Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 32 posts ] 
You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.
Author Message
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

australopithecus wrote:I don't believe anything,


Right so you don't believe getting out of Gaza and West Bank will make the Palestinian establishment halt its hostility towards Israel. Noted.

australopithecus wrote:the immediate issue is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and an end to that occupation is a step in the right direction. What happens after that, in this instance, is mere speculation.


There's actually good reason to believe the hostility will continue, that the new Palestinian state would be a platform for anti-Israel terrorism and war. haven't you been paying attention to the statements made by both Hamas and Fatah, the two main factions in the PNA?

Also West Bank and Gaza were not occupied by Israel before 1967, yet the PLO was formed in 1964.

Even so, SOME Israeli presence would need to remain in the West Bank to ensure defensible borders.

Israelis do not trust Palestinians with their own state.

australopithecus wrote:I'm not clairvoyant.


So why are you so convinced ending the occupation is a step in the right direction. I mean if the occupation is to come to an end, shouldn't the Palestinian side do their part to marginalize anti-Israel groups?

Regardless of Palestinian geographic history, in 1947 the British mandate set clearly defined national borders for Palestine and Israel. Israel subsequently invaded and occupied Palestinian territory.


The Palestinian side started a war against the newly created state of Israel in 1948 and they had help from their neighbors. So actually, it was them who didn't respect the partition plan in the first place.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:31 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4324Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Right so you don't believe getting out of Gaza and West Bank will make the Palestinian establishment halt its hostility towards Israel. Noted.


This is the second time you've blatantly put word in the mouths of others. I suggest you stop.

There's actually good reason to believe the hostility will continue, that the new Palestinian state would be a platform for anti-Israel terrorism and war. haven't you been paying attention to the statements made by both Hamas and Fatah, the two main factions in the PNA?


What ifs and maybes are irrelevant. Regardless of what Palestinian officials say or may do if Israel withdraws, the occupation is the immediate problem.

Also West Bank and Gaza were not occupied by Israel before 1967, yet the PLO was formed in 1964.


Irrelevant.

Even so, SOME Israeli presence would need to remain in the West Bank to ensure defensible borders.


Israeli police should remain in Israeli territory.

Israelis do not trust Palestinians with their own state.


Irrelevant.

So why are you so convinced ending the occupation is a step in the right direction.


Because invading another peoples land and occupying it and subjugating said people is a bad thing.

I mean if the occupation is to come to an end, shouldn't the Palestinian side do their part to marginalize anti-Israel groups


The actions of Palestine does not justify illegal occupation. Sorry, it just doesn't.

The Palestinian side started a war against the newly created state of Israel in 1948 and they had help from their neighbors. So actually, it was them who didn't respect the partition plan in the first place.


And how does this justify continued occupation 64 years later exactly?
Image
Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:49 pm
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

australopithecus wrote:
Dogma's Demise wrote:Right so you don't believe getting out of Gaza and West Bank will make the Palestinian establishment halt its hostility towards Israel. Noted.


This is the second time you've blatantly put word in the mouths of others. I suggest you stop.


You said "I don't believe anything," did you not?

What ifs and maybes are irrelevant. Regardless of what Palestinian officials say or may do if Israel withdraws, the occupation is the immediate problem.


Jesus Christ, it's not a "what if". Anti-Israel hostility is well documented.

Also West Bank and Gaza were not occupied by Israel before 1967, yet the PLO was formed in 1964.


Irrelevant.


Relevant enough to show that occupation of West Bank and Gaza cannot be the cause.

australopithecus wrote:Israeli police should remain in Israeli territory.


I'm talking more about military. Anyway, please see this little video and drop the pseudo-idealism:

Being forced back to pre-1967 borders unfortunately would leave Israel vulnerable to attacks.


Irrelevant.


It's very relevant if you want to convince Israelis to be on your side. So far you've shown a complete lack of interest for Israel's security needs.

Because invading another peoples land and occupying it and subjugating said people is a bad thing.


They brought it on themselves and they're still doing it and before you bring up the "not all Palestinians believe that" line, well it's enough that their leaders do. Almost anyone in any position of authority in the PNA is anti-Israel.

The actions of Palestine does not justify illegal occupation. Sorry, it just doesn't.


Despite the fact that they pose a threat to Israel's existence. You wouldn't be saying that if you lived in Israel.

And how does this justify continued occupation 64 years later exactly?


West Bank and Gaza were not occupied by Israel until 1967.

Now people keep bringing up that "shrinking" Palestine map so before that... 1949 armistice agreements?

I'm talking about this biased little image, defenders of the Palestinian side tend to use it often:

Image
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:11 am
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2987Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Dogma's Demise wrote:
Laurens wrote:Dogma's Demise,

I do not support Hamas, I do not support radical Islamic regimes, I do not agree with those who say Israel should be destroyed. My support lies wholly with those Palestinians and Israelis who wish to live in peace, without fear. Particularly those who have had their homes taken from them illegally by a foreign power. The Israeli occupation is illegal, and it ruins lives. I am against it for this reason alone. What exactly do you think is wrong with my position?

