastern Turkey yesterday as the Pentagon finally conceded that US forces would not be able to move through the country to open a northern front in Iraq.
Turkey has resisted US pressure to allow attacks on Iraq from its soil, forbidding American warplanes to use its air bases and the 4th Infantry Division to set up camps just north of the Iraqi border.
At the outset it was assumed that Turkey would renew the help it provided in the first Gulf war, when it allowed coalition aircraft to use the Incirlik air base in return for US financial aid.
This time the US offered around £10 billion in return for using Turkey as a base for 62,000 infantry as well as fresh access to Incirlik.
But the deal quickly soured, turning into a diplomatic disaster for Turkey, whose creaking economy has been further undermined by the subsequent loss of the American aid package.
The US withdrawal leaves Turkey's mountainous 200-mile border with Iraq the exclusive preserve of the powerful Turkish army, which reportedly sent 1,500 troops across the frontier into Iraq over the weekend.
Although Turkey has denied such a deployment, it has maintained several thousand troops in northern Iraq since 1991.
America is desperate that the Turkish army stays away, fearing it may ignite a "war within a war" with the Kurds.
Any new deployment would also further damage Turkey's aspirations to join the EU - already hard hit after it was blamed for the collapse of a peace deal for Cyprus last month.
Text
They turned down a $10 billion bribe to allow us to use their bases, thus preventing us from opening a northern front in the war, and this is our great ally? With allies like this, who needs enemies?
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1. Palestine is conquered land. To the victor go the spoils. It's that simple. Funny how the very same people who can claim that the Jews lost Israel to the Romans neglect that Palestinians, by virtue of being part of the Ottoman Empire, lost their land through conquest as well. It's not the first time it happened to those living in Palestine either since the Ottoman's themselves conquered the area of Palestine in the 16th century and appropriated it.Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe the tribes of Israel took Israel away from their original inhabitants, but their claim of Israel as a Jewish homeland was ended by the Romans some 1800 years ago, when the Romans concluded that Jews were totally unreasonable, could not play well with others, and hence they sent all the Jews packing in exile.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1. Palestine is conquered land. To the victor go the spoils. It's that simple. Funny how the very same people who can claim that the Jews lost Israel to the Romans neglect that Palestinians, by virtue of being part of the Ottoman Empire, lost their land through conquest as well. It's not the first time it happened to those living in Palestine either since the Ottoman's themselves conquered the area of Palestine in the 16th century and appropriated it.Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe the tribes of Israel took Israel away from their original inhabitants, but their claim of Israel as a Jewish homeland was ended by the Romans some 1800 years ago, when the Romans concluded that Jews were totally unreasonable, could not play well with others, and hence they sent all the Jews packing in exile.
The Palestinians were even provided the opportunity to split the land, a gracious offer that a conquered people are rarely afforded. Instead of taking what was offered them they boneheadedly refused and decided it was all or nothing. Looks like the'll be getting nothing.
Israel currently has the land and they have the military might to hold onto it. Like it or not, in this world that confers ownership.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Palestine is conquered land. To the victor go the spoils. It's that simple.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Funny how the very same people who can claim that the Jews lost Israel to the Romans neglect that Palestinians, by virtue of being part of the Ottoman Empire, lost their land through conquest as well.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not the first time it happened to those living in Palestine either since the Ottoman's themselves conquered the area of Palestine in the 16th century and appropriated it.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The Palestinians were even provided the opportunity to split the land, a gracious offer that a conquered people are rarely afforded. Instead of taking what was offered them they boneheadedly refused and decided it was all or nothing. Looks like the'll be getting nothing.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Israel currently has the land and they have the military might to hold onto it. Like it or not, in this world that confers ownership.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Why is it that the only thing you can harp on is the colonization and use that as justification for any Palestinian actions.
The Palestinians lost the land during multipe wars.
Israel has the right to set up settlements on the land that they conquered.
The so-called '48 and '67 borders only mean something to the loser. No one admonished the Arabs for what they kept doing.
When Israel was the underdog, no one stepped forward.
Now the poor Palestianians are the underdogs (based on their own actions) and everyone wants to excuse their actions and penalize Israel for surviving.
