Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israel and the UAE normalize relations
Options
Comments
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »Left wing anti semitism, where that be?
Some of the bds movement and rampant in the british labour party especially under corbyn0 -
Eric Cartman wrote:Some of the bds movement and rampant in the british labour party especially under corbyn
Ah yea that one!0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »Some of the bds movement and rampant in the british labour party especially under corbyn
Starmer has a lot of work to do to eradicate the anti-Semites from the Labour Party.
Imagine: Less than 30 years after Thatcher, Northern England started voting for Conservatives again. Just shows the rot that set in under Corbyn.0 -
Irishman80 wrote:Imagine: Less than 30 years after Thatcher, Northern England started voting for Conservatives again. Just shows the rot that set in under Corbyn.
Started long before him0 -
Bibi and his crew are a disaster as are the Hamas leadership. But similar to other conflict zones there are reasonable minded people who should be encouraged by the powerful countries, U.S. Russia and the Arab nations to grt involved in meaningful negotiations.BiBi and the current Israel regime have no interest in compromise. As soon as BiBi the criminal gets sent down we might see some hope.
No, decent moral people will always fight against genocide and unwarranted terrorism.
Israel or Palestine are not going away so its either negotiated compromise or continous conflict0 -
Advertisement
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »Started long before him
Who gave Thatcher victory after victory? Plenty of the so called working class jumped on the Maggie bandwagon, purchased council properties and bought shares in privatised companies. Meanwhile Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Kinnock were marching on the Winter Palace0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »Left wing anti semitism, where that be?
Seriously.
I support a 2 State solution and I don't really have a problem with Palestinians trying to achieve that by shooting Israeli soldiers, not that that will achieve it.
So I'm not an unquestioning Israeli supporter.
Pretending there isn't a strong undercurrent of anti semitism in many parts of the left is crazy.0 -
In 1948, some Arabs left Israel voluntarily, some were forced to retreat as invading Arab armies retreated, some were forcibly expelled for fighting against Israel and some were forced to leave as they lived in hostile Arab villages that had to be destroyed by the Israeli army as part of war measures.
20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before the Arab-Israeli War stayed in Israel and were given citizenship. There were Arabs elected to the first Knesset. Many Arab areas remained under martial law for the next 15-20 years due to tensions but ALL had full rights as Israeli citizens.
This does not amount to an ethnic cleansing.
There were mass expulsions made along ethnic lines. I recommend you read more on the topic.RandomName2 wrote: »
Can you think of any other country in the world where that is the procedure? North Korea, Iran, Eritrea. Plenty of countries act outside the UN charter, but you don't have people say they shouldn't exist.
I never said that Israel should not exist. I say that their colonisation project outside their 1967 borders should be stopped and withdrawn.smellyoldboot wrote:Israel is a bastion of civilization in a sea of lunatic theocracies. Long may it live.
It's a bastion of Apartheid, every bit as evil as the old south africa.0 -
Edgware wrote:Who gave Thatcher victory after victory? Plenty of the so called working class jumped on the Maggie bandwagon, purchased council properties and bought shares in privatised companies. Meanwhile Michael Foot, Tony Benn and Kinnock were marching on the Winter Palace
Absolutely, the political left fcuked over its own base, hence their current mess0 -
Irishman80 wrote: »Great thread...learned quite a bit here about the history.
@end of the road: Sean is after embarrassing you. Take the loss.
Sean and Irishman, two legitimate irish posters with an interest in promoting Israel and I won't hear a word disputing that
Yours sincerely, little girl.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wanderer78 wrote: »Started long before him
Really set in under him. The latest internal report, which people viewed as an attempt to absolve Corbyn, couldn't even conclude that the Labour Party was not institutionally anti-Semetic.
Instead, it highlighted how racists on the Right of the Party failed to deal with anti-Semetic complaints in the Left of the Party in order to undermine the Left of the Party.
Like I said, rot.0 -
Sean and Irishman, two legitimate irish posters with an interest in promoting Israel and I won't hear a word disputing that
Yours sincerely, little girl.
That's not an actual argument against my post. Merely a fallacious argument.
I was commenting on the debate between Sean and End of The Road. I wasn't aware of some of the history that came up.