Laurens


Just so we're clear, do you believe that all that's necessary for peace is for Israel to withdraw from West Bank and Gaza?


Yeah I think so, possibly not the only pre-requisite, but an important one.

The other matter is that the occupation is against international law, and there is no denying that. Do you have a good reason why Israel should be allowed to continue to violate international law?
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:14 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

There seems to be some dispute over whether, from a strictly legal point of view, they should be considered "occupied" or "disputed" territories. http://jcpa.org/art/brief1-1.htm

The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention itself (Article 6) states that the Occupying Power would only be bound to its terms "to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory...." Under the earlier 1907 Hague Regulations, as well, a territory can only be considered occupied when it is under the effective and actual control of the occupier. Thus, according to the main international agreements dealing with military occupation, Israel's transfer of powers to the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Agreements has made it difficult to continue to characterize the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories.


But that aside, you have to keep in mind that the Israelis are dealing with an insane enemy here. See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... adith.html I know it ain't pretty but what would you do if you were in an Israeli's shoes?


Yeah I think so, possibly not the only pre-requisite, but an important one.


Please tell me, if the Israelis have to do this and that, what should the Palestinian have to do? (And don't say nothing, otherwise I'm just going to end the conversation here.)
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:06 pm
bluejatheistPosts: 525Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:28 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Since my post wasn't acknowledged I'll reply again, if you actually meant what you said when you started this thread then you've demonstrated a lack of concern for either group of people in this conflict and have other reasons to take a side(reminds me of what the U.S. government is said to be doing with Israel, Libya, Syria and etc- getting involved even though they don't care who dies on either side.)
Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:37 am
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

You're probably right, I was just thinking out loud.

I still think it would remove any doubt from most people that a Palestinian country just wouldn't be able to live in peace with its neighbor Israel. Nobody could then say they were not given a chance.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:48 pm
bluejatheistPosts: 525Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:28 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Dogma's Demise wrote:You're probably right, I was just thinking out loud.


Ok then, either way it wasn't relevant to your arguments, if you're right or wrong it doesn't much matter why you're discussing.

I still think it would remove any doubt from most people that a Palestinian country just wouldn't be able to live in peace with its neighbor Israel. Nobody could then say they were not given a chance.


Yeah, probably not any time soon. But perhaps the long term human cost will be less if human rights and order are pursued.

When Germany surrendered after the First World War the allies chose to punish the entire nation. This served only to give extremists a direct path to power. After a second world war and a genocide the nation was partitioned and a foreign system was pushed on them, however no amount of soldiers, tanks or secret police prevented a reunification. Previous wars are not an excuse to punish a nation of people and only serve to give them reasons to let the most extreme take charge, and if a nation is never given a say in its governance it will always resist, and you can either occupy at great cost or commit atrocities to make them disappear. If you don't want a genocide of Israelis then don't support policies that only serve to give power to extremists that call for it.

There are no happy endings in this situation, both sides will have to make concessions and if neither can then they both do deserve blame for it, but blame won't fix anything. More people will die no matter what, more bombings will happen no matter what. There is an inequality in that Israel is the more developed, more militarily powerful country, with more influence in the world, more resources, and so more responsibility for what it does. Israel is the "older"(not terms of literal age) one here, and needs to start acting like it.(Granted, it has few role models.)

During "The Troubles" Great Britain saw a decline in terrorist violence by the IRA after it recognized the IRA and made reasonable concessions, and tolerated their scorn. Some atrocities still occurred and the IRA was not handed all it's demands, tension remains to this day and neighborhoods are still divided by the flag they fly. But innocents are no longer murdered within them. Fringes of the IRA broke off in order to continue violence, but the bulk of them stopped using violence when they believed it was no longer useful. The IRA shifted its efforts into political debate via their party Sinn Fein and continue to fight for their goals, but with words. This conflict has gone on for centuries and continues on in some form or another, fueled by nationalism and religious prejudice, but that's the cost of choosing reason over force. It is better to have an inconvenient, ego-bruising, tense, bureaucratic peace than to feed a cycle of counter-attacks, mainly because civilians in the middle of it all benefit or suffer the absolute most. Few people are happy and forgiving, but many are alive and progress is being made with new generations.

