Trump: Middle East peace plan announced

James Brown

biko wrote: »

Exactly. There is a point of claiming historical rights but as I have shown using holy texts won't do it.

Other civilisations have claimed/occupied the land. Most notably the Romans.
You don't see the Italians getting mixed in

It is funny, as funny as Europeans creating Israel and laying claim. By your point any catholic can go and take Jerusalem as it's own. It is laughable.

osarusan

biko wrote: »

Exactly. There is a point of claiming historical rights but as I have shown using holy texts won't do it.

Other civilisations have claimed/occupied the land. Most notably the Romans.
You don't see the Italians getting mixed in

Originally you said it was a 'big problem', but I don't really see why it is a problem, or who it is a big problem for.


'Because the holy book says so' isn't an argument that will be used by anybody relevant when it comes to the Israel-Palestine question.

biko

Skylinehead wrote: »

Obviously Jerusalem is not mentioned by that name

So you agree with me, thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, Al-Aqsa Mosque is a hypothesis. No-one knows where it was.

Why wouldn't "obviously" Jerusalem be mentioned by name?
It existed at the time Mohammed is said to be active.
We can assume he knew of its existence as he met Jews during his life and he did travel a bit, mainly in Saudi Arabia though.

James Brown

I can't find anything about Israel murdering unarmed civilians in the Torah but hey..

Skylinehead

biko wrote: »

So you agree with me, thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, Al-Aqsa Mosque is a hypothesis. No-one knows where it was.

Why wouldn't "obviously" Jerusalem be mentioned by name?
It existed at the time Mohammed is said to be active.
We can assume he knew of its existence as he met Jews during his life and he did travel a bit, mainly in Saudi Arabia though.

Fine, ignore the rest of the post. You've form for that anyway.

Regardless, it's an important place for all three religions. The only important thing in this debate.

careless sherpa

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They are home in Palestine. No amount of western view in favour of the manufactured Israeli state can change that. Nor does it excuse the criminal inhumane behaviour of the Israeli rogue state upon the Palestinian people.
I'm always amused that the pro Israeli lobby claim Palestine and Palestinians are a fiction, considering Israel and it's claims.

No better way to dehumanise a population than by claiming that they don't even really exist.

James Brown

careless sherpa wrote: »

No better way to dehumanise a population than by claiming that they don't even really exist.

*yawn*, was this some Israelis or some Palestinians?
Israel cannot claim any moral ground.

biko

Afaik Palestine has never agreed to a peace plan or solution?

Arafat rejected Bill Clinton's plan
George W. Bush’s peace plan busted by Hamas
Obama’s didn't work

victor8600

Matt Barrett wrote: »

*yawn*, was this some Israelis or some Palestinians?
Israel cannot claim any moral ground.

So some people decided to live in a land. They came, opened shops and businesses and generally did not mix with the locals. All was fine until a war started where the "newcomers" (relatively speaking) defended themselves against the "locals". The US brought help and the newcomers managed to create their own state, pushing the "locals" to a border enclave.

Sounds familiar? Guess the new state.

This happens all the time. Morals do not apply. What can Palestinians offer in terms of strength to force the recognition of their rights? Who do they have as allies?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Skylinehead wrote: »

Fine, ignore the rest of the post. You've form for that anyway.

Regardless, it's an important place for all three religions. The only important thing in this debate.

Actually, it's mostly geo-political...

Religion is just a handy raison d'être for certain people to commit atrocities on either side, and not be held accountable by their own followers! (as it has been in many other conflicts throughout history!)

Sonics2k

biko wrote: »

The Quran is saying it.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=20
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(5:21:6)
The Quran states: “Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.”

Nowhere does the Quran make mention of the Muslims’ claim to the Holy Land.
Instead, God reveals in the Quran that The Holy Land is designated for the followers of Moses.

So because the Quran doesn't mention Jerusalem, then Israel has all the rights to just take over Palestinian lands?

That is hands down, and I want you to really understand this Biko, the worst possible reason ever given for the Israeli invasion of Palestinian lands.

James Brown

biko wrote: »

Afaik Palestine has never agreed to a peace plan or solution?