Also, any fair-minded reader would quickly recognise End of the Road was clearly out of his depth. I've no doubt he is clearly passionate about the Palestiniam cause but his knowledge on the conflict is poor.0 -
I didn't say the people didn't own the land. I said there is no state there and it's subject to the rules of a military occupation.
the rules of a military occupation only apply where there is an actual, temporary military occupation.
what we have here is a permanent military occupation with the aim of eventual land theft and ethnic cleansing, so the rules of recognised military occupation don't apply, as the occupation is illegal.Are you saying that's why the Arabs rejected them?
Based on what? What reasons would the Arabs have had to doubt Israel's sincerity in 1947?
Or the sincerity of the UN for that matter?
1947 was the first time that the Arabs dealt with the Jews directly as a sovereign power as opposed to doing so through some other arbitrator like the Britain or the UN. At the point in time, what good reason would the Arabs have had to distrust the Jews?
What makes you think a small country of 800,000 Jews surrounded by hostile neighbours would have willingly endanger itself by violating the Arab borders under the UN Partition Plan?
absolutely, the agreements would not have been stuck to by israel, we know this from their subsiquent behaviour.
the starting of ethnic cleansing upon the foundation of the state would be enough reason for arab nations not to trust the state of israel.
when a state wishes to expand, it will do what it needs to do to achieve that goal, including if needs be endangering some of it's citizens.
i mean, we are supposed to believe that israel engaged and engages in land theft to set up a buffer zone against what are really non-threats, yet they encourage the building of, and engage in the building of settlements on the stolen territory. so it's reasonable to suggest that in actual fact, they don't particularly mind putting citizens in potential danger, non-existent or otherwise, when it suits a particular goal.Do you have a better explanation for why Arabs reject those deals?
yes, the state of israel have shown they do not honour agreements. every single peace agreement that has been put forward they either go against, or make it so that it's not worth it for the other side to sign it.That resolution established Israel's existence within those initial borders and they were happy to do so. Also, the fact that every surrounding country invaded Israel the day after it came into existence made those borders completely unworkable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg
Look at the map of Israel as 1947. The country is divided into 3 narrow, separate strips of land between the areas that were supposed to be Arab. It is completely ridiculous to expect Israel could maintain those borders while also maintaining its own existence after the 1948 war. The needed a buffer zone. Also, that map assumes the existence of an Arab state in the orange zones which never materialised. Therefore who's borders was Israel violating when it occupied those zones? The answer is nobody's.
It might be worth noting that Resolution stipulated that both states must come into existence no later than 1 October 1948. In other words, the Arabs missed the expiration date.
they were ultimately not happy to stay within those borders, we can safely say that no matter what the arab states did, it was highly likely israel would invade other territory to expand it's state.
the borders were workable, other countries invading, something that has happened across the world throughout history, does not make borders unworkable, the reality is the state of israel were not happy with the land they got and wanted more.
israel could very easily maintain the borders, plenty of countries across the world have multiple borders and manage to maintain them. they needed no buffer zone, you know it, i know it, everyone knows it, so you may as well just put that claim to bed as israel's behaviour shows that a buffer zone doesn't exist and isn't and never was needed.
when israel expanded, it was violating the borders of the areas it was expanding into, of which it had no claim to, end of.
the arabs were prevented from setting up their state because israel kept trying to invade them.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
This is starting to get repetitive.
I will say that international law is mostly a load of crap. That said, international does say that when one country invades another country and loses territory, the country that was invaded has the right to occupy them until such time as a peace treaty is agreed. This is a well established precedent of international law. Lawyers like Allen Dershowitz of Harvard (who's no right winger) has affirmed this.
it's getting repetitive because you continue to make claims already debunked a billion times already, by israel itself.
international law is not a load of crap, mostly or otherwise, it's laws agreed by grown up states in the aim of promoting a certain level of behaviour across the world. it mostly works, even if some countries breach it. the fact you don't like it means nothing, it is still ultimately law and israel are probably the biggest breacher of it at this stage.
laws in relation to occupation don't apply in israel's favour as israel are not occupying temporarily until a peace treaty is signed, but are occupying territory indefinitely in the aim of expelling the population and expanding it's state.In my opinion, people who knowingly associate with terrorists and don't come forward to the authorities don't deserve houses.
that's ultimately irrelevant quite rightly.
because the reality is, there are already proper punishments which manage to be practiced by grown up states, which deal with such issues effectively, and your opinion only applies where it justifies the actions of states you happen to support.The people who built those buildings have permits from the Israeli government.
again irrelevant as the israely government cannot issue permits for areas outside it's territory.
it's not their territory so the permits are invalid.The people in Israel started calling themselves Israel because Israel came in to existence legally in 1948 under the UN agreement.