In short the only solution, if you want the least overall human loss and to maintain Israeli sovereignty, that isn't going to, at best, require mass relocation without consent or, at worst, mass human atrocities by both sides will probably be Israel swallowing pride and taking a measured first step in creating a fragile peace and nursing it while time brings generational change. Israel isn't going to get all it wants, and Palestine won't be given all it wants, and violence will still persist stubbornly as it always has in that land. Their only other choices are leaving or letting themselves become tyrants, thus feeding the regional hatred that could spark a third world war and 21st century holocaust. Previous violence doesn't justify tyranny, nor does disrespect, resistance or beliefs. Extremists will not be eliminated when peaceful solutions become more viable than violent ones but they will lose their influence bit by bit. A generation that doesn't have unlawful acts of violence in living memory will not be as amiable to these extremists as the current generation is. It will take much discipline and perseverance and doesn't guarantee success but I already touched on the alternatives.

In addition to this I will readily agree that Islam is warlike at its core which is demonstrable in the Koran: their holy text plainly calls for the forced conversion of the world on pain of death(Much more militant compared to the Bible). For all the Muslims that cherry pick their korans to justify their more tolerant morality, there are those who let their religion fundamentally dictate a different morality. I fear the day I might ever be caught under such a regime, however I see no need to compromise rule of law and human rights to prevent forced expansion of extremist Islam when democratic processes, education and activism are demonstrably effective. Forceful containment is ineffective. As it stands, non-muslim westerners actually do much more harm and violence against muslims in the form of the wars and diplomatic manipulation of today and the past. In relation to Israel, the nature of Islam does not mean efforts at coexistence are doomed to fail nor do they require extremists guilty of terrorism to be allowed to escape trial and justice with due process.

If I were there I'd get the hell out and let it burn, myself. This child-play with theocratic states is only good for bloodshed. But since Israel is steadfast in both its territory and means of dealing with Palestine I can do nothing more than stand back and let history judge the consequences.
Last edited by bluejatheist on Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:53 pm, edited 22 times in total.
Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:16 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Dogma's Demise wrote:Well what do you know, complaining about strawman while doing the exact same thing.


Making a comparison you disagree with (or don't understand) is not a straw man.

Prolescum you have seriously distorted some of what I said earlier


No I haven't.

for example:

"3. The comparison with Romania:

The communist dictatorship first of all was imposed on us by a foreign power."

You said:

The restrictions on Palestinian movements, freight, air and sea are imposed by a foreign power. They are, ironically, ghettoed.


Those were just examples of restrictions placed on Palestine by a foreign power. My point was that you should be able to sympathise with their situation, not that the two situations are historical siamese twins.

I was talking about the Palestinian leaders obviously, you know, the ones who for decades have been virulently anti-Israel.


They have little control of Palestine. As noted, funds, freight, medicine etc are all controlled by Israel.

Anyway you did say something I'm going to use in my favor:

I didn't say I was pro-Palestine and pro-Israel, I said I was pro-Palestinian, not anti-Israel. Israel is there, that will not change.


You know I love how you say you're "pro-Palestinian". :lol: You do realize that as an open atheist you wouldn't last two seconds under an Islamic government.


Utterly irrelevant.

But moving past that, so you're pro-Palestinian but indifferent to Israel? Hmmm...


I'm indifferent to nationality as a matter of course. I support anyone seeking freedom from oppression. I believe, fundamentally, in the system of rights we (humanity, that is) have spent centuries building.

If they weren't Muslims (and lest we forget, not all of them are), I guarantee (going on your stated beliefs elsewhere) you'd support the people of Palestine too.

That's the sad thing.

(take a moment)








Then you said:

Who said unconditional? Oh right, no one. If you put words in my mouth, don't be surprised that they're spat back in your face.


Well at least I got you to admit that your support for Palestine is not unconditional.


You didn't get me to "admit" anything; your presumption that my support for Palestine was unconditional is entirely a function of how your mind works.

So under what conditions?


Ones equitable and achievable for both sides, I suppose. I'm not in a position to demand details in international agreements.

Would you say for example that they should take action to marginalize terrorism?


Ah, fantasy time again! Whose definition of terrorism? Do things such as flying low above villages and creating sonic booms count, or are we only counting explosive vests, hand-made rockets and (former house) bricks?

(Notice I'm not saying "eradicate" terrorism, there will always be some, the concern should be that the Palestinian establishment reject it utterly and prosecute it. And that would of course mean outlawing Hamas and all other terrorist groups.)


So who would outlaw Hamas? Hamas? This is idiotic gibberish.

Another point you brought up:

Israel was promised to the Jews by God itself. What's your point?


That may be the case, but even an atheist Israeli I don't think would take too kindly to a bunch of Islamists demanding the abolition of Israel so they can establish an Islamic state in its place.


Moot. Also, stupid.

Secondly, which country did Israel take over to come into existence? (Hint: none)


None, yes... because the land was frozen in time and space, surrounded by a shield of purest Kabbalah root by the Sadducees and their accursed foreskin-powered wonder machines to protect Jerusalem from the Romans.

You'd have a point if there actually was a Palestinian state already there, but what it really was - territory under temporary British control following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.