I haven't made any attempt to justify any Palestinian actions. Israel's colonzation of Palestinian land most certainly does not justify attacks on non-combatants, and nothing can. However, I will happily state what actions it does justify:Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Why is it that the only thing you can harp on is the colonization and use that as justification for any Palestinian actions.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Palestinians lost the land during multipe wars.
Israel has the right to set up settlements on the land that they conquered
The borders which existed between '48 and '67 mean something to much of the world:Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The so-called '48 and '67 borders only mean something to the loser. No one admonished the Arabs for what they kept doing.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
When Israel was the underdog, no one stepped forward.
Now the poor Palestianians are the underdogs (based on their own actions) and everyone wants to excuse their actions and penalize Israel for surviving.
Please don't gloss over the facts. What you're claiming is an outright lie where Palestine was concerned as well as what the Palestinian Mandate decreed.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1.
No they didn't, just like the Syrians and the Iraqis didn't loose their land either, all three regions were considered Class A mandates, provisionally recognized as independent nations.
If Iraqi oil was our objective we could claim ownership by rite of conquest alone, if we so desired. Since that wasn't our objective, we haven't, so any speculation on the matter is completely moot.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Palestine is conquered land. To the victor go the spoils. It's that simple.
With this I take it you belive Iraqi oil is ours for the taking?
Great. And your argument still wouldn't be valid because in respect to conquest nothing much has changed between ancient history and today.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Funny how the very same people who can claim that the Jews lost Israel to the Romans neglect that Palestinians, by virtue of being part of the Ottoman Empire, lost their land through conquest as well.
That isn't neglected, it is just ancient history. If the conflict today were that of the Romans colonizing the land out from under the Jews, I would be arguing for us to stop the Romans.
:roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not the first time it happened to those living in Palestine either since the Ottoman's themselves conquered the area of Palestine in the 16th century and appropriated it.
The difference being the Ottomans didn't colonize the land out from under the existing population.
Depends. Are people like you going to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of a bunch of helpless civilians to further your cause?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The Palestinians were even provided the opportunity to split the land, a gracious offer that a conquered people are rarely afforded. Instead of taking what was offered them they boneheadedly refused and decided it was all or nothing. Looks like the'll be getting nothing.
And if our nation were to come under colonization by vast power, would you bend over and take it like you suggest the Palestinian should?
It's as if you bleeding hearts are all cut from the very same mold. You can't type two paragraphs without attempting to e-spit on those who don't see eye-to-eye with you. And to hock up that loogey you first have to twist, bend, and fold what the other said.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Israel currently has the land and they have the military might to hold onto it. Like it or not, in this world that confers ownership.
And here we have the 'might makes right' conclusions of yet another extremist who perpetuates this conflict from our side. Doing so with not a care in the world for how many Israelis or Palestinian are killed, as Israel cotenues colonizing the West Bank while holding 4 million Palestinian captive in their own homeland.
That is your lie up there, though I'm guessing not intentional but rather based on misunderstanding. I am speaking of facts here:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Please don't gloss over the facts. What you're claiming is an outright lie where Palestine was concerned as well as what the Palestinian Mandate decreed.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1.
No they didn't, just like the Syrians and the Iraqis didn't loose their land either, all three regions were considered Class A mandates, provisionally recognized as independent nations.
Covenant of the League of Nations
Article 22
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
...
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No doubt they were saints. In fact, to prevent any confusion, the Ottomans even ceased referring to the area as Palestine. No doubt the locals cheered about that..
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Depends. Are people like you going to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of a bunch of helpless civilians to further your cause?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's as if you bleeding hearts are all cut from the very same mold. You can't type two paragraphs without attempting to e-spit on those who don't see eye-to-eye with you. And to hock up that loogey you first have to twist, bend, and fold what the other said.
I said nothing about might makes right. I stated a observation about reality of this world that should be readily apparent to even the biggest of fools.
The Palestine Mandate did not establish Palestine as an independent nation, and I'm sure you already know this.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
That is your lie up there, though I'm guessing not intentional but rather based on misunderstanding. I am speaking of facts here:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Please don't gloss over the facts. What you're claiming is an outright lie where Palestine was concerned as well as what the Palestinian Mandate decreed.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And the Palestinians lost the land when the Ottomans chose the wrong side in WW1.
