Ex-Spain PM: If Israel goes down, we all go down

[jallman]

I'm not angry, I'm annoyed.

You should be. Everyone in the world should be. The creation of Israel was a failed experiment in trying to do with international law what we never could do with a Crusade.

 

[Apocalypse]

You should be. Everyone in the world should be. The creation of Israel was a failed experiment in trying to do with international law what we never could do with a Crusade.

Israel is one of the most prospering nations in the entire world.
A failed experiment is one of the last attributes that could be attributed to the Jewish state.

 

[donsutherland1]

If the West demands a proper inquiry over what happened on the flotilla and given that that won't happen follows the EU line in working to end the blockade on Gaza with supervision for Israel's protection, this is going to cause all that you have said?

That argument seems to be suggesting that their is a belief that to have integrity in this world is not possible and so we should just all not have it.

Alexa,

I was replying to specific content in Messages #2 and #3 in this thread. Looking back, I thought I had quoted Message #3 but accidentally did not.

My view on the maritime blockade is that those who seek its elimination, rather than its modification (modification is a more realistic approach), need to offer Israel credible and robust mechanisms that would address its security needs at least as effectively as the maritime blockade does. Words or guarantees not backed by such mechanisms mean little given past experiences, including the terms of the UN resolutions following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah fighting.

 

[jallman]

Israel is one of the most prospering nations in the entire world.
A failed experiment is one of the last attributes that could be attributed to the Jewish state.

It's failed. The Middle East will never accept Israel as a legitimate nation because it wasn't. It was finagled by manipulating international law toward the express purpose of handing over land that was already spoken for to a people who neither deserved nor earned it. It was an expression of western guilt and nothing more.

The failure is in thinking the "dumb camel jockeys" would forget and move on.

 

[Apocalypse]

It's failed. The Middle East will never accept Israel as a legitimate nation because it wasn't.

First of all the US was not established in a legit way, and yet it is accepted today. (By most, I assume)
Secondly Israel's creation was as legitimate as it gets really.
The Jews have had a claim to the land, they have worked through the diplomatic prcoedures, and in the end the absolute majority of the world has voted for its establishing in the UN, meaning that the absolute majority of the world has seen it as legitimate.(And those that have objected were mainly the Arab states)

It was finagled by manipulating international law toward the express purpose of handing over land that was already spoken for to a people who neither deserved nor earned it.

Uh, that has close to nothing to do with reality and history.

It was an expression of western guilt and nothing more.

The recognition of the Jewish claim to the land came long before the Holocaust, if that's what you're referring to.

The failure is in thinking the "dumb camel jockeys" would forget and move on.

Please avoid making such racist remarks, Arabs are not "dumb camel jockeys".

 

[jallman]

First of all the US was not established in a legit way, and yet it is accepted today. (By most, I assume)
Secondly Israel's creation was as legitimate as it gets really.
The Jews have had a claim to the land, they have worked through the diplomatic prcoedures, and in the end the absolute majority of the world has voted for its establishing in the UN, meaning that the absolute majority of the world has seen it as legitimate.(And those that have objected were mainly the Arab states)
Uh, that has close to nothing to do with reality and history.

Israel has made a career of leveraging the plight of the Jew in getting its way. And there is no "Israeli" claim to the land that it sits on. Several groups have just as legitimate a claim to the land Israel sits on as Israel does.

The recognition of the Jewish claim to the land came long before the Holocaust, if that's what you're referring to.

And guilt over the holocaust is what sealed the deal.

Please avoid making such racist remarks, Arabs are not "dumb camel jockeys".

And that's why it was placed in quotations, genius. It was to denote a sentiment expressed by others and not my own views. You know, punctuation means something and is more legitimate than your half assed claim that I was being racist. Nice try though.

 

[donsutherland1]

It's failed. The Middle East will never accept Israel as a legitimate nation because it wasn't. It was finagled by manipulating international law toward the express purpose of handing over land that was already spoken for to a people who neither deserved nor earned it. It was an expression of western guilt and nothing more.

The failure is in thinking the "dumb camel jockeys" would forget and move on.