Arafat rejected Bill Clinton's plan
George W. Bush’s peace plan busted by Hamas
Obama’s didn't work

So what?

victor8600 wrote: »

So some people decided to live in a land. They came, opened shops and businesses and generally did not mix with the locals. All was fine until a war started where the "newcomers" (relatively speaking) defended themselves against the "locals". The US brought help and the newcomers managed to create their own state, pushing the "locals" to a border enclave.

Sounds familiar? Guess the new state.

This is an insane whitewash. In this fiction, what happened to the locals, where they consulted or did these new comers just ask nicely? Bizarre rewrite.

victor8600 wrote: »

This happens all the time. Morals do not apply. What can Palestinians offer in terms of strength to force the recognition of their rights? Who do they have as allies?

Ah the who has the most guns is right argument. Classy. You just lost all credibility.

Fr D Maugire

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So what?



This is an insane whitewash. In this fiction, what happened to the locals, where they consulted or did these new comers just ask nicely? Bizarre rewrite.



Ah the who has the most guns is right argument. Classy. You just lost all credibility.

I think they are making a comparison between the US and Israel as a way of showing the rationale of the US stance.

It is crazy though, people get up in arms here about the refugess and immigrants in Ireland. Can you imagine the UN then giving them their own state within Ireland, because that is essentially how Israel was created. I just cannot believe the UN/international community thought was a good idea. There was definitely a huge amount of guilt about how Jews were treated during WWII and Europe in general before the war, but that was not a logical decision to move them to the Middle East.

When you look at the plantation of Ulster and how that is still a issue 400 years later, unsurprising that the Israeli-Palestine conflict could run for a long time yet.

James Brown

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I think they are making a comparison between the US and Israel as a way of showing the rationale of the US stance.

It is crazy though, people get up in arms here about the refugess and immigrants in Ireland. Can you imagine the UN then giving them their own state within Ireland, because that is essentially how Israel was created. I just cannot believe the UN/international community thought was a good idea. There was definitely a huge amount of guilt about how Jews were treated during WWII and Europe in general before the war, but that was not a logical decision to move them to the Middle East.

When you look at the plantation of Ulster and how that is still a issue 400 years later, unsurprising that the Israeli-Palestine conflict could run for a long time yet.

In both cases the people on the ground were not considered.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I think they are making a comparison between the US and Israel as a way of showing the rationale of the US stance.

It is crazy though, people get up in arms here about the refugess and immigrants in Ireland. Can you imagine the UN then giving them their own state within Ireland, because that is essentially how Israel was created. I just cannot believe the UN/international community thought was a good idea. There was definitely a huge amount of guilt about how Jews were treated during WWII and Europe in general before the war, but that was not a logical decision to move them to the Middle East.

When you look at the plantation of Ulster and how that is still a issue 400 years later, unsurprising that the Israeli-Palestine conflict could run for a long time yet.

And the Yanks stole America from the natives... what's your point?

Should everyone in the USA pack their bags, and head back to Europe and anywhere else they came from... give the land back to the natives? (Land they were constantly fighting over themselves before any Europeans arrived)

And before there was ever any Ulster plantations, or even anything so solid as a nation state on this Island, our own Celtic tribes were constantly at war with each other over land and titles...

Whatever the solutions are in the middle east... they will be found by people who are capable of living in the present day. Not those who are rooted and obsessed with the past.

Sonics2k

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And the Yanks stole America from the natives... what's your point?

Should everyone in the USA pack their bags, and head back to Europe and anywhere else they came from... give the land back to the natives? (Land they were constantly fighting over themselves before any Europeans arrived)

And before there was ever any Ulster plantations, or even anything so solid as a nation state on this Island, our own Celtic tribes were constantly at war with each other over land and titles...

Whatever the solutions are in the middle east... they will be found by people who are capable of living in the present day. Not those who are rooted and obsessed with the past.

Bizarre argument. Because these things happened in the past, we should ignore it happening now?

As for people living in the past, well that's just as bizarre. These invasions are happening now. It started a long time ago and every year more land is taken by an invader.

James Brown

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And the Yanks stole America from the natives... what's your point?

