Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) what are you babbling about? international law created israel. No, it didn't. "International law" passed a resolution (which was rejected by the Arabs). The creation of the country, on the other hand, was done by the Jewish people. "International law" didn't defeat our enemies who wanted to destroy us in our wars. "International law" didn't fight back when the Arabs launched pogroms against us in and outside of Israel. "International law" didn't build schools, roads, farms, courts, an army, and industry. "International law" didn't fundraise and donate money to support the early Yishuv in the decades before 1948. "International law" didn't motivate and inspire the early Zionist pioneers to engage in national rebirth and reclaim our national rights. "International law" did one thing - it passed a document that you can now read on Wikipedia. See, this is how morons like you think - that a document "creates" something in and of itself. Edited June 23, 2011 by Bob Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Thats quite simply NOT a basic or important question. And the suggestion that palestinians dont qualify for statehood because we are already over some kinda Arab state "quota" is nothing but pure racism. Their race/culture are besides the point. The case for statehood is that theres millions of stateless people living in a large piece of land that doesnt belong to any state. Really nothing more is required than that. And again, we have another deflection. You cannot support the facade of a distinct Arab nation known as the "Palestinians", so you create other illusions to support your advocacy for "Palestinian" statehood. It's clear you're unwilling to concede the simple point - that the concept of a "Palestinian" nation is baseless and hollow. If it is an irrelevant question, though, why don't you answer it? Tell us how the "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs? Are they or aren't they distinct? Is their validity to their sense of nationalism or isn't there? We have millions of stateless people, and that's a problem? Let's get them citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Edited June 23, 2011 by Bob Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
bud Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) No, it didn't. "International law" passed a resolution (which was rejected by the Arabs). The creation of the country, on the other hand, was done by the Jewish people. "International law" didn't defeat our enemies who wanted to destroy us in our wars. "International law" didn't fight back when the Arabs launched pogroms against us in and outside of Israel. "International law" didn't build schools, roads, farms, courts, an army, and industry. "International law" didn't fundraise and donate money to support the early Yishuv in the decades before 1948. "International law" didn't motivate and inspire the early Zionist pioneers to engage in national rebirth and reclaim our national rights. stop trying to be so dramatic. it's not international law's job to do all those things. international law is a guideline. it's something that should be followed by all those who are signatory to. Edited June 23, 2011 by bud Quote http://whoprofits.org/
bud Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 We have millions of stateless people, and that's a problem? Let's get them citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. why can't they live where they, their parents, their grandparents, their great grand parents, etc. have lived for centuries? they have more claim to the land than most jews who started immigrating to the region less than a century ago. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 stop trying to be so dramatic. it's not international law's job to do all those things. international law is a guideline. it's something that should be followed by all those who are signatory to. I'm not being dramatic, you're just being stupid. A country isn't a document at the UN headquarters in NYC, which is what you clearly implied. Idiotic statements, which we've all become accustomed to reading from you, such as "international law created Israel" will be challenged. You might as well say "international law" created the USA, or Canada, or any other state. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
bud Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 I'm not being dramatic, you're just being stupid. A country isn't a document at the UN headquarters in NYC, which is what you clearly implied. Idiotic statements, which we've all become accustomed to reading from you, such as "international law created Israel" will be challenged. You might as well say "international law" created the USA, or Canada, or any other state. how did israel come to be accepted as a country then? Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 why can't they live where they, their parents, their grandparents, their great grand parents, etc. have lived for centuries? they have more claim to the land than most jews who started immigrating to the region less than a century ago. Because they refuse to live in peace with and acknowledge Jewish national rights in Israel. They're committed to violence against us and regularly call for our destruction. That's why they should be allowed to live here. fantasy that the "Palestinians" constitute a group of people who've lived here for centuries is laughable. This land so more turnover, including massive immigration and emigration, than most of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, some of these Arabs have deep roots in this land. Most don't. Who cares? Movement of peoples is a fact of life. And the movement, in this case, is entirely the result of Arab intransigence and machismo. My family has generations of roots in the Ukraine and Russia, that doesn't mean anything. Israel is the land of the Jewish people. Get used to it. A Jewish person living in Toronto who's never been to Israel has more claim to this land than a tenth-generation "Palestinian". It's our country. End of story. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 how did israel come to be accepted as a country then? So "acceptance" of a country is now akin to a country's creation? That's quite a feat of mental gymnastics, there. Look bus, in all seriousness, I've wasted more than enough time with you in this thread. There's a reason I ignore your posts, and that reason is being reinforced here. You're not equipped with the knowledge or honesty to debate me on these issues. Go troll someone else, perhaps you can get the attention you crave. I'm not going to feed your bullshit, anymore. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