A number of points:

1. The territory in question was not a sovereign state.
2. The owners of the territory (Ottoman Empire and British Empire) legalized Jewish immigration.
3. Legal immigrants have basic rights and claims equal to those who are native born.
4. The Jewish people have historic roots in the region that are substantiated through abundant archaeological and historic evidence.
5. The British delegated to the UN the task for bringing sovereignty to the region.
6. UNSCOP recognized the two peoples' equal rights to self-determination and their shared historic legitimacy in the region. Neither side was entitled to become the sole inheritor of Britain's imperial possession.
7. UNSCOP and the UN's adoption of GA Res. 181 was consistent with international law (diplomatic documents, League of Nations Mandate, UN Charter, customary principles, etc.). Hence, Israel's re-establishment was legitimate under international law. That Israel's foes in the region take a different view has no bearing on that point. Certainly, there is nothing anywhere in international law that required that Britain's entire spoils be given to a single party.
8. Israel has become a prosperous and developed nation in spite of the adversity created from its enemies' rejectionism. Its standard of living is higher than that in many of the oil-rich Middle Eastern states. It has a number of genuine leading edge industries in the sciences and technology. It accomplished all that despite repeated attacks and other acts of aggression. In contrast, many of its most vocal foes offer little more than desperate and wild excuses for their lack of economic and social progress and still refuse to come to grips with the harsh reality that their stagnation is largely a home-grown situation for which they are primarily responsible.
9. Israel's success even proved to have been an inspiration to Singapore in the late 1960s, when that state was looking for viable economic models. It saw Israel as a leading case study on how a small state that lacked natural resources could become prosperous.

In sum, by no reasonable definition or measure of objectivity can Israel be described as a "failed state."

 

[alexa]

Alexa,

I was replying to specific content in Messages #2 and #3 in this thread. Looking back, I thought I had quoted Message #3 but accidentally did not.

My view on the maritime blockade is that those who seek its elimination, rather than its modification (modification is a more realistic approach), need to offer Israel credible and robust mechanisms that would address its security needs at least as effectively as the maritime blockade does. Words or guarantees not backed by such mechanisms mean little given past experiences, including the terms of the UN resolutions following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah fighting.

Admittedly I was so irritated by the OP suggesting that people were trying to 'eliminate Israel' that I did not give you any benefit for replying to other posters because it was a fantasy - I was therefore taking it that everyone was deceiving themselves that wanting an inquiry into Israel and the lifting of the blockade was supposed to be the 'elimination' of Israel and because I was so irritated at this exaggeration which sounds like the most crazy propaganda, I did not give you any leeway. My apologies

A satisfactory way can definitely be found to ensure Israel, to the extent she is now while lifting most of the blockade and opening the seaport under proper supervision. It is possible. Then Gaza can start having an economic and social life again and can rebuild the infrastructure including homes.

 

[Apocalypse]

Israel has made a career of leveraging the plight of the Jew in getting its way.

Both Jews and non-Jews enjoy equal rights in Israel. There are Arab and Druze parliament members in the Israeli Knesset and they all enjoy democracy equally.

And there is no "Israeli" claim to the land that it sits on.

Jews have a claim to the land. That's unquestionable, they've lived there constantly for over 3000 years.

Several groups have just as legitimate a claim to the land Israel sits on as Israel does.

Israel recognizes the Palestinians' claim to the land.

And guilt over the holocaust is what sealed the deal.

The Holocaust was a huge tragedy that has shown the need for the Jews to have their own state as the rest of the world's nations.
Nevertheless, the recognition of the Jewish claim to the land came long before it.

And that's why it was placed in quotations, genius. It was to denote a sentiment expressed by others and not my own views. You know, punctuation means something and is more legitimate than your half assed claim that I was being racist. Nice try though.

No one in this thread has referred to Arabs that way, so I can't see how you were referring to other posters' views, and hence I feel it was totally inappropirate and out of place.
Simply try to avoid similar remarks in the future.

 

[kaya'08]

Both Jews and non-Jews enjoy equal rights in Israel. There are Arab and Druze parliament members in the Israeli Knesset and they all enjoy democracy equally.
Jews have a claim to the land. That's unquestionable, they've lived there constantly for over 3000 years.
Israel recognizes the Palestinians' claim to the land.
The Holocaust was a huge tragedy that has shown the need for the Jews to have their own state as the rest of the world's nations.
Nevertheless, the recognition of the Jewish claim to the land came long before it.


No one in this thread has referred to Arabs that way, so I can't see how you were referring to other posters' views, and hence I feel it was totally inappropirate and out of place.
Simply try to avoid similar remarks in the future.

You know, all these remarks basically reflect the situation in Northern Cyprus, yet the UN have been prevented from recognizing it. Why is Israel an exception? I do not know. For this reason i can conclude the UN is not anti-Israel, but anti-Turkish if anything.

 

[Apocalypse]

You know, all these remarks basically reflect the situation in Northern Cyprus, yet the UN have been prevented from recognizing it. Why is Israel an exception? I do not know. For this reason i can conclude the UN is not anti-Israel, but anti-Turkish if anything.

The situation in Northern Cyprus is far from being identical to the situation in Mandate Palestine at the time.

