Political Crossfire Forums

[Hobbie]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Hobbie, you keep on repeating yourself over and over again, but your posts don't make any sense. You keep going on about how Palestine has never existed and that's why they should never be allowed to have their own country, but many other countries have never existed historically either. Even the modern Israel is clearly not what the anceint Israel was.

That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

[morph]

Hobbie wrote: That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

The whole point is that prior to Israel being "created" it was a territory of Palestine. You can't just displace people and say, "Thanks, but this is mine now."

[ToonArmyIsComing]

morph wrote: Hobbie wrote: That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

The whole point is that prior to Israel being "created" it was a territory of Palestine. You can't just displace people and say, "Thanks, but this is mine now."

Exactly. :tu:

Besides, the reality on the ground is very different than what you are saying there Hobbie. Palestine is a nation without a state at the moment and based on that they are going to create their state. Like it or not, that's the reality. I think you need to stop preaching dogma Hobbie.

As for Israel having been created and established, that could all change within a matter of years with the rapid rise in the Palestinian population, which is why it's better to create the state of Palestine now than wait for this population time bomb to become radicalized and explode.

[Hobbie]

morph wrote: Hobbie wrote: That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

The whole point is that prior to Israel being "created" it was a territory of Palestine. You can't just displace people and say, "Thanks, but this is mine now."

It was a territory, it was not a nation. Considering that Palestine was a territory of Britain at the time, Britain could allot it out to whomever it wanted to; and it allowed a sovereign nation called Israel to be formed there in order to give a home to the millions of Holocaust survivors and displaced Jews; their ancestral home. Instead of embracing the state of Israel, the tribal inhabitants of the territory decided to concoct an ethnicity and nationality for themselves and started a war with the Jews.

They were displaced of their own accord.

[Nine_Enigmas]

Hobbie wrote: morph wrote: Hobbie wrote: That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

The whole point is that prior to Israel being "created" it was a territory of Palestine. You can't just displace people and say, "Thanks, but this is mine now."

It was a territory, it was not a nation. Considering that Palestine was a territory of Britain at the time, Britain could allot it out to whomever it wanted to; and it allowed a sovereign nation called Israel to be formed there in order to give a home to the millions of Holocaust survivors and displaced Jews; their ancestral home. Instead of embracing the state of Israel, the tribal inhabitants of the territory decided to concoct an ethnicity and nationality for themselves and started a war with the Jews.

They were displaced of their own accord.

Patently untrue. India was occupied by Britain for a long time, doesn't mean they have the right to give it to the Swedes if they want.

There were people there before Hobbie, and like I said, the argument that "Well, they didn't have a Flag..." Doesn't hold water. They were still a people, and a people who are not the same people of the nations you've listed.

They were living in the area before occupation and if you'd read my previous post you'd know that they were the only state out of the Ottoman empire to not achieve autonomy.

Simple as that, and semantics can't change it :)

[morph]

Hobbie wrote: It was a territory, it was not a nation. Considering that Palestine was a territory of Britain at the time, Britain could allot it out to whomever it wanted to; and it allowed a sovereign nation called Israel to be formed there in order to give a home to the millions of Holocaust survivors and displaced Jews; their ancestral home. Instead of embracing the state of Israel, the tribal inhabitants of the territory decided to concoct an ethnicity and nationality for themselves and started a war with the Jews.

They were displaced of their own accord.

I understand that Palestine was not a nation, per se, but in order to remotely understand the picture, you should really "Google" the "Palestine Mandate." Here is a little snippet of the text:

Quote: Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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

The key factor in this mandate, prior to the creation of Israel i must stress, is that this is to be a home for both people to cohabitate. This is what the mandate states and, until the creation of the Israeli state (and non-creation of the Palestinian state, i might add) there was success regarding this cohabitation. There are various other actions that lead to the complex situation we have today. Part of this is the absence of the Palestinian state, the apartheid that is ongoing in the state and outside its borders and the illegal aquisition of land by the Israelis, which they appear to be fixing now.

Your argument is flawed Hobbie and i am not just saying this because i disagree with you. You are not looking at the facts and the timeline of events. I mean this in no offense.

[Hobbie]

Nine_Enigmas wrote: Hobbie wrote: morph wrote: Hobbie wrote: That's not my point at all. My point is that all of these claims of "occupation" are inherently false, because there was never a nation to be occupied in the first place. The state of Israel is the rightful nation of the region. If the "Palestinians" wanted a nation, they had the opportunity to establish one prior to the formation of Israel. They've tried to annihilate Israel on four different occasions in conjunction with their brethren surrounding Israel and have failed utterly.

If the "Palestinians" want peace and want a nation to call home, they can always become citizens of their actual homelands. Israel has been created and established. Short of it's destruction (which will never happen), it will remain the rightful and sovereign nation of that land.

The whole point is that prior to Israel being "created" it was a territory of Palestine. You can't just displace people and say, "Thanks, but this is mine now."