dre Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 And again, we have another deflection. You cannot support the facade of a distinct Arab nation, so you create other illusions to support your advocacy for "Palestinian" statehood. It's clear you're unwilling to concede the simple point - that the concept of a "Palestinian" nation is baseless and hollow. If it is an irrelevant question, though, why don't you answer it? Tell us how the "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs? Are they or aren't they distinct? Is their validity to their sense of nationalism or isn't there? We have millions of stateless people, and that's a problem? Let's get them citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. If it is an irrelevant question, though, why don't you answer it? Tell us how the "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs? Again... that question has nothing at all to do with whether or not Palestinians should get to govern themselves. Its a complete and total red herring. Answer your OWN pointless and irrelevant questions. We have millions of stateless people, and that's a problem? Let's get them citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. That makes no sense... they already have land, homes, etc. And their land is just not part of any of those states, or part of Israel. It doesnt belong to any state, so its perfectly fine for the millions of stateless people that live on it to create their own. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Remiel Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 My family has generations of roots in the Ukraine and Russia, that doesn't mean anything. Israel is the land of the Jewish people. Get used to it. A Jewish person living in Toronto who's never been to Israel has more claim to this land than a tenth-generation "Palestinian". It's our country. End of story. The only story that this is the end of is the story of your credibility. Quote
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Again... that question has nothing at all to do with whether or not Palestinians should get to govern themselves. Its a complete and total red herring. Answer your OWN pointless and irrelevant questions. That's fine, I expected you to be obstinate and refuse to concede the fallacy that is "Palestinian" nationalism. They even have their own Wikipedia entry! I'll trust the readers of this thread to see how you, bud, and Remiel all refused to answer the simple question - what meaningfully distinguishes the Palestinians from other Arabs towards legitimizing their claims of constituting a unique national identity, and therefore being entitled to national rights? (answer: nothing) That makes no sense... they already have land, homes, etc. And their land is just not part of any of those states, or part of Israel. It doesnt belong to any state, so its perfectly fine for the millions of stateless people that live on it to create their own. Owning homes and properties is quite different than having sovereignty. Moreover, we have many good reasons (thousands of dead Jews and other Israelis) not to trust these Arabs with increased autonomy. As far as I'm concerned, the Arab forfeited any claims to sovereignty over this land when they waged war after war against us. You have no legitimacy to land claims when that land is regularly used as basepoint to wage hostilities against another state. You don't have a right to independence and sovereignty just because you create a flag, a national anthem, and have "observer status" at the UN. Edited June 23, 2011 by Bob Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The only story that this is the end of is the story of your credibility. That's fine. It's quite clear that you're trying to obfuscate your true sentiment - anti-Zionism. You don't care about flotilla, or nationalistic claim, or 1967 lines, or anything else. It's all a smoke and mirrors. You oppose Jewish self-determination in Israel. Might as well be honest about it. You came close to revealing that when you implied your disdain for "ethnic nationalism", which was about as close as you would allow yourself to come to openly stating your opposition to Zionism. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Remiel Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 That's fine. It's quite clear that you're trying to obfuscate your true sentiment - anti-Zionism. You don't care about flotilla, or nationalistic claim, or 1967 lines, or anything else. It's all a smoke and mirrors. You oppose Jewish self-determination in Israel. Might as well be honest about it. You came close to revealing that when you implied your disdain for "ethnic nationalism", which was about as close as you would allow yourself to come to openly stating your opposition to Zionism. Yes, I was so anti-Zionist that my argument was a justification for the existence of the state of Israel. Quote
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Yes, I was so anti-Zionist that my argument was a justification for the existence of the state of Israel. You support Israel's perseverance as a Jewish state? You support Zionism? Let's see you say that explicitly. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
dre Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 That's fine, I expected you to be obstinate and refuse to concede the fallacy that is "Palestinian" nationalism. They even have their own Wikipedia entry! I'll trust the readers of this thread to see how you, bud, and Remiel all refused to answer the simple question - what meaningfully distinguishes the Palestinians from other Arabs towards legitimizing their claims of constituting a unique national identity, and therefore being entitled to national rights? (answer: nothing) Owning homes and properties is quite different than having sovereignty. Moreover, we have many good reasons (thousands of dead Jews and other Israelis) not to trust these Arabs with increased autonomy. As far as I'm concerned, the Arab forfeited any claims to sovereignty over this land when they waged war after war against us. You have no legitimacy to land claims when that land is regularly used as basepoint to wage hostilities against another state. You don't have a right to independence and sovereignty just because you create a flag, a national anthem, and have "observer status" at the UN. You have no legitimacy to land claims when that land is regularly used as basepoint to wage hostilities against another state. The fact that Israelis and Arabs have constantly attacked and provoked each other has no impact on the question of statehood either. The ONLY requirements for statehood are that the entity involved and a stable government to which the majority of the population renders habitual obedience. Since that land, and those people dont belong to any state currency the only question remaining is whether the government there is stable enough in the eyes of the world. None of your ethnocentric, racist zealotry changes any of this at all. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Remiel Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 You support Israel's perseverance as a Jewish state? You support Zionism? Let's see you say that explicitly. I support the right of the people of the state of Israel to that state. Insofar as the majority of those folks are Jewish, it is reasonable that the state be pre-dominantly Jewish in character. And I think it would be preferrable if it remained a majority Jewish state. Quote
bud Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 So "acceptance" of a country is now akin to a country's creation? That's quite a feat of mental gymnastics, there. of course. the process of creating new states is a mixture of fact and law, involving the establishment of particular factual conditions and compliance with relevant rules. that's what israel went through before becoming a state 60 years ago. Look bus, in all seriousness, I've wasted more than enough time with you in this thread. There's a reason I ignore your posts, and that reason is being reinforced here. You're not equipped with the knowledge or honesty to debate me on these issues. Go troll someone else, perhaps you can get the attention you crave. I'm not going to feed your bullshit, anymore. okay. i understand that you're not a fan of international law and human rights. run along to your calls for ethnic cleansing. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 I support the right of the people of the state of Israel to that state. Insofar as the majority of those folks are Jewish, it is reasonable that the state be pre-dominantly Jewish in character. And I think it would be preferrable if it remained a majority Jewish state. Ah, so your support for Zionism is quite conditional. Basically, it doesn't bother you if Israel is susceptible to cease its mission of being the Jewish homeland. I would imagine you think the Law of Return, allowing any Jew to make Israel his or her homeland, is discriminatory and unfair? The Law of Return codifies the claim of the Jewish people to this land. I think my characterization of you being anti-Zionistic was accurate. You don't care whether the Jewish people have independence and self-determination. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
dre Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Ah, so your support for Zionism is quite conditional. Basically, it doesn't bother you if Israel is susceptible to cease its mission of being the Jewish homeland. I would imagine you think the Law of Return, allowing any Jew to make Israel his or her homeland, is discriminatory and unfair? The Law of Return codifies the claim of the Jewish people to this land. I think my characterization of you being anti-Zionistic was accurate. You don't care whether the Jewish people have independence and self-determination. Basically, it doesn't bother you if Israel is susceptible to cease its mission of being the Jewish homeland. Israel can be whatever kind of place its citizens want it to be. If it wants to orient itself around an ethnic or religious majority its free to do so. I personally think its a mistake for any country to operate this way, and most successfull modern countries have ditched approach in favor of treating people as equal. But expect that kind of backward crap from people in the middle east. Most of your neigbors have these backwards ethnic and religious policies too, so not fair to single Israel out I guess. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 The fact that Israelis and Arabs have constantly attacked and provoked each other has no impact on the question of statehood either. Just to be clear, can you list the conflicts started by the Israelis? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dre Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Just to be clear, can you list the conflicts started by the Israelis? Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
DogOnPorch Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria. So Israel, not Nasser, started the 6 Day War? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Sure the whole chain of events that lead to the war in 67 was started by Israel diverting water away from hashemite territory using its national water carrier, and then bombing a similar water diversion project by Lebanon and Syria. What makes you think you can describe the events of June 1967 outside of the greater context of the Zionist-Arab conflict? Aside from the misrepresentation of events you're spreading here even if we were to examine the events of the Six-Day War in isolation of the broader context, it's dishonest and simplistic to forget that his entire conflict in rooted in widespread Arab rejection of Jewish national rights in Israel. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
Bob Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Just to be clear, can you list the conflicts started by the Israelis? I didn't want to ask that question, because I didn't really wanna get into it with him. There are quite a few good books on the events of the Six-Day War, for those interested. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
dre Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) So Israel, not Nasser, started the 6 Day War? Its not as simple as saying one side started it. The 6 day war wasnt really six days. There had been a steady chain of violence along the border for years already and plenty of provocative actions by both sides. The first punch in that fight was thrown a couple of years before whats known as the 6 day war. The bottom line is both sides wanted that territory and were more than happy to fight for it. Sometimes two thugs just fight over something because they want to. Edited June 24, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.