israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

[Shrapnel12]

This is a typical israeli propaganda.

And it's typical Arab propagand to dismiss everything that disputes their position as propaganda. I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've heard that. I guess that's all I have to say in this thread. I'll let Siro kick your @ss from here. He's doing a better job then I ever could (for obvious reasons).

[Sirotnikov]

I'll let Siro kick your @ss from here. He's doing a better job then I ever could (for obvious reasons).

woot

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

Originally posted by GePap

I bet you that in Syria, they don't let people build new housing!

Syria isnt routinely accused of attempting to ethnically cleanse its capital through housing policies. I guess I forgot you guys dont follow this stuff in detail.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: israeli aggressors building more housing in East Jerusalem

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Syria isnt routinely accused of attempting to ethnically cleanse its capital through housing policies. I guess I forgot you guys dont follow this stuff in detail.

Well, Syria doesn;t really have any "ehtnicities" to "cleanse", does it, unless they are trying to move kurds out.

Sorry, but I still don't see letting Arab citizens build a few more thousand units of housing as something worth crowing about.

[Aeson]

It is better than not letting them build more housing though.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The Saudi-originating Hashemite dynasty has annexed 72% of historical Palestine, contrary to the mandate set up by the League of Nations, and created a country in which over 75% are Palestinians.

What right did the League of Nations have to give a European colonial power a "mandate" over the lands of Palestine??????

This is the fundamental problem, that the League of Nations utterly ignored and violated the principle of self-determination for the Arabs people. Why should Arabs ever accept a European colonial entity, which is what Israel essentially was folliwing this decision?

If a Jewish homeland was to be formed on that land, the decision was to be rightfully made by the people living in the lands to become such a homeland, not by foreign imperial rulers in a City 2000 miles away. What business did Lord Balfour have giving Palestine to Zionist leaders? It wasn;t his to give.

I still simply can't understand why this simplest of moral issues is so blatantly ignored.

[Kuciwalker]

What does anything that happened generations ago have to do with the morality of territorial disputes today?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What does anything that happened generations ago have to do with the morality of territorial disputes today?

In most parts of the world, EVERYTHING.

Not that you in particular would understand.

[Kuciwalker]

In most parts of the world, EVERYTHING.

Substitute "many" for "most" and I'll definately agree with you, but I don't see what that has to do with my question.

[Kuciwalker]

e.g. "What does what the Bible says about gay sex have to do with anything?" "In most/many parts of the US, EVERYTHING."

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Substitute "many" for "most" and I'll definately agree with you, but I don't see what that has to do with my question.

If people believe something is critical to a moral question, then it is critical to a moral question.

Debate is not based on some purely logical set of arguments. It never has been and never will. That is simply not how human beings behave.

[Kuciwalker]

If people believe something is critical to a moral question, then it is critical to a moral question.

Only if I'm arguing with them, which I'm not. I've already assumed their morality is ****ed up, with the state of the ME as all the evidence I need. I'm asking you to justify your arguments, and you're saying "all the people over there agree with me."

So, tell me, how does anything that happened generations ago affect the morality of actions today, in your moral theory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So, tell me, how does anything that happened generations ago affect the morality of actions today, in your moral theory.

In my moral theory, nothing. But then, Iam no longer discussing the morality of today, but past morality, as are Herresson and Siro. Get with the program.

[Kuciwalker]

This is the fundamental problem, that the League of Nations utterly ignored and violated the principle of self-determination for the Arabs people. Why should Arabs ever accept a European colonial entity, which is what Israel essentially was folliwing this decision?

Is a modern moral question.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

This is the fundamental problem, that the League of Nations utterly ignored and violated the principle of self-determination for the Arabs people. Why should Arabs ever accept a European colonial entity, which is what Israel essentially was folliwing this decision?

Is a modern moral question.

But one premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Paris Peace Conference actually operated. Self determination was never the sole determining factor in ANY of the questions it faced. I dont have time for details, but I would suggest the book "1919".