No they didn't, just like the Syrians and the Iraqis didn't loose their land either, all three regions were considered Class A mandates, provisionally recognized as independent nations.
Covenant of the League of Nations
Article 22
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/..._the_League_of_Nations
The bolded refers to what was labled Class A mandates; being Syria, Iraql, and Palestine.
Now I'm sure you are referring to the fact that the Mandate for Palestine provided for the establishment of a Jewish homeland within the territory. That it did, however only to the extent that it did not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country" which it has done both in it's continuing colonization of Palestinian territory.
So then why can't Palestinians refer to themselves as Israelis?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No doubt they were saints. In fact, to prevent any confusion, the Ottomans even ceased referring to the area as Palestine. No doubt the locals cheered about that..
Not everyone is so fixated on such trival things as names.
If the colonizing power was better than the last, why not? It's one method that colonizing powers have employed on conquered civilizations for centuries, often the most sucessful method too.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Depends. Are people like you going to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of a bunch of helpless civilians to further your cause?
I have no interest in those methods, as i find them both morally and tactically flawed. However, if we were reduced to such means, I have no doubt that some Americans would empty them. Are you suggesting that is all it would take for you to bend over to the colonizing power?
Can't resist slapping a tag on someone, eh? Whatever. Crap like that shows what a weak position you argue from in the first place if you actually feel like you have to defend it. How lame.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's as if you bleeding hearts are all cut from the very same mold. You can't type two paragraphs without attempting to e-spit on those who don't see eye-to-eye with you. And to hock up that loogey you first have to twist, bend, and fold what the other said.
I said nothing about might makes right. I stated a observation about reality of this world that should be readily apparent to even the biggest of fools.
OK, so you are another extremist who perpetuates this conflict from our side by standing up for the status-quo which you know isn't right. Doing so with not a care in the world for how many Israelis or Palestinian are killed, as Israel continues colonizing the West Bank while holding 4 million Palestinian captive in their own homeland.
Does that suit you?
And yeah, anyone can search back though my posts and see me defending the conservative postion on various issues and going well more than two paragraphs of polite conversation with people I disagree with. I just take issue with your nonchalant attitude about perpetuating this conflict, especially now that you have suggested it isn't right.
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse
Who is then?Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not our strongest Ally in the M.E.
This ought to be good...
Turkey has done far more for the U.S than all of the M.E nations combined when it comes to military operations. Their air force is by far the most trained air force outside of the region flying missions for NATO.
Kuwait has gave us more AID than ALL M.E nations and continues to give us AID to this day.
"Turkey has done more for the U.S. than all of the ME nations combined when it comes to military operations?"
Umm, I don't think so. Were they our great ally when:
American troops began to withdraw from logistics bases in south-eastern Turkey yesterday as the Pentagon finally conceded that US forces would not be able to move through the country to open a northern front in Iraq.
Turkey has resisted US pressure to allow attacks on Iraq from its soil, forbidding American warplanes to use its air bases and the 4th Infantry Division to set up camps just north of the Iraqi border.
At the outset it was assumed that Turkey would renew the help it provided in the first Gulf war, when it allowed coalition aircraft to use the Incirlik air base in return for US financial aid.
This time the US offered around £10 billion in return for using Turkey as a base for 62,000 infantry as well as fresh access to Incirlik.
But the deal quickly soured, turning into a diplomatic disaster for Turkey, whose creaking economy has been further undermined by the subsequent loss of the American aid package.
The US withdrawal leaves Turkey's mountainous 200-mile border with Iraq the exclusive preserve of the powerful Turkish army, which reportedly sent 1,500 troops across the frontier into Iraq over the weekend.
Although Turkey has denied such a deployment, it has maintained several thousand troops in northern Iraq since 1991.
America is desperate that the Turkish army stays away, fearing it may ignite a "war within a war" with the Kurds.
Any new deployment would also further damage Turkey's aspirations to join the EU - already hard hit after it was blamed for the collapse of a peace deal for Cyprus last month.
