dre Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) Em...We're talking about Germanic land that was confiscated and gentrified,either by treaty or force,by the Russians or Allies after WW1 and the 2nd World War...Those lands are lost forever... Welcome to reality... Thats NOT the reality of today though. I provided a few examples of this already. And thats also not Israels position. They cant assimilate the occupied terrorites as Israeli sovereignty because they dont want millions of more arabs voting in their elections. Which is another reason these examples are all such utter failures. Are people in the Kurils kept in limbo in terms of statehood? Are they prevented from participating in the Russian system of government like Palestinians are in the Israeli system? Can you name another example on the entire planet where millions of people are kept in a state of permanent statelessness? Because thats what you would have to find in order to present a relevant comparison. Edited November 5, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 5, 2010 Author Report Posted November 5, 2010 In any case Its truly astounding that anybody would even try to compare the dispute over the Kuriles to the occupied territories. Its mind numbingly stupid, because the west bank is not a disputed territory. Unlike the Kuriles the west bank NEVER WAS a part of Israel, and Israel is NOT EVEN CLAIMING THAT IT IS!!! Nobody on earth is claiming that the west bank is a sovereign part of Israel for god sakes. Not Israel, not ANYBODY. Good grief.... It was not part of Israel as defined by the 1948 Armistice lines. There is no question is was part of historical Israel. This is significant. If the Arab side had accepted the 1948 Armistice lines as Israel's borders you would be absolutely, stone-cold sober right. Since they chose the path of non-recognition and sporadic warfare, they put all of the Palestine mandate (including modern Jordan), and arguably the territories comprising modern Egypt, Syria and Lebanon on the ten-yard line. This in turn makes the Arab-Israeli dispute a lot like the dispute over the Kurile Islands; if Russia were to hand back the Kuriles I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the argument that the West Bank could not be occupied by Israel. As it is, Israel is the only country expected to surrender gains from a war. In other words, heads I lose tails you win. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 It was not part of Israel as defined by the 1948 Armistice lines. There is no question is was part of historical Israel. This is significant. If the Arab side had accepted the 1948 Armistice lines as Israel's borders you would be absolutely, stone-cold sober right. Since they chose the path of non-recognition and sporadic warfare, they put all of the Palestine mandate (including modern Jordan), and arguably the territories comprising modern Egypt, Syria and Lebanon on the ten-yard line. This in turn makes the Arab-Israeli dispute a lot like the dispute over the Kurile Islands; if Russia were to hand back the Kuriles I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the argument that the West Bank could not be occupied by Israel. As it is, Israel is the only country expected to surrender gains from a war. In other words, heads I lose tails you win. As it is, Israel is the only country expected to surrender gains from a war. No... The US is expected to surrender control of Iraq... it already has party. Its also expected to surrender control of Afghanistan. NATO was expected to return control of serbia to serbs after they won that war as well. Saddam was expected to surrender Kuwait which is gained control of through war. Russia withdrew its forces from Georgia as well. Youre entire comparison is apples and oranges. Wholly and completely without merit. And none of your examples involve millions of people being left stateless. Israel doesnt WANT to have sovereignty over the occupied territories because they dont want millions of more Arabs voting in their elections. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 5, 2010 Author Report Posted November 5, 2010 This topic isnt yet another generic Israel Palestine topic. Its about the Kuriles for god sakes. Stop derailing the thread with your mindless garbage. I used the Opening Post to demonstrate the world's hypocrisy on this matter. Pretty amazing. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) I used the Opening Post to demonstrate the world's hypocrisy on this matter. Pretty amazing. That post wasnt directed at you BTW. But that hypocracy doesnt exist. Israel is not the only thats subject to international law, which says you cant redraw borders through war. I listed a whole host of other examples. Your premise is based on something that isnt even true in the first place. Edited November 5, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 5, 2010 Author Report Posted November 5, 2010 That post wasnt directed at you BTW. Oh O.K. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 Oh O.K. I DO find your OP dissappointing though. Youre a smart guy, and presenting such a bogus comparison does you a disservice. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 5, 2010 Author Report Posted November 5, 2010 I DO find your OP dissappointing though. Youre a smart guy, and presenting such a bogus comparison does you a disservice. I appreciate the overall compliment. I would really like more attention focused on other land grabs. Israel is far from the only guilty party. The West doesn't always have to breast-beat. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) I appreciate the overall compliment. I would really like more attention focused on other land grabs. Israel is far from the only guilty party. The West doesn't always have to breast-beat. Thats fine... but in the mean time we have millions of people that dont have the protection of ANY state, and that Israel has no interest in assimilating as citizens due to demographic concerns. None of the other land grabs are comparable. Can you find me an ongoing situation that has those attributes? What other "land grabs" in recent history have resulted in millions of stateless people? In the case of the Kurils Russia has asserted sovereignty... Japan disputes it. I presume the people there are treated as Russian citizens. But Israel HAS NOT asserted sovereignty over the west bank and its people and has no interest in doing so. Its NOT a disputed territory its an occupied one. Most important though is for you to realize that your initial premise is false. Its not true that Israel is the only country being asked to surrender the spoils of war. I could name literally dozens of examples of other countries having to vacate territory they occupied during war. The allies occupied all of Japan at one point... so would you make the argument that since Japan "started the war" and "lost the war" that the Japenese never should have been given back control? Same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Serbia, and a whole host of other conflicts. Israel is far from the only guilty party. What other parties have attempted to keep large swaths of land gained in military conflict without assimilating the citizens on them? Edited November 5, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) Thats fine... but in the mean time we have millions of people that dont have the protection of ANY state, and that Israel has no interest in assimilating as citizens due to demographic concerns. None of the other land grabs are comparable. Can you find me an ongoing situation that has those attributes? What other "land grabs" in recent history have resulted in millions of stateless people? This question is inherently flawed because it presupposes that it is Israel's fault that there are millions of stateless people. The reality is that in other conflicts, when one side is driven back, it doesn't just decide to renounce the people who fought for it. The people of the West Bank were previously under the jurisdiction of Jordan, and Gaza was part of Egypt. And yet, after these territories no longer belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively, these people were not allowed to emigrate to these states or have their rights of citizenship within them. They were purposefully abandoned in the situation they find themselves in now by their fellow Arabs, who were also primarily to blame for the war. Israel did make some bad decisions after their swift victory in 1967, however. What they should have done is decide right away which areas they planned to keep and which to return, immediately annex the areas they wanted to keep (i.e. East Jerusalem) and drive out the enemy populations from there, and swiftly pull out of other areas (the rest of the West Bank). Instead, they decided to keep the territories under control in the hopes of using them as bargaining chips for peace with their Arab foes. In the case of Egypt, this worked when they returned the Sinai. Unfortunately, Israel miscalculated, not realizing that the Arabs states had no interest in taking back Gaza or the West Bank, and that they'd be stuck with the Palestinians as a result. In the case of the Kurils Russia has asserted sovereignty... Japan disputes it. I presume the people there are treated as Russian citizens. But Israel HAS NOT asserted sovereignty over the west bank and its people and has no interest in doing so. Its NOT a disputed territory its an occupied one. That's right, Israel has no interest in sovereignty over the territories. What it does have an interest in, as has been expressed many times by varying governments of Israel, is allowing these territories to form the basis of a Palestinian state, which could exist beside Israel. Sadly, Israel has been waiting for a credible negotiating partner to do this with for a long time. They almost had a deal with Arafat, who reneged at the last moment. There's not much else Israel can do. It can't give the territories back to existing states like Egypt and Jordan since they don't want them, and they can't pull out unilaterally without creating a massive power vacuum that would only bring an increase in terrorism (as after the pullout from Gaza). Israel is as trapped in the situation as the Palestinians are, it has no good and easy solution. If and when the Palestinians gain a strong and trustworthy leadership that is committed to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state as well as peace with Israel, progress will be made. Until then, the situation will continue as it is, and there's really nothing Israel can do about it no matter how much it may want to. Most important though is for you to realize that your initial premise is false. Its not true that Israel is the only country being asked to surrender the spoils of war. I could name literally dozens of examples of other countries having to vacate territory they occupied during war. And dozens of others where they have not had to. In any case, the territories are hardly spoils of war, they are more like a ball and chain endlessly dragging Israel down. It would love to be rid of them. In case you haven't followed the negotiations, the stumbling blocks are never the return of the vast majority of the West Bank (where the water which you claim is the cause of the conflict is located). The tough issues are: 1) so called Palestinian "refugees" and 2) East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem IS sovereign Israeli territory, IS recognized by Israel as such, and its legal citizens ARE Israeli citizens. It was officially annexed by Israel after its victory in 1967. Edited November 6, 2010 by Bonam Quote