 

[jallman]

No one in this thread has referred to Arabs that way, so I can't see how you were referring to other posters' views, and hence I feel it was totally inappropirate and out of place.
Simply try to avoid similar remarks in the future.

I didn't say "other posters". I said "others" and was referencing the way the west thinks of the middle east and the underestimation of the Arabs' justified indignation over having land wrenched from them to hand to a people that had been displaced from it for 2000 years.

And I don't rightly give a good goddamn what you think is appropriate or inappropriate. I was well within the rules and will make whatever comments I wish so long as they are A) truthful and B) within the TOS. Don't like it? Tough.

 

[kaya'08]

The situation in Northern Cyprus is far from being identical to the situation in Mandate Palestine at the time.

Ok this needs to be done.
FOS.

The only difference between the Turkish Cypriot cause and the Zionist cause is that the zionists managed to get there land AND get it legitimized at the UN. Turkish Cypriots fell short at the UN for god-knows what reason Greek propaganda made up. Its a shame, but trust me boyo, we are on the same boat. You just dont realize it yet.

Count yourself lucky the UN is pro Israel. Trust me on that one.

 

[jallman]

A number of points:

1. The territory in question was not a sovereign state.
2. The owners of the territory (Ottoman Empire and British Empire) legalized Jewish immigration.
3. Legal immigrants have basic rights and claims equal to those who are native born.
4. The Jewish people have historic roots in the region that are substantiated through abundant archaeological and historic evidence.
5. The British delegated to the UN the task for bringing sovereignty to the region.
6. UNSCOP recognized the two peoples' equal rights to self-determination and their shared historic legitimacy in the region. Neither side was entitled to become the sole inheritor of Britain's imperial possession.
7. UNSCOP and the UN's adoption of GA Res. 181 was consistent with international law (diplomatic documents, League of Nations Mandate, UN Charter, customary principles, etc.). Hence, Israel's re-establishment was legitimate under international law. That Israel's foes in the region take a different view has no bearing on that point. Certainly, there is nothing anywhere in international law that required that Britain's entire spoils be given to a single party.
8. Israel has become a prosperous and developed nation in spite of the adversity created from its enemies' rejectionism. Its standard of living is higher than that in many of the oil-rich Middle Eastern states. It has a number of genuine leading edge industries in the sciences and technology. It accomplished all that despite repeated attacks and other acts of aggression. In contrast, many of its most vocal foes offer little more than desperate and wild excuses for their lack of economic and social progress and still refuse to come to grips with the harsh reality that their stagnation is largely a home-grown situation for which they are primarily responsible.
9. Israel's success even proved to have been an inspiration to Singapore in the late 1960s, when that state was looking for viable economic models. It saw Israel as a leading case study on how a small state that lacked natural resources could become prosperous.

In sum, by no reasonable definition or measure of objectivity can Israel be described as a "failed state."

All that may be well and good for Israel, but for the rest of the world that has to deal with the international fallout of having the Crusades of the dark ages shift from bloody battles to UN mandates probably don't feel the same way. The experiment to seize control of the holy land by propping up the Jews as heirs to the previously nonexistent "nation of Israel" has failed because it has created more conflict than it resolved. Israel can be the most wealthy nation on the planet for all the good it does toward bringing lasting resolution to all the strife.

Wherever there's terrorism, conflict and strife in the Middle East, you can rest assured that the Israel issue is central to it. I say feed Israel to the rest of the middle east and watch much of the conflict die down.

 

[Apocalypse]

I didn't say "other posters". I said "others" and was referencing the way the west thinks of the middle east and the underestimation of the Arabs' justified indignation over having land wrenched from them to hand to a people that had been displaced from it for 2000 years.

You can't refer to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" and then say you were referring to them that way to show the opinions of some people in the world.
It's repulsive and out of place.

And I don't rightly give a good goddamn what you think is appropriate or inappropriate. I was well within the rules and will make whatever comments I wish so long as they are A) truthful and B) within the TOS. Don't like it? Tough.

It's not appropirate to refer to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys". Besides that, avoid personal attacks.

 

[rivrrat]

I didn't say "other posters". I said "others" and was referencing the way the west thinks of the middle east and the underestimation of the Arabs' justified indignation over having land wrenched from them to hand to a people that had been displaced from it for 2000 years.

And I don't rightly give a good goddamn what you think is appropriate or inappropriate. I was well within the rules and will make whatever comments I wish so long as they are A) truthful and B) within the TOS. Don't like it? Tough.

Yeah, it was pretty obvious to me what you meant. Not sure how it could be misconstrued.