People who call themselves Palestinian are invoking a state which never existed and doesn't exist. It could have existed but it doesn't.
again, who called themselves what and what does and doesn't exist in your mind is irrelevant, the fact is israel occupies territory outside it's borders illegally, engages in land theft and ethnic cleansing along with other abuses of human rights and international law.Actually, they don't have any guaranteed right to live anywhere.
actually, they do.
israel has no right to territory outside it's borders, that is the fact here.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
There were mass expulsions made along ethnic lines.
Yes, the expulsions happened along ethnic lines. ie. It was all Arabs who were expelled. No Jews were. However that doesn't mean that race was the deciding factor.
In other words, you're assuming that because it was only Arabs who were expelled, they were expelled BECAUSE they were Arabs. This is contradicted by the fact that over 100,000 Arabs who weren't hostile to Israel were allowed to stay.0 -
Yes, the expulsions happened along ethnic lines. ie. It was all Arabs who were expelled. No Jews were. However that doesn't mean that race was the deciding factor.
In other words, you're assuming that because it was only Arabs who were expelled, they were expelled BECAUSE they were Arabs. This is contradicted by the fact that over 100,000 Arabs who weren't hostile to Israel were allowed to stay.
..which again doesn't mean that some "good" Arabs were spared and "bad" Arabs" put out. There were mass ejections from haifa and Jafa based solely on wishing to "ethnically cleanse" the areas.
I see little point in rehashing the events of 1947/48 in any event. The problem we have today is one of Israel colonising large areas outside its legally recognised borders, to the detriment of those areas inhabitants.0 -
The post you were replying to was part of a conversation between Bowie and myself but I'll happily reply to you.
Those other countries did exactly what you accuse Israel of doing. They forcibly deported everybody of a particular race.
Again, Israeli expulsion of Arabs was neither ethnic cleansing nor indiscriminate.
20% of Arabs who lived in Israel before 1948 stayed in Israel. Are you denying that to be true?
those countries were dicks as i said, it's no excuse for israel's behaviour, which was ethnic cleansing whether you like it or not.
the fact some arabs did whatever doesn't change that fact.It has nothing to do with whether I like it. They have no grounds because there is not nor was there ever a Palestinian state.
except they absolutely have grounds to be there, israel has no grounds to be anywhere outside it's actual borders.Are you telling me 50 million Arabs feared invasion from 800,000 Israeli Jews?
I'm just asking because I want to make sure. For my own sanity.
yes . and it wasn't from a population of 800-000 israelies, but the fear was there would be help from the US and europe + recruitment of mersinaries from elsewhere.
the fear came about as the arab countries saw what israel were doing and the brutality involved.That is not the entire story.
They were fed misinformation by the Soviet Union, that Israel was planning an attack which they never were. If Egypt believed false information, that's their problem.
They closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, knowing that this in itself was an act of war and massed troops on the border. The Egyptian president announced his intention to destroy Israel. All of things together constitute acts of war giving Israel every right to act as it did.
it wasn't from the soviet union they got that information, but alledgidly from sources within israel itself, israel was planning an invasion and egypt rightly prepared to defend itself.
egypt were on okay terms with the soviet union but not such that the soviet union would pass them information.International law says they don't. In the absence of a peace treaty, occupations following wars are always justified. It's a well established precedent.
international law says they do, there was no actual war but an invasion in the aim of expansion, so the normal rules do not apply in israel's favour as i already mentioned as the occupation is illegal.
there is no peace treaty requiring signing.
if you want a peace treaty to be signed, then i'm afraid for you that means recognition of the palestinian state and their right to the lands they occupy, and the lands stolen from outside israel's borders.
a peace treaty cannot be signed if the state and the supporters of the state who expect it to be signed state they don't recognise the state.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
The UN Resolution simply created Israel and gave them initial borders. Once Israel took its place among the nations of the world, the basic rules and conventions that governed relations between countries for thousands of years applied to Israel. Conventions like the conventions of war for example that allow for occupations and the transfer of territory following legitimate wars in which peace treaties have not been agreed.