...and who lived there? the Skrull?

Whether it was called Palestine or Turdsville is an utterly facile point. One only ever given serious consideration in the thicko part of the internet.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:21 pm
Dogma's DemisePosts: 576Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:23 am

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Prolescum wrote:They have little control of Palestine. As noted, funds, freight, medicine etc are all controlled by Israel.


Again, my point is, communism was imposed on us, Hamas was chosen by many Palestinians.

And those places were not controlled by Israel before 1967.

I'm indifferent to nationality as a matter of course. I support anyone seeking freedom from oppression. I believe, fundamentally, in the system of rights we (humanity, that is) have spent centuries building.

If they weren't Muslims (and lest we forget, not all of them are), I guarantee (going on your stated beliefs elsewhere) you'd support the people of Palestine too.


You know if there was a visible faction within the Palestinian territory that supported establishing a Palestinian state, but also took into account Israel's security needs, recognized Israel's right to exist (as in the right not to be dismantled by fanatical nationalist Palestinians) and opposed terrorism, I'd probably support them. As it stands, such a faction either doesn't exist or it's too small to matter.


You know I keep trying to think of a similar case where the other side is atheist or Christian and doing almost the exact same things that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all those other crazies are doing (minus the "Allahu Akbar"), but I just can't find it.

So I'll just try to pretend something similar happened.

Let's take North Korea (an atheist majority country).

Now purely hypothetical, let's say there were our neighbors (Romanian neighbors) firing rockets, sending suicide bombers and preaching a take over. Let's say that Romania was much stronger than it really is and occupied it.

Damn right, I'd hesitate to lift the occupation, until they came to their senses and made peace. I just wouldn't be able to trust them.


That's the sad thing.

(take a moment)


Honestly I keep trying to picture a (purely hypothetical) scenario with the Palestinians as majority atheists, with their leaders also atheists, doing the exact same things (minus the "Allahu Akbar") and it just doesn't click. I really don't see any improvement. It's the same mentality that refuses to let the past be the past, same deliberate and repeated targeting of Israeli civilians, same virulent antisemitism comparable to Hitler's and the same extreme nationalism.

Now although I don't believe an atheist or even a Christian PNA would be likely to act in the same way (not for long anyway, the most obvious being that the "Ummah" would be indifferent to them), it's not really impossible for me to picture that scenario. And like I said, not much of an improvement.

For those who say Israel is just as bad or worse. Well given their military capabilities they could destroy Gaza and West Bank, they don't, they're driven by self-defense, not psychotic genocidal ideas. The exact opposite can be said for the PNA. They'd destroy Israel the first chance they got. They just cannot (yet).


So under what conditions?


Ones equitable and achievable for both sides, I suppose. I'm not in a position to demand details in international agreements.


That's been tried but a workable solution was never found. For example the Palestinians don't want to recognize Israeli's right to exist, because of course that would put an end to any possibility of them ever "liberating Palestine" (by which they mean ALL of the region between the sea and the Jordan river).

Like I said Arafat could have gotten Gaza and almost all of West Bank, he declined, didn't propose an alternative, walked out of negotiations and launched the 2nd Intifada.

Not very promising is it?

Ah, fantasy time again! Whose definition of terrorism? Do things such as flying low above villages and creating sonic booms count, or are we only counting explosive vests, hand-made rockets and (former house) bricks?


I don't like the use of sonic booms either, I wouldn't do it, but it's kinda stupid to compare them with explosive vests and rockets (which actually kill people and not only kill people, but are deliberately aimed at Israeli civilians).

Also I'm pretty sure Israel has freedom of speech, people can ask for a change to these questionable tactics.

In PNA territories, political dissidents are killed.

(Notice I'm not saying "eradicate" terrorism, there will always be some, the concern should be that the Palestinian establishment reject it utterly and prosecute it. And that would of course mean outlawing Hamas and all other terrorist groups.)


So who would outlaw Hamas? Hamas? This is idiotic gibberish.


Exactly, that's my whole point. :lol: There is no viable pro-Israeli movement among the Palestinians, and even if there is, it's so far underground it doesn't matter.


That may be the case, but even an atheist Israeli I don't think would take too kindly to a bunch of Islamists demanding the abolition of Israel so they can establish an Islamic state in its place.


Moot. Also, stupid.


Not really. Read the Fatah constitution and Hamas charter.

Read statements from Hezbollah (what's their beef anyway? Lebanon is not occupied by Israel, yet they're still violent.)

...and who lived there? the Skrull?


This is just ridiculous.
"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:27 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4324Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

Maybe DD should look into exactly what part Hamas plays in the occupied territories of Palestine before he continues. Specifically the differences between them and Fatah, and Fatah in general.
Image
Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:27 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: You know maybe I was wrong about Palestine.

<!--Reserved--> :D
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:50 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 32 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests