Ahmadinejad:'Hated Israel will be annihalated'

[Bonam]

Yup Toad, I was thinking pretty much along the same lines and had some of these historical examples typed up and then just said "screw it" not worth it, and posted the one liner. Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation.

[ToadBrother]

Yup Toad, I was thinking pretty much along the same lines and had some of these historical examples typed up and then just said "screw it" not worth it, and posted the one liner. Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation.

I don't see how it's establishment was any more questionable than, say, the establishment of Belgium or Pakistan or, heck, the United States (those damned rebels). The only difference I see is that in the case of Belgium, it happened the better part of two hundred years ago, so other than the Flemish and Walloons themselves (who seem to still have some trouble getting along), no one really thinks about it. As to Pakistan, where's the outcry from Gosthack about that one; the partition of India probably has more to do with the upsets and dangers in the Middle East and Central Asia than how the Brits decided to dole out the land they had effectively conquered from the Ottomans. And heck, the US bloody well revolted, then went on to steal big chunks of Mexico.

The right of any state to exist is predicated upon the recognition of some large number of other states, the ability of that state to enforce its polity over its claimed territory and, alone or by alliance, to defend and protect its territory. How is what Israel done in alliance with the United States particularly any different than the relationship that US had with France during the Revolutionary War? The chief difference is the Brits were sensible enough to shake hands after Cornwallis was beaten, but the Palestinians have continued trying to wage a war they lost sixty years ago.

Edited March 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[naomiglover]

I don't see how it's establishment was any more questionable than, say, the establishment of Belgium or Pakistan or, heck, the United States (those damned rebels).

The establishment is still questionable mostly because of what has taken place since it was established. Israel was created under international law, which Israel is a signatory to, yet, since then, Israel continues to break international law while trying to expand its territory.

If Israel had genuinely accepted the territory that was allocated to it, the conflict would have died down a while ago.

[Bonam]

The establishment is still questionable mostly because of what has taken place since it was established. Israel was created under international law, which Israel is a signatory to, yet, since then, Israel continues to break international law while trying to expand its territory.

I guess pulling out of southern Lebanon, pulling out of the Sinai, and pulling out of Gaza are all examples of "expanding its territory" eh?

[M.Dancer]

If Israel had genuinely accepted the territory that was allocated to it, the conflict would have died down a while ago.

You mean if the Arab league had accepted the territory?

[ToadBrother]

The establishment is still questionable mostly because of what has taken place since it was established. Israel was created under international law, which Israel is a signatory to, yet, since then, Israel continues to break international law while trying to expand its territory.

Which means what exactly? Every nation I mentioned was created under the auspices of international law (as it was understood at the time of each state's creation), and in each case the states in question have gone off and done some pretty dubious things (Belgium and its African colonies, Pakistan and well, just about everything Pakistan does, the US, like I said, within sixty years was invading a sovereign state and annexing large chunks of its territory under the more strained of justifications).

A state is a state is a state is a state. Israel's right to exist is recognized, regardless of how you feel about it's later behavior. There is nothing in international law that says "Oh, that nation state we accepted the existence of is doing things we don't like, now we can change our minds."

If Israel had genuinely accepted the territory that was allocated to it, the conflict would have died down a while ago.

Um, there was this little matter of a war by the neighboring Arab states to wipe Israel off the map. What Israel seized it seized because the invasion by the belligerents failed. Like I said, the Palestinians, and the Arab world in general, has spent the last sixty years trying to explain how their ineptitude (military and political) should be ignored or forgotten. I can see you have certainly forgotten, or at least simply ignore any facts that run counter. You're an Israel hater.

[naomiglover]

You mean if the Arab league had accepted the territory?

The Arab league never had a say. Most of the neighbouring countries (their leaders) have come around to accepting Israel, mostly through negotiations and benefits sent to them by the U.S.

The ball has always been in Israel's court. The present situation is a perfect example of what Israel has been doing for the past few decades. Say one thing but do another.

[M.Dancer]

Most of the neighbouring countries (their leaders) have come around to accepting Israel, mostly through negotiations and benefits sent to them by the U.S.

So they should pressure the hold out arabs to accept reality...on the other hand, having jews to blame is always good politics.

The Arab league never had a say

So when they invaded one hour old Isreal, what was that? Racial Zeitgeist?

[ToadBrother]

The Arab league never had a say. Most of the neighbouring countries (their leaders) have come around to accepting Israel, mostly through negotiations and benefits sent to them by the U.S.

With the notable exception of Syria (and, of course Iran), and it's these two countries that are offering the bulk of the material support to the Hamas and Hezbollah.

The ball has always been in Israel's court.

Yes, Israel could have willingly got driven into the sea in 1949.

The present situation is a perfect example of what Israel has been doing for the past few decades. Say one thing but do another.

That's odd, because that's what the Palestinians have been doing.

[naomiglover]

Israel's right to exist is recognized, regardless of how you feel about it's later behavior. There is nothing in international law that says "Oh, that nation state we accepted the existence of is doing things we don't like, now we can change our minds."

I never said we should change our minds. Israel is a state and it's recognized under International law. The annexation of land that doesn't belong to them, however, is not.