The idea that Israel was supposed to be forever shackled and bound by the UN resolution that created it and can't do anything unless it is approved by the UN or the "international community" is completely absurd and there isn't a single other country on planet earth that you would apply that standard to.
i'm not applying any extra standards to israel then any other country, the reality is israel while it claims otherwise, doesn't really behave to any of the standards it sets out for itself and expects us to believe it holds itself to.
any of the wars israel have been involved in have been invasions in the aim of gaining more territory for expansion.Hahahahaha.
If you had actually bothered to read the conversation between Bowie and myself that you decided to inject yourself into, you would have seen that I gave an account of every proposal for a two-state solution of the last 100 years. I'll repeat it for your benefit.
1936, a British proposal that would have given Arabs 80% of the land. Rejected.
1947, The UN plan. which we're all aware of.
1967, following the war, half the Knesset wanted to return the occupied zones to Jordan and Egypt. The other half wanted to give it to the region's Arabs to set up a state of their own. The Arabs refused to negotiate.
2000, Israel offered all of Gaza, 94% of West Bank and East Jerusalem. Rejected
2008, Israel offered all of Gaza, 94% of West Bank, East Jerusalem plus extra land to sweeten the deal. Rejected.
Now here's what you said a few posts ago:
"the 2 state solution they were offered meant giving up 99% of the lands they currently legitimately occupy, so quite rightly they rejected it because it would have meant large scale ethnic cleansing, and no doubt a final expansion down the line by israel to eradicate them altogether."
Again, I ask, to what deal were you referring?
well, i had thought i had answered that, but again, the answer is every single one of those deals.
israel were always likely, based on their known behaviour, to never abide by them.Irishman80 wrote: »Great thread...learned quite a bit here about the history.
@end of the road: Sean is after embarrassing you. Take the loss.
he really, really hasn't.Eric Cartman wrote: »Some of the bds movement and rampant in the british labour party especially under corbyn
so, really tiny amounts then.
boycotting a state that engages in the behaviour israel does is not anti-semetic.
the uk labour party had a small issue with antisemitism just like the tory party has an issue with islamiphobia, but it was in no way rampent under corbyn.
corbyn has been protesting for decades against every sort of ism and phobia imaginable, even ones we probably haven't heard of yet, not a chance he would let rampent antisemitism fly in his party, unless of course it was kept from and any attempts by him to deal with it stifled, which is what really happened.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »he really, really hasn't.
He has.
I'll give you a quick example. Sean brought up the 1947 UN Partition Plan where the Jewish shadow government declared the Jewish State but the Arab shadow government decided not to declare a State.
You simply said it was irrelevant because Israel "probably" wouldn't have abided by the agreement. That's not an argument.
Why didn't the Arab government declare an Arab State at the time? Why was their reason for refusing to do that? When they decided not to declare a State based on the resolution, how is the land area considered? Is it simply "land without a sovereign?"0 -
No, that's not how any of this works.end of the road wrote: »the rules of a military occupation only apply where there is an actual, temporary military occupation.
what we have here is a permanent military occupation with the aim of eventual land theft and ethnic cleansing, so the rules of recognised military occupation don't apply, as the occupation is illegal.
Israel took that land in what was a perfectly fair war. Whether or not the occupation is temporary is irrelevant. Jordan has never shown interest in taking back the West Bank.
How is it illegal?
I asked you specifically about the 1947 offer.end of the road wrote: »absolutely, the agreements would not have been stuck to by israel, we know this from their subsiquent behaviour.
How you know Israel wouldn't have stuck to that deal?
I know what you think about Israel's conduct from 1948 onwards and why you think Israel wouldn't have upheld any of it's offers, but the 1947 UN offer pre-existed Israel and yet the Arabs rejected that offer as well. Why was that?
But the Arabs demonstrated their intentions to reject the deal literally months before Israel declared independence. The first killings of Jews by Arabs took place in November of 1947. The large population movements didn't start until after May the following year.end of the road wrote: »the starting of ethnic cleansing upon the foundation of the state would be enough reason for arab nations not to trust the state of israel.
The expulsions didn't take place until AFTER the Arab nations declared war. So you can't cite that as a cause for the war itself.