jbg Posted November 6, 2010 Author Report Posted November 6, 2010 And dozens of others where they have not had to. In any case, the territories are hardly spoils of war, they are more like a ball and chain endlessly dragging Israel down. It would love to be rid of them. In case you haven't followed the negotiations, the stumbling blocks are never the return of the vast majority of the West Bank (where the water which you claim is the cause of the conflict is located). The tough issues are: 1) so called Palestinian "refugees" and 2) East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem IS sovereign Israeli territory, IS recognized by Israel as such, and its legal citizens ARE Israeli citizens. It was officially annexed by Israel after its victory in 1967. Excellent analysis. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 This question is inherently flawed because it presupposes that it is Israel's fault that there are millions of stateless people. The reality is that in other conflicts, when one side is driven back, it doesn't just decide to renounce the people who fought for it. The people of the West Bank were previously under the jurisdiction of Jordan, and Gaza was part of Egypt. And yet, after these territories no longer belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively, these people were not allowed to emigrate to these states or have their rights of citizenship within them. They were purposefully abandoned in the situation they find themselves in now by their fellow Arabs, who were also primarily to blame for the war. Israel did make some bad decisions after their swift victory in 1967, however. What they should have done is decide right away which areas they planned to keep and which to return, immediately annex the areas they wanted to keep (i.e. East Jerusalem) and drive out the enemy populations from there, and swiftly pull out of other areas (the rest of the West Bank). Instead, they decided to keep the territories under control in the hopes of using them as bargaining chips for peace with their Arab foes. In the case of Egypt, this worked when they returned the Sinai. Unfortunately, Israel miscalculated, not realizing that the Arabs states had no interest in taking back Gaza or the West Bank, and that they'd be stuck with the Palestinians as a result. That's right, Israel has no interest in sovereignty over the territories. What it does have an interest in, as has been expressed many times by varying governments of Israel, is allowing these territories to form the basis of a Palestinian state, which could exist beside Israel. Sadly, Israel has been waiting for a credible negotiating partner to do this with for a long time. They almost had a deal with Arafat, who reneged at the last moment. There's not much else Israel can do. It can't give the territories back to existing states like Egypt and Jordan since they don't want them, and they can't pull out unilaterally without creating a massive power vacuum that would only bring an increase in terrorism (as after the pullout from Gaza). Israel is as trapped in the situation as the Palestinians are, it has no good and easy solution. If and when the Palestinians gain a strong and trustworthy leadership that is committed to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state as well as peace with Israel, progress will be made. Until then, the situation will continue as it is, and there's really nothing Israel can do about it no matter how much it may want to. And dozens of others where they have not had to. In any case, the territories are hardly spoils of war, they are more like a ball and chain endlessly dragging Israel down. It would love to be rid of them. In case you haven't followed the negotiations, the stumbling blocks are never the return of the vast majority of the West Bank (where the water which you claim is the cause of the conflict is located). The tough issues are: 1) so called Palestinian "refugees" and 2) East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem IS sovereign Israeli territory, IS recognized by Israel as such, and its legal citizens ARE Israeli citizens. It was officially annexed by Israel after its victory in 1967. This question is inherently flawed because it presupposes that it is Israel's fault that there are millions of stateless people The question doesnt presuppose that at all... In any case, the territories are hardly spoils of war, they are more like a ball and chain endlessly dragging Israel down Not really. The occupied territories supply nearly 2/3rds of its supply of fresh water which is the life-blood of any desert economy such as israel. The stimuli that you describe as "ball and chain" has resulted in Israel almost tripling in size and greatly increasing its access to the regions water. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) The question doesnt presuppose that at all... Not really. The occupied territories supply nearly 2/3rds of its supply of fresh water which is the life-blood of any desert economy such as israel. The stimuli that you describe as "ball and chain" has resulted in Israel almost tripling in size and greatly increasing its access to the regions water. Israel did make some bad decisions after their swift victory in 1967, however. What they should have done is decide right away which areas they planned to keep and which to return, immediately annex the areas they wanted to keep (i.e. East Jerusalem) and drive out the enemy populations from there, and swiftly pull out of other areas (the rest of the West Bank). Your'e outright advocating that Israel ignore international law and conquer someone elses terriroty. You have a right to cheer for this outcome but I guess we'll just see how evenly you apply it in the future (lets get serious). Edited November 6, 2010 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 6, 2010 Author Report Posted November 6, 2010 Your'e outright advocating that Israel ignore international law and conquer someone elses terriroty. You have a right to cheer for this outcome but I guess we'll just see how evenly you apply it in the future (lets get serious). The problem with the concept of "precedents" is that many states couldn't care less about obeying them. Thus the reference to Russia's conduct regarding the Kuriles, Georgia etc. While they nominally leave Georgia independent there is no doubt who the power behind the thrown is there. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted November 7, 2010 Report Posted November 7, 2010 Not really. The occupied territories supply nearly 2/3rds of its supply of fresh water which is the life-blood of any desert economy such as israel. The stimuli that you describe as "ball and chain" has resulted in Israel almost tripling in size and greatly increasing its access to the regions water. Tripling in size? Methinks you need to look at a map sometime. As for water, we've been over this before, and I find your contention that it is the water that is a primary reason for the continued conflict to be completely unfounded. Your'e outright advocating that Israel ignore international law and conquer someone elses terriroty. You have a right to cheer for this outcome but I guess we'll just see how evenly you apply it in the future (lets get serious). No, I was talking about what Israel should have done 43 years ago. Obviously, that's not an option now. Quote
jbg Posted November 7, 2010 Author Report Posted November 7, 2010 No, I was talking about what Israel should have done 43 years ago. Obviously, that's not an option now. The problem is that 43 years ago or now, Israel could not afford to have full-blown conventional armies perched right on the outskirts of the New City of Jerusalem and thus a very short distance from Tel Aviv. The pre-1967 borders were indefensible. At least terrorism doesn't threaten the annihilation of Israel as a state. Nuclear weapons are something else and may require Israeli pre-emptive action. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
dre Posted November 7, 2010 Report Posted November 7, 2010 Tripling in size? Methinks you need to look at a map sometime. As for water, we've been over this before, and I find your contention that it is the water that is a primary reason for the continued conflict to be completely unfounded. No, I was talking about what Israel should have done 43 years ago. Obviously, that's not an option now. Tripling in size? Methinks you need to look at a map sometime. As for water, we've been over this before, and I find your contention that it is the water that is a primary reason for the continued conflict to be completely unfounded. Iv proven that assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt. And by ignoring it youre not only at odds with me you are at odds with Israelis and their Government, and virtually every historian that has studied the conflict. You are almost alone in the world in denying the the massive role water has played in the conflict and continues to play today. Furthermore you have not even tried to present an argument to the contrary. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted November 7, 2010 Report Posted November 7, 2010 The problem is that 43 years ago or now, Israel could not afford to have full-blown conventional armies perched right on the outskirts of the New City of Jerusalem and thus a very short distance from Tel Aviv. The pre-1967 borders were indefensible. At least terrorism doesn't threaten the annihilation of Israel as a state. Nuclear weapons are something else and may require Israeli pre-emptive action. The pre-1967 borders were indefensible. That statement is so silly its literally bizzare. The pre 67 borders were not indefensible in fact Israel defended them EASILY during the war. The reason they expanded was to secure access to resources... namely the life blood of any desert economy... water. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2010 Report Posted November 7, 2010 That statement is so silly its literally bizzare. The pre 67 borders were not indefensible in fact Israel defended them EASILY during the war. The reason they expanded was to secure access to resources... namely the life blood of any desert economy... water. Yup...an Ideologue...the liberal variety. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Yup...an Ideologue...the liberal variety. Yup... your 8000th one-line post saying nothing, and making no points of your own whatsoever. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Yup... your 8000th one-line post saying nothing, and making no points of your own whatsoever. I'm sure you're well aware of my position. You've also made it clear that anybody who disagrees with you is simply wrong. So the shoe fits... The most common variants of Ideologue are conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits, and (h)e is genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant that his views are not universally embraced as the Truth. He regards the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical, clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness. Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue, and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Ideologue is a fierce, but very predictable Warrior.. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 I'm sure you're well aware of my position. You've also made it clear that anybody who disagrees with you is simply wrong. So the shoe fits... The only place your shoe appears to fit is in your own mouth. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted November 8, 2010 Author Report Posted November 8, 2010 That statement is so silly its literally bizzare. The pre 67 borders were not indefensible in fact Israel defended them EASILY during the war. The reason they expanded was to secure access to resources... namely the life blood of any desert economy... water. The pre-1967 border's indefensibility is why Israel had to strike pre-emptively in both 1956 and 1967. If the Arab invasions started first Israel wouldn't be there now. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Posted March 13, 2011 Does anyone still think the biggest threat to Arab lives is Israel? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted August 6, 2014 Author Report Posted August 6, 2014 Does anyone still think the biggest threat to Arab lives is Israel? Apparently so (link to thread condemning Israel but no one else), Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.