Your previous speech about shrugging Israel's behaviour because you think Israel's establishment mirrors countries from over a century ago is incorrect and does not mesh well with reality.

Um, there was this little matter of a war by the neighboring Arab states to wipe Israel off the map. What Israel seized it seized because the invasion by the belligerents failed. Like I said, the Palestinians, and the Arab world in general, has spent the last sixty years trying to explain how their ineptitude (military and political) should be ignored or forgotten. I can see you have certainly forgotten, or at least simply ignore any facts that run counter. You're an Israel hater.

The Arab countries' behaviour does not give permission to Israel to break international law. The land seized during the war does not belong to Israel. This is a simple fact that you have to, one day, accept.

[ToadBrother]

The Arab countries' behaviour does not give permission to Israel to break international law. The land seized during the war does not belong to Israel. This is a simple fact that you have to, one day, accept.

So when are you going to demand the return of Danzig to Germany? Losers in wars frequently lose territory, whatever niceties the RULES say.

[naomiglover]

So when are you going to demand the return of Danzig to Germany? Losers in wars frequently lose territory, whatever niceties the RULES say.

Now you're comparing Danzig to the occupied Arab territories?

No need to reach so far. Just say that you believe Israel is above international law, instead of these ridiculous comparisons.

[ToadBrother]

Now you're comparing Danzig to the occupied Arab territories?

Danzig was split off from Germany and given to Poland, the price of Germany losing.

No need to reach so far. Just say that you believe Israel is above international law, instead of these ridiculous comparisons.

Translation: I don't like apt comparisons.

[DogOnPorch]

Danzig was split off from Germany and given to Poland, the price of Germany losing.

As was all of East Prussia.

[DogOnPorch]

...Pomerania...Silesia...Posen...West Prussia...Volga Germany...

Edited March 17, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[ToadBrother]

...Pomerania...Silesia...Posen...West Prussia...Volga Germany...

Thanks! I think that makes my point. All carved off. Hey, after WWI, Germany wasn't even allowed to put any soldiers in the Rhineland (not that that stopped Hitler in 1935). I'm sure Israel would gladly deal better with the Palestinians if they made such an agreement.

[DogOnPorch]

Thanks! I think that makes my point. All carved off. Hey, after WWI, Germany wasn't even allowed to put any soldiers in the Rhineland (not that that stopped Hitler in 1935). I'm sure Israel would gladly deal better with the Palestinians if they made such an agreement.

You're welcome.

It's an odd situation due to Britain's great haste to get the flock outa Dodge. Essentially allowing former Nazi's and Pan-Arab Nationalist to conduct business as usual in hopes that the 'problem' would simply go away on its own. After the rise of Nasser, they weren't even that keen to retain the Suez Canal...The Empire was checked-up against the boards, it seems.

Edited March 17, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[ToadBrother]

You're welcome.

It's an odd situation due to Britain's great haste to get the flock outa Dodge. Essentially allowing former Nazi's and Pan-Arab Nationalist to conduct business as usual in hopes that the 'problem' would simply go away on its own. After the rise of Nasser, they weren't even that keen to retain the Suez Canal...The Empire was checked-up against the boards, it seems.

No different, really, then the Roman departure from Britain. Britain couldn't afford it, plain and simple.

Edited March 17, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

No different, really, then the Roman departure from Britain. Britain couldn't afford it, plain and simple.

Oh I know...but that took them a few years post WW2 to figure it out...the Suez Crisis finished them off as a true superpower.

[naomiglover]

You want to play this dishonest game of making ridiculous comparisons, suit yourself. I don't want any part of it.

[DogOnPorch]

How come you're not upset about Germany being stripped of an area larger than Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank put together? All they did was start a war.

[GostHacked]

I guess pulling out of southern Lebanon, pulling out of the Sinai, and pulling out of Gaza are all examples of "expanding its territory" eh?

Israel is over twice the size it was originally when it was established.

[GostHacked]

I'd like to find out what justification Gosthack would require for any nation state to exist? I can't think of a single example of a nation state that didn't, somewhere along the line, spring forth from sort of invasive power.

I'd ask Gosthack by what definition there is a right to any particular state in the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Other than for a rather brief period in the Medieval period, there hasn't been an independent state there in over 2,000 years. The people that lived there spent a good deal of time as subjects of the Romans, then the Byzantine Empire, then the Turks up until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps we should find the last owners, which were the Ottomans and the absentee landlords that held so much of the land in the more hospitable parts of the region.

Hard to answer really. And I guess it is more of a hunch or a feeling that Israel should not exist. I mean I might change my mind once I know more. History can be really construed sometimes.

I can't really express into words properly what I am thinking so I'll have to take some time on that. I've mulled it over the last day to see what I can post in reply here. And really at this point I can't really say. I'll try my best to put it into proper words. But in the end I won't change any minds.

[bush_cheney2004]

Israel is over twice the size it was originally when it was established.

So are Canada and the United Sates....so they shouldn't exist either ?

[GostHacked]

So are Canada and the United Sates....so they shouldn't exist either ?

Oh, hi BC.