 

[kaya'08]

You can't refer to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" and then say you were referring to them that way to show the opinions of some people in the world.
It's repulsive and out of place.

It was put in quotation marks to show both sarcasm and the very probable thoughts of those involved. In no way was it a racist comment with any intent in insulting. What do you care about insulting Arabs anyway? Are you caring because it has the misinformed potential of making Jallman look bad?

 

[jallman]

You can't refer to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" and then say you were referring to them that way to show the opinions of some people in the world.
It's repulsive and out of place.

Yes I can and I just did. Everyone else got the context of the phrase. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

It's not appropirate to refer to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys".

Which is precisely why I placed it in quotes to deliver the inappropriate nature of how the west tends to think of the middle east.

Besides that, avoid personal attacks.

I haven't made a personal attack against you in this thread. If I ever do, there will be no mistaking it for anything else. If you think there is some error in my perception and your feelings are hurt about something I stated, feel free to cry to a mod about it.

 

[Apocalypse]

Yes I can and I just did. Everyone else got the context of the phrase. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

Once more, avoid personal attacks.

Which is precisely why I placed it in quotes to deliver the inappropriate nature of how the west tends to think of the middle east.

And if the West was referring to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" you'd have a case here.

I haven't made a personal attack against you in this thread. If I ever do, there will be no mistaking it for anything else. If you think there is some error in my perception and your feelings are hurt about something I stated, feel free to cry to a mod about it.

Once more, avoid personal attacks.

 

[Apocalypse]

It was put in quotation marks to show both sarcasm and the very probable thoughts of those involved.

So you're saying there was an intention in his post to refer to the thoughts of other posters?
But when I've asked him if that's what he has meant to, Jallman has clearly stated that he is not referring to other posters.

In no way was it a racist comment with any intent in insulting.

The remark itself was racist, I don't think there was an actual racism behind it, but the remark was racist nevertheless.

What do you care about insulting Arabs anyway?

I find racism in general to be repulsive, I do not limit my opposition to racism to one race, that would kinda be beating the purpose.

 

[jallman]

Once more, avoid personal attacks.

Once more, there hasn't been a personal attack. I suggest you learn what that involves before you toss it around to shield yourself from valid criticism.

And if the West was referring to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" you'd have a case here.

That's been a common sentiment of the west. Yes, I still have a case. Learn it and love it because the statement will never be withdrawn.

Once more, avoid personal attacks.

Once more, there's been no personal attack. I suggest you learn what that involves before you toss it around to shield yourself from valid criticism.

 

[donsutherland1]

The experiment to seize control of the holy land by propping up the Jews as heirs to the previously nonexistent "nation of Israel"...

That's historically wrong. For example, if one examines the academic and archaeological literature, one finds, among other examples:

Several phases of state formation are apparent in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1200 BCE. In each of these a similar constellation of features is found, pointing to an integrated process, similar to that of ‘peer polity interaction’ described by Renfrew and Cherry (1986). In effect, the concept of the state and statecraft cascaded outward in a process of elite emulation and competition that took some 150-200 years. But it was only in a few examples, namely Israel, Judah, and perhaps Ammon and Moab, that more fully fledged ‘ethnic states’ emerged…

Source: Alexander H. Joffe, “The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2002.

 

[Apocalypse]

Ok this needs to be done.
FOS.

The only difference between the Turkish Cypriot cause and the Zionist cause is that the zionists managed to get there land AND get it legitimized at the UN. Turkish Cypriots fell short at the UN for god-knows what reason Greek propaganda made up. Its a shame, but trust me boyo, we are on the same boat. You just dont realize it yet.

Count yourself lucky the UN is pro Israel. Trust me on that one.

Kaya, you fail to adress the similarities between the two situations.
Please do, I'm sure you're capable of doing so.

 

[kaya'08]

And if the West was referring to Arabs as "dumb camel jockeys" you'd have a case here.

I was watching a Rugby game the other day, and Kuwait beat Ireland because Ireland thought the Arabs had a crap team, had no idea what Rugby is, and would loose without them trying much.

The score was 6-2 to Kuwait.

Then i thought to myself; the Irish probably thought "stupid sand niggers dont have a chance!" and promptly got raped. And the Kuwaiti's where like "we killed those paddies".

Now put in that context, do you see the statement is not a racist comment expressing the view of the writer but actually an indication of the ignorance of the Irish team?

 

[jallman]

That's historically wrong. For example, if one examines the academic and archaeological literature, one finds, among other examples:



Source: Alexander H. Joffe, “The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 2002.

Was there or was there not a recognized state of Israel prior to 1948? Prior to the formation of Israel in 1948, when was the last time there was unified and sovereign state of Israel?