Israelis should seriously consider abandoning Israel

[Berzerker]

Israel has a UN granted right to exist. Don't like it? Tough.

The UN doesn't have the authority, "legal" or moral, to steal someone's land to make a country for somebody else (read the UN charter). Obviously they don't like it, that's why so many of them are willing to die to kill Israelis. You should understand that position given your "might makes right" argument.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The UN doesn't have the authority, "legal" or moral, to steal someone's land to make a country for somebody else (read the UN charter). Obviously they don't like it, that's why so many of them are willing to die to kill Israelis. You should understand that position given your "might makes right" argument.

hi ,

what stolen land , .....



bye

[JCG]

Well, it could be said that the Israelis are receiving payment for their impatience (a very violent and perhaps rather unfair payment, obviously).

Everything could possibly be better if they'd have waited until negotiations could take place in a quieter environment...but no, they *had* to get their state quickly, without reaching a settlement with the Arabs first, not caring/wanting to have anything to do with them (at least in those first years, from what I've gathered)....And now they have to live with the results, at least until the situation is corrected (don't ask me how to do it though). But no, they shouldn't abandon Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

The UN doesn't have the authority, "legal" or moral, to steal someone's land to make a country for somebody else (read the UN charter). Obviously they don't like it, that's why so many of them are willing to die to kill Israelis. You should understand that position given your "might makes right" argument

That's the difference between sovereignity and ownership.

Israel doesn't have to own 100% of land to be soveriegn of it.

And unless you think that each arab land-owner was a sovereign, Israel is the rightful sovereign of all the land attributed to it by the UN, and all the land later conquered for it's security, in defensive (though at times per-emptive) wars.

[Panag]

Originally posted by JCG
Well, it could be said that the Israelis are receiving payment for their impatience (a very violent and perhaps rather unfair payment, obviously).

Everything could possibly be better if they'd have waited until negotiations could take place in a quieter environment...but no, they *had* to get their state quickly, without reaching a settlement with the Arabs first, not caring/wanting to have anything to do with them (at least in those first years, from what I've gathered)....And now they have to live with the results, at least until the situation is corrected (don't ask me how to do it though). But no, they shouldn't abandon Israel.

hi ,

they did not want negociations they where planning the destruction and cutting it up between egypt , jordan and syria and even iraq was involved since 1946 , ......

so please , we did not declare war or wanted the destruction of other people , ....

have a nice day

[Heresson]

can you explain for me why the German-Polish frontier was moved to the Oder Niesse line - restoring Polish soveriegnty over lands that hadnt been ethnically polish or under polish rule for over 700 years?? Or is the magic cutoff somewhere longer than 700 years, but shorter than 1700 years?
ditto for east prussia.
and for "greek" macedonia??

Upper Silesia and southern Prussia in fact were ethnically Polish up till that time. Lower Silesia and Western Pomerania were in XX century German, but not for that long; up till XIX century, villlages around capital of Lower Silesia were speaking Polish.
Again, Silesia wasn't a part of Kingdom of Poland for over 500 years, but it wasn't part of German state since then as well...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


.
Again, Silesia wasn't a part of Kingdom of Poland for over 500 years, but it wasn't part of German state since then as well...

it was part of prussia, and before that Austria - and i believe german speaking states before that. True it wasnt part of a national germany. But then Palestine wasnt part of a national "palestine" ever.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it was part of prussia, and before that Austria

Not quite;
it became a part of Prussia after three Silesian wars, in XVIII century, and earlier it was partly a fief and partly a part of Bohemian kingdom, which was in union with Austria.

- and i believe german speaking states before that.

It depends on what You mean by "german speaking";
if it is about the official language, it's true when it comes to some duchies of it (in Lower Silesia mostly); when it comes to the majority of population, it is wrong.

True it wasnt part of a national germany. But then Palestine wasnt part of a national "palestine" ever.

That's a very bad comparison, as there was never such a thing as palestinian nation up till modern times, and ethnicy of it haven't changed for some 1000 years
(since Arabic became dominant pretty quickly there, even longer) up till Jewish mass immigration to it, while Silesia's ethnicy was changing every century - with Polish element getting weaker, and German growing in power, since the start of German settlement in XIII century. Originally, it was a part of Poland and it was inhabited by Poles. Moreover, most of its former German citizens bare Polish surnames, indicating their Polish roots.

[Sirotnikov]

That's a very bad comparison, as there was never such a thing as palestinian nation up till modern times, and ethnicy of it haven't changed for some 1000 years

Of course ethnicity has changed.
It changed in the 7th century with muslem conquests and immigration.
It changed in key cities several times during the crusades.

Some Jews began returning to "Palestine" as early as the 12th century.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That's a very bad comparison, as there was never such a thing as palestinian nation up till modern times, and ethnicy of it haven't changed for some 1000 years

Of course ethnicity has changed.
It changed in the 7th century with muslem conquests and immigration.
It changed in key cities several times during the crusades.

Some Jews began returning to "Palestine" as early as the 12th century.

When it comes to rabic conquests, I wrote; in last 1000 years. When it comes to crusade times... Well, ethnicy changed only in few major cities, and not that much, Latin colonisation wasn't very successful. And in that times, Jews were only present in Jerusalem (well, until crusaders came in), Tiberias and Safad.

[Sirotnikov]

When it comes to rabic conquests, I wrote;

I don't remember rabbis conquering anything

From what I gathered the population of western palestine (without what is now Jordan) was very limited, and has only began seriously growing around the 19th century from immigration rom other areas of palestine and syria.

Can you confirm / disprove that?

[Nubclear]

I propose building a large wall around Palestine and Israel.

[Sprayber]

I don't think that they should abandon their country, but the idea that by simply asking the question Dissident was being anti-jew is silly.

[Ecthy]

Highly interesting how zionism includes anti-arabism, though. I'm going to remember muxec's view on that.

[Sirotnikov]

I hardly see how zionism is anti-arabist in the ethnical sense.

Yes it is a national issue and conflict. And yes, Zionism is conflicting with similar national aspirations on the arab side, and wishes to "eliminate" competition for the holy land. (not necessarily by means of genocide).


But I think that the right wing view on it is much less anti-arabist (even with all the racist rhethoric that is being added for the last 20 years) because the right wing views the Palestinians as eqal people with equal aspirations who want respect and will not desert their hopes. The right thinks that the Palestinians will not give up and will fight, and that leaves one way - conflict, until the achievement of a stalemate and then a peace agreement out of lack of other options.

At this time, the dovish left, expects the palestinians to take it up the ass and love it. The Israeli left for a long time thought that the arabs would be ever so happy to get 'modernized' and 'liberated' and would be only happy to live peacefully with the jews, who would use their european knowledge and money to 'advance' the arab cuture to their own level.

In that sense, the lefties are very much under estimating the arabs and inserting imperalistic pre-conceptions, while the righties (some of whom admittedly have relgious or racist issues) do think of the Palestinians as equals, and it is exactly for that reason that they seek force as a resolution - they think the arabs have enough stamina and self respect to fight for what they think is theirs.