Should everyone in the USA pack their bags, and head back to Europe and anywhere else they came from... give the land back to the natives? (Land they were constantly fighting over themselves before any Europeans arrived)

And before there was ever any Ulster plantations, or even anything so solid as a nation state on this Island, our own Celtic tribes were constantly at war with each other over land and titles...

Whatever the solutions are in the middle east... they will be found by people who are capable of living in the present day. Not those who are rooted and obsessed with the past.

And that was wrong.

No. Neither should the Israelis.

So what?

They are stealing land today.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Sonics2k wrote: »

Bizarre argument. Because these things happened in the past, we should ignore it happening now?

As for people living in the past, well that's just as bizarre. These invasions are happening now. It started a long time ago and every year more land is taken by an invader.

It's disputed land... what you call a territorial dispute.

If the Palestinians had the same means as Israel, you would probably be saying similar things about them. But they do not have the means to assert themselves!

Israel just happens to be the slightly stronger dog in this fight.

There is no good guy and bad guy in this dispute... people who try to paint it this way, are not doing anything to help resolve it. And they are displaying their lack of true understanding of the problem!

Sonics2k

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It's disputed land... what you call a territorial dispute.

If the Palestinians had the same means as Israel, you would probably be saying similar things about them. But they do not have the means to assert themselves!

Israel just happens to be the slightly stronger dog in this fight.

There is no good guy and bad guy in this dispute... people who try to paint it this way, are not doing anything to help resolve it. And they are displaying their lack of true understanding of the problem!

Well no, there is a bad guy in this. It's the state of Israel. They're invading a sovereign territory and the the claim is theirs because their God said so.

I'm not a fan of Hamas or many of the the beliefs of Palastine or Islam, but Istael is the invader.

It's that straight forward.

Fr D Maugire

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

And the Yanks stole America from the natives... what's your point?

Should everyone in the USA pack their bags, and head back to Europe and anywhere else they came from... give the land back to the natives? (Land they were constantly fighting over themselves before any Europeans arrived)

And before there was ever any Ulster plantations, or even anything so solid as a nation state on this Island, our own Celtic tribes were constantly at war with each other over land and titles...

Whatever the solutions are in the middle east... they will be found by people who are capable of living in the present day. Not those who are rooted and obsessed with the past.

Well I could say they are totally different situations in totally different era's, 300/400 years apart. America and many other countries were settled at a time when colonisation by white settlers was the norm. Looking through a modern lens, it seems awful, but thats the way it was.

Israel was only created 70 years ago so its not like its ancient history and at a time when colononisation was no longer considered a good idea. A whole World War was fought over the rights of small nations, but that seemed to get thrown out the window for Israel. IMO it was a completely illogical decision and comlpetely ignored the wishes of the people who lived there. Whats my point, the Palestinians were shafted then and are still paying the price today.

James Brown

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It's disputed land... what you call a territorial dispute.

If the Palestinians had the same means as Israel, you would probably be saying similar things about them. But they do not have the means to assert themselves!

Israel just happens to be the slightly stronger dog in this fight.

There is no good guy and bad guy in this dispute... people who try to paint it this way, are not doing anything to help resolve it. And they are displaying their lack of true understanding of the problem!

They are not on par. Palestine didn't invade Europe settle there, setting up it's own state and then proceed to murder civilians as it annexed more land.

Odhinn

victor8600 wrote: »

Erm, who are these Palestinians on whose lands the Israeli state was created? Do you mean Ottomans, who owned the land before 1917? Or Britain who owned the lands after that?

The overwhelming majority of the land was by private Palestinian land holders, as documented by "A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry".

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0887282113/thehomeofalle-20

victor8600 wrote: »

Palestinians have the misfortune to be people nobody wants. They are homeless Arabs, victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Calling them "Palestinians" is like calling Navajo people "Arizonians" because their reservations are mostly in Arizona.

Rather calling them "Arabs" is the same as referring to Belgians as "Europeans". One does not exclude the other. Also

If a common heritage conferred peace, then perhaps the long history of conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved years ago. For, according to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that stretches back thousands of years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Odhinn

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

It's disputed land... what you call a territorial dispute.

If the Palestinians had the same means as Israel, you would probably be saying similar things about them. But they do not have the means to assert themselves!

Israel just happens to be the slightly stronger dog in this fight.

There is no good guy and bad guy in this dispute... people who try to paint it this way, are not doing anything to help resolve it. And they are displaying their lack of true understanding of the problem!

Alas there is a "bad guy", and thats the one occupying the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the various associated territories. They are the aggressor, and Palestinian attacks aimed against Israel are acts committed against this background of subjugation and encroachment.

Montage of Feck

The Palestinians lost their change of an independent state years ago due to inept corrupt leaders and infighting and finagling between the various Arab factions. It is a ridiculous notion, that Israel should submit to conditions that would result in the destruction of their state, no more than Germany demanding the return of west Prussia from Poland.

Odhinn

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The Palestinians lost their change of an independent state years ago due to inept corrupt leaders and infighting and finagling between the various Arab factions. It is a ridiculous notion, that Israel should submit to conditions that would result in the destruction of their state, no more than Germany demanding the return of west Prussia from Poland.

What "conditions that would result in the destruction of their state" are these, might I ask?

victor8600

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is an insane whitewash. In this fiction, what happened to the locals, where they consulted or did these new comers just ask nicely? Bizarre rewrite.

It's Kosovo. Check it out.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ah the who has the most guns is right argument. Classy. You just lost all credibility.

Lol. I didn't know I had any credibility with you. I am telling you what is, not what you want to believe. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and this applies even more to the international relations. Whoever occupies the land has a good claim on it. Those with more influence win, whether through having more guns or better allies.

Odhinn

victor8600 wrote: »

It's Kosovo. Check it out.



Lol. I didn't know I had any credibility with you. I am telling you what is, not what you want to believe. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and this applies even more to the international relations. Whoever occupies the land has a good claim on it. Those with more influence win, whether through having more guns or better allies.

...yet I don't think it a mad assertion that allowing the 'law of the jungle' to govern international conflicts is a very bad idea.

victor8600

Odhinn wrote: »

...yet I don't think it a mad assertion that allowing the 'law of the jungle' to govern international conflicts is a very bad idea.

You are right. So what should we do? I'll tell you. We should vote for the European Army. We should give money and soldiers to the UN and remove veto powers from the US and Russia. Any country that violates UN resolutions should feel the wrath of the United Nations.

Sounds realistic? Probably more than the possibility of peace in the Middle East, but not by much, innit?

Everything else is as helpful as "Thoughts and Prayers".

Odhinn

victor8600 wrote: »

You are right. So what should we do? I'll tell you. We should vote for the European Army. We should give money and soldiers to the UN and remove veto powers from the US and Russia. Any country that violates UN resolutions should feel the wrath of the United Nations.

Sounds realistic? Probably more than the possibility of peace in the Middle East, but not by much, innit?

Everything else is as helpful as "Thoughts and Prayers".

The game is rigged otherwise, unfortunately. The permanent members of the UNSC are "made men" who extend their protection to whoever they please. That being said, the Trump "plan" is outstanding, in that it doesn't even pretend to be an even sided "solution". Likud must be astonished that it's been given free reign to this extent.

end of the road

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The Palestinians lost their change of an independent state years ago due to inept corrupt leaders and infighting and finagling between the various Arab factions.

it was more because israel was never going to agree to anything that would prevent them from breaking international law.
even if there was no infighting between anyone within the palestinian territory that would not have changed.
israel wants all of the land in the area, and possibly more. until america forces them to actually stay within their borders nothing will change, and that is the borders as set out by the UN and international law.

Montage of Feck wrote: »

It is a ridiculous notion, that Israel should submit to conditions that would result in the destruction of their state, no more than Germany demanding the return of west Prussia from Poland.

there are no such conditions.
the state of israel is not at risk of destruction, especially by ending land theft, colonisation, and all other breaches of international and human rights law it engages in.

victor8600 wrote: »

It's Kosovo. Check it out.



Lol. I didn't know I had any credibility with you. I am telling you what is, not what you want to believe. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and this applies even more to the international relations. Whoever occupies the land has a good claim on it. Those with more influence win, whether through having more guns or better allies.

only when it comes to the actual law, whether domestic or international.
any land occupied by israel outside it's borders, is not generally internationally recognised as belonging to israel, so therefore i would suggest that possession is 9 tenths of the law does not apply.