It was a territory, it was not a nation. Considering that Palestine was a territory of Britain at the time, Britain could allot it out to whomever it wanted to; and it allowed a sovereign nation called Israel to be formed there in order to give a home to the millions of Holocaust survivors and displaced Jews; their ancestral home. Instead of embracing the state of Israel, the tribal inhabitants of the territory decided to concoct an ethnicity and nationality for themselves and started a war with the Jews.

They were displaced of their own accord.

Patently untrue. India was occupied by Britain for a long time, doesn't mean they have the right to give it to the Swedes if they want.

There were people there before Hobbie, and like I said, the argument that "Well, they didn't have a Flag..." Doesn't hold water. They were still a people, and a people who are not the same people of the nations you've listed.

They were living in the area before occupation and if you'd read my previous post you'd know that they were the only state out of the Ottoman empire to not achieve autonomy.

Simple as that, and semantics can't change it :)

And unlike Palestine, India was an actual nation. Palestine was no such thing. Just a territory without a national or ethnic identity. Palestine was no different the West in the United States or Alaska prior to its annexation. Hell, it was no different than the Arctic or the northern territories in Canada. Well I take that back, at least the Native Americans had a separate ethnicity.

There were people there, but those people didn't own that land. Those people did not belong to a nation. Those people weren't "Palestinians." No such ethnicity or nationality exists.

With that in mind, they didn't receive autonomy because the "Palestine" region was a territory of the Sinai states (mainly Egypt). The people had no desire for autonomy until a Jewish state was created.

[Nine_Enigmas]

Your understanding of the situation is contrary to the facts. Thats the mildest way I can think to put "liar, liar, pants on fire".

Palestine was recognized as a people and a place before Israel by the U.N.; Article 22 of the League Covenant placed them under Great Britain as a Mandatory (they were not a territory of Britain, as you have confused them to be) until such a time that they could successfully maintain a state.

In the Balfour declaration, the British Government supported the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jews. Keep in mind that there were still Palestinians here, Palestinian's demanded independence several times and protested loudly the immigration of Jewish settlers. In 1936 they staged a rebellion which was put down by 37. So, again you are confused, the "ample time and opportunity to form a State" is simply contrary to the facts. The 1937 rebellion is what we'd call the beginning of "terrorism", in which various Arab officials called for person to person attacks on the Jews.

In 1947 Britain turned it over to the UN, which mandated that it would be partitioned into two equal States, sharing an internationalized Jerusalem for a capital. (Resolution 181, II)

In 1948 Israel declared independence, sparking a war in which Israel took over 77% of Palestine. Half of the Palestinians fled or were expelled.

In 1967, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine which was under the control of (and I think this is where you gained your misconception) Jordan and Egypt, pushing the Palestinian people back and into Jordan and Egypt. Though Jordan and Egypt had Mandatory control of those parts of Palestine, they were not Egyptian nor Jordanian; Those two countries were supposed to be aiding and advising Palestine in becoming an independent nation.

In security council resolution 242 the UN found that the 1967 conquest violated international law, in that acquisition of land through war was inadmissible.

Thus, Hobbie, is how Israel broke international law. Thus, Hobbie, the pressure by the international community to rectify that breach.

The only way Israel has managed to go this long without sweeping sanctions is that they (rightfully so) claim it to be a security concern for the Israeli state.

:)

[morph]

Nine_Enigmas wrote: Your understanding of the situation is contrary to the facts. Thats the mildest way I can think to put "liar, liar, pants on fire".

:shock: :lol:

Nine_Enigmas wrote: Palestine was recognized as a people and a place before Israel by the U.N.; Article 22 of the League Covenant placed them under Great Britain as a Mandatory (they were not a territory of Britain, as you have confused them to be) until such a time that they could successfully maintain a state.

That my be my fault. As i understood it, a mandate was like a territory, in that it is under control of a nation and the populous of the mandate does not have voting rights/political sway in the mother state. I am incorrect, however. Just to make sure we have the same understanding, essentially the UN and certain governments may be appointed control of the region for a specific time and this region is called a mandate, yes?

Nine_Enigmas wrote: In the Balfour declaration, the British Government supported the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jews. Keep in mind that there were still Palestinians here, Palestinian's demanded independence several times and protested loudly the immigration of Jewish settlers. In 1936 they staged a rebellion which was put down by 37. So, again you are confused, the "ample time and opportunity to form a State" is simply contrary to the facts. The 1937 rebellion is what we'd call the beginning of "terrorism", in which various Arab officials called for person to person attacks on the Jews.

Palestine was to be a cohabited state, yes? The Jews and the Palestinians were to both live in the state with no one people controlling the other.

Nine_Enigmas wrote: In security council resolution 242 the UN found that the 1967 conquest violated international law, in that acquisition of land through war was inadmissible.

Thus, Hobbie, is how Israel broke international law. Thus, Hobbie, the pressure by the international community to rectify that breach.

The only way Israel has managed to go this long without sweeping sanctions is that they (rightfully so) claim it to be a security concern for the Israeli state.

I would venture to say that Israel has been able to maintain this construct for such a time because the USG has been supporting the country economically (to the cost of about $3bn/yr) and vetoing any UN moves. Not that we are to blame for the situation, but we are not helping remedy the situation.