Text
They turned down a $10 billion bribe to allow us to use their bases, thus preventing us from opening a northern front in the war, and this is our great ally? With allies like this, who needs enemies?
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse
Who is then?Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not our strongest Ally in the M.E.
This ought to be good...
Turkey has done far more for the U.S than all of the M.E nations combined when it comes to military operations. Their air force is by far the most trained air force outside of the region flying missions for NATO.
Kuwait has gave us more AID than ALL M.E nations and continues to give us AID to this day.
"Turkey has done more for the U.S. than all of the ME nations combined when it comes to military operations?"
Umm, I don't think so. Were they our great ally when:
American troops began to withdraw from logistics bases in south-eastern Turkey yesterday as the Pentagon finally conceded that US forces would not be able to move through the country to open a northern front in Iraq.
Turkey has resisted US pressure to allow attacks on Iraq from its soil, forbidding American warplanes to use its air bases and the 4th Infantry Division to set up camps just north of the Iraqi border.
At the outset it was assumed that Turkey would renew the help it provided in the first Gulf war, when it allowed coalition aircraft to use the Incirlik air base in return for US financial aid.
This time the US offered around £10 billion in return for using Turkey as a base for 62,000 infantry as well as fresh access to Incirlik.
But the deal quickly soured, turning into a diplomatic disaster for Turkey, whose creaking economy has been further undermined by the subsequent loss of the American aid package.
The US withdrawal leaves Turkey's mountainous 200-mile border with Iraq the exclusive preserve of the powerful Turkish army, which reportedly sent 1,500 troops across the frontier into Iraq over the weekend.
Although Turkey has denied such a deployment, it has maintained several thousand troops in northern Iraq since 1991.
America is desperate that the Turkish army stays away, fearing it may ignite a "war within a war" with the Kurds.
Any new deployment would also further damage Turkey's aspirations to join the EU - already hard hit after it was blamed for the collapse of a peace deal for Cyprus last month.
Text
They turned down a $10 billion bribe to allow us to use their bases, thus preventing us from opening a northern front in the war, and this is our great ally? With allies like this, who needs enemies?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The Palestine Mandate did not establish Palestine as an independent nation, and I'm sure you already know this.
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great...
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So then why can't Palestinians refer to themselves as Israelis?
Apparently names are a pretty big deal. Don't ya think?
Which means nothing in regard to Palestine being established as an independent nation, because it wasn't. For that matter, neither was Syria, which was given more leeway than Palestine for self-rule but the French still went back in and militarily removed the existing government.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The Palestine Mandate did not establish Palestine as an independent nation, and I'm sure you already know this.
I know this:
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great...
http://www.britannica.com/EBch...120113/Class-A-mandate
I understand that they took those territories after certain Arab nations decided to go head-to-head militarily against Israel and lost. But you seem to overlook those details completely in order to make it sound as if Israel simply took what they wanted for no reason whatsoever. Is there a reason that you tend to disregard the Israeli side of the equation in your arguments?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So then why can't Palestinians refer to themselves as Israelis?
Apparently names are a pretty big deal. Don't ya think?
The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aren't given that option because Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which already has far more Arabs than they want. Israel never anexed the Palestian territories, they simply colonize it under force of military occupation. Do you not understand this?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Which means nothing in regard to Palestine being established as an independent nation...Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I know this:
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great...
http://www.britannica.com/EBch...120113/Class-A-mandate
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
No they didn't, just like the Syrians and the Iraqis didn't loose their land either, all three regions were considered Class A mandates, provisionally recognized as independent nations.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I understand that they...The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aren't given that option because Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which already has far more Arabs than they want. Israel never anexed the Palestian territories, they simply colonize it under force of military occupation. Do you not understand this?
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The Palestine Mandate did not establish Palestine as an independent nation, and I'm sure you already know this.
I know this:
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great...
http://www.britannica.com/EBch...120113/Class-A-mandate
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So then why can't Palestinians refer to themselves as Israelis?
Apparently names are a pretty big deal. Don't ya think?
The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aren't given that option because Israel is an ethnic nationalist state which already has far more Arabs than they want. Israel never anexed the Palestian territories, they simply colonize it under force of military occupation. Do you not understand this?