Do you call it a non-threat when every single one of your neighbours invades you?end of the road wrote: »i mean, we are supposed to believe that israel engaged and engages in land theft to set up a buffer zone against what are really non-threats, yet they encourage the building of, and engage in the building of settlements on the stolen territory. so it's reasonable to suggest that in actual fact, they don't particularly mind putting citizens in potential danger, non-existent or otherwise, when it suits a particular goal.
Again, stolen from who? There was no state in those area and Israel couldn't just allow those areas to be used as staging grounds by hostile Arabs.
They put settlements in the buffer zones because this was actually the best way to fortify them. Israel had a tiny population and it's army wasn't really a regular army back then. It was more of a citizen's militia. Groups of people would arrive in an area, set up tents, drain swampland so it could be farmed and build a village there. All the while they were tasked with defending the area from Arab attack.
Could you please give one example? Just one?end of the road wrote: »yes, the state of israel have shown they do not honour agreements. every single peace agreement that has been put forward they either go against, or make it so that it's not worth it for the other side to sign it.
How could you possibly know that?end of the road wrote: »they were ultimately not happy to stay within those borders, we can safely say that no matter what the arab states did, it was highly likely israel would invade other territory to expand it's state.
Sorry but that is pure conjecture.
Countries invading other countries is the definition of making borders unworkable.end of the road wrote: »the borders were workable, other countries invading, something that has happened across the world throughout history, does not make borders unworkable,
If that's really the case then it seems the Arabs were happy to oblige them with an excuse.end of the road wrote: »the reality is the state of israel were not happy with the land they got and wanted more.
You realise we're talking about an area smaller than Munster?end of the road wrote: »israel could very easily maintain the borders, plenty of countries across the world have multiple borders and manage to maintain them. they needed no buffer zone, you know it, i know it, everyone knows it, so you may as well just put that claim to bed as israel's behaviour shows that a buffer zone doesn't exist and isn't and never was needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg
I encourage people to actually look at this map. You have three separate strips of land, connected at single points, completely surrounded by hostile neighbours who've invaded you already.
How the hell could any country survive within those boundaries under those circumstances?
For the umpteenth time, the borders were rendered meaning less by the fact that there was no sovereign state in those zones.end of the road wrote: »when israel expanded, it was violating the borders of the areas it was expanding into, of which it had no claim to, end of.0 -
Advertisement
-
And those cities maintain sizeable Arab populations to this day...which again doesn't mean that some "good" Arabs were spared and "bad" Arabs" put out. There were mass ejections from haifa and Jafa based solely on wishing to "ethnically cleanse" the areas.
The expulsions happened because you can't have a country if there are large amounts of people in your country who want to destroy the country.
Well, the main problem is that every conversation people have about Israel in modern times is completely removed from the context of Israel's original founding. It leads to people making bad conclusions about what's going on over there currently.I see little point in rehashing the events of 1947/48 in any event. The problem we have today is one of Israel colonising large areas outside its legally recognised borders, to the detriment of those areas inhabitants.0 -
Irishman80 wrote: »He has.
I'll give you a quick example. Sean brought up the 1947 UN Partition Plan where the Jewish shadow government declared the Jewish State but the Arab shadow government decided not to declare a State.
You simply said it was irrelevant because Israel "probably" wouldn't have abided by the agreement. That's not an argument.
Why didn't the Arab government declare an Arab State at the time? Why was their reason for refusing to do that? When they decided not to declare a State based on the resolution, how is the land area considered? Is it simply "land without a sovereign?"
he hasn't.
israel being known for not abiding by an agreement, and suggesting that it would have happened in this case, is very much an argument, as we know that israel have form for not abiding by agreements.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
No, that's not how any of this works.
Israel took that land in what was a perfectly fair war. Whether or not the occupation is temporary is irrelevant. Jordan has never shown interest in taking back the West Bank.
How is it illegal?
israel took the land in an expansionist invasion, an expansionist invasion is not recognised as a fair war, so the normal rules of normal military occupation don't apply, as again, the military occupation is not legal.I asked you specifically about the 1947 offer.
How you know Israel wouldn't have stuck to that deal?
I know what you think about Israel's conduct from 1948 onwards and why you think Israel wouldn't have upheld any of it's offers, but the 1947 UN offer pre-existed Israel and yet the Arabs rejected that offer as well. Why was that?
But the Arabs demonstrated their intentions to reject the deal literally months before Israel declared independence. The first killings of Jews by Arabs took place in November of 1947. The large population movements didn't start until after May the following year.
The expulsions didn't take place until AFTER the Arab nations declared war. So you can't cite that as a cause for the war itself.
a small number of jewish gangs were attacking arabs inside the territory from the minute the agreement was written, so i suspect that played a large part.Do you call it a non-threat when every single one of your neighbours invades you?
given they were less powerful then the israely military, or their invasions were in defence of themselves, then yes they were really not the threat israel claims them to have been, such that they needed to steal territory which they implement settlements on dispite claiming they need a buffer zone.Again, stolen from who? There was no state in those area and Israel couldn't just allow those areas to be used as staging grounds by hostile Arabs.
They put settlements in the buffer zones because this was actually the best way to fortify them. Israel had a tiny population and it's army wasn't really a regular army back then. It was more of a citizen's militia. Groups of people would arrive in an area, set up tents, drain swampland so it could be farmed and build a village there. All the while they were tasked with defending the area from Arab attack.
stolen from those who lived within the territory.
they put settlements in the buffer zones so they can try and keep the territory, settlements in a buffer zone do not fortify that buffer zone.Could you please give one example? Just one?
israel themselves already give you the examples of everything you require.
that's the interesting thing about this conflict compared to others.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
How could you possibly know that?
Sorry but that is pure conjecture.
i know it because they have expanded and continue to expand outside their borders.Countries invading other countries is the definition of making borders unworkable.
on a temporary basis, and no more in israel's case then any other country that has been invaded.
the 1948 borders were workable, israel simply weren't happy with what they got. that's unfortunate for them but that's life.If that's really the case then it seems the Arabs were happy to oblige them with an excuse.
no, as chances are they would have expanded anyway.
they are doing so dispite there being no threat from any of it's neighbours, so it's reasonable to suggest their expansion isn't about threats or arabs or anything else bar wanting a bigger state.You realise we're talking about an area smaller than Munster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#/media/File:UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg
I encourage people to actually look at this map. You have three separate strips of land, connected at single points, completely surrounded by hostile neighbours who've invaded you already.
How the hell could any country survive within those boundaries under those circumstances?
very easily.
their small size means their borders are easily maintained compared to bigger countries, less border to police and maintain.For the umpteenth time, the borders were rendered meaning less by the fact that there was no sovereign state in those zones.
borders are borders, they don't become meaningless because a country decides it wants more territory.
who owns the territory they steal is irrelevant, it's not within their borders as set out upon their formation, so it's not theirs.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Well, the main problem is that every conversation people have about Israel in modern times is completely removed from the context of Israel's original founding. It leads to people making bad conclusions about what's going on over there currently.
No, it hijacks the conversation so people are arguing over the Nazi Mufti and the rest, deflecting from the main issue - the colonisation of the occupied territories happening today.0 -
It wasn't much of an ethnic cleansing if 100,000 Arabs were still in Israel afterwards.end of the road wrote: »those countries were dicks as i said, it's no excuse for israel's behaviour, which was ethnic cleansing whether you like it or not.
the fact some arabs did whatever doesn't change that fact.
From now on, I'm not going to respond to those silly one sentence claims you make with no supporting argument.end of the road wrote: »except they absolutely have grounds to be there, israel has no grounds to be anywhere outside it's actual borders.
Now you're just making **** up.end of the road wrote: »yes . and it wasn't from a population of 800-000 israelies, but the fear was there would be help from the US and europe + recruitment of mersinaries from elsewhere.
the fear came about as the arab countries saw what israel were doing and the brutality involved.
The US President at the time, Harry Truman was vocally against the creation of a Jewish State. The British were biased in favour of the Arabs for the entire duration of the Palestinian Mandate due to oil interests. Strangely enough the only major country supporting Israel was the Soviet Union. They thought it would disrupt Western interests in the Middle East.
Nobody abroad was stumping for Israel at that point.
The Soviets told them that the Israelis were massing troops on their border with Syria. Whether or no that was true is unclear. But they then closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (this itself was an act of war). Are you saying that after that Egypt got information from Israel about and invasion into Egypt. Even if that's true the responsibility would still lie with Egypt for closing the Straits. That's what escalated things.end of the road wrote: »it wasn't from the soviet union they got that information, but alledgidly from sources within israel itself, israel was planning an invasion and egypt rightly prepared to defend itself.
That's not true. They were on pretty close terms. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/did-the-soviet-union-deliberately-instigate-the-1967-war-the-middle-eastend of the road wrote: »egypt were on okay terms with the soviet union but not such that the soviet union would pass them information.
The cause of the war is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the occupation.end of the road wrote: »international law says they do, there was no actual war but an invasion in the aim of expansion, so the normal rules do not apply in israel's favour as i already mentioned as the occupation is illegal.
there is no peace treaty requiring signing.
Good news!end of the road wrote: »if you want a peace treaty to be signed, then i'm afraid for you that means recognition of the palestinian state and their right to the lands they occupy, and the lands stolen from outside israel's borders.
a peace treaty cannot be signed if the state and the supporters of the state who expect it to be signed state they don't recognise the state.
Such an offer has been made multiple times and has been rejected.0 -
No, it hijacks the conversation so people are arguing over the Nazi Mufti and the rest, deflecting from the main issue - the colonisation of the occupied territories happening today.
You know how this conflict will end?
All of the other Arab Gulf nations will follow the UAE and normalise their relations with Israel. None of these countries give a damn about the Palestinian Arabs. Not one. They pretend they do because they don't want to be seen as abandoning fellow Arabs but they are well aware that this has just turned into another proxy for the regional cold war with Iran.
These countries understand that Iran is true threat to peace in that region and would rather ally with Israel against Iran than oppose Israel in favour of an Iranian proxy because of some regional dispute from from the 1940s.
Within 20 years, once these Arab nations are onside, Israel will stop futzing around and annex the occupied zones, give them citizenship, destroy the terrorists and the world will be better for it.0 -
Y...............
Within 20 years, once these Arab nations are onside, Israel will stop futzing around and annex the occupied zones, give them citizenship, destroy the terrorists and the world will be better for it.
Tbh, you're being naive. Virtually each and every Israeli party is committed to keeping the "majority" - they want land, not land with Palestinians on it. There won't be a clean annexation therefore, of the west bank, just areas that the Palestinians have been forced out of. This also means that there will not be a geographically contigous state, just a series of 'bantustans' which will act as a source of cheap labour.0 -
It wasn't much of an ethnic cleansing if 100,000 Arabs were still in Israel afterwards.
much of a one or not doesn't make it less of an ethnic cleansing.From now on, I'm not going to respond to those silly one sentence claims you make with no supporting argument.
that's fine, it doesn't change the fact that israel have no business being outside it's borders.The US President at the time, Harry Truman was vocally against the creation of a Jewish State. The British were biased in favour of the Arabs for the entire duration of the Palestinian Mandate due to oil interests. Strangely enough the only major country supporting Israel was the Soviet Union. They thought it would disrupt Western interests in the Middle East.
Nobody abroad was stumping for Israel at that point.
trueman wasn't against the creation of a jewish state outright, he believed that it wasn't the correct time and that there should be more time to thinkk it over.
UN nations were in favour of the creation of the state.The Soviets told them that the Israelis were massing troops on their border with Syria. Whether or no that was true is unclear. But they then closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (this itself was an act of war). Are you saying that after that Egypt got information from Israel about and invasion into Egypt. Even if that's true the responsibility would still lie with Egypt for closing the Straits. That's what escalated things.
That's not true. They were on pretty close terms. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/did-the-soviet-union-deliberately-instigate-the-1967-war-the-middle-east
sources within israel gave them the information, it was before the claimed time that the soviets are alledged to have given them the information.
the soviet union while they were on okay to good terms with egypt did not believe them to be close friends such that they would give them information, not that they actually had such information.
egypt had to close the straights to protect itself from attack.The cause of the war is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the occupation.
and as we know the occupation is not legitimate.
so israel must go back within it's borders.Good news!
Such an offer has been made multiple times and has been rejected.
no such offers were made that would give the palestinian state all of the lands of which they are to get.
offers were made but they were designed in favour of israel taking most of the land.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
The deal just supports the argument that one day you see a dream that XYZ is your house because 2000 years ago your ancestors were living there. Now, you go to the house and occupy it. Change its nameplate and start saying it is mine now.0
Advertisement