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

[kaya'08]

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

The core similarities, very much the same.

X have a historical claim and ancestral right to the land.
The Z began opressing the X and the X took up arms and defended themselves, being promptly liberated from the hostile forces by B and therefore claiming there country in an unfortunately religiously and ethnicly divided society (even though X have a strictly secular society) because of the hostile actions of the majority to ethnicly cleanse the land (hell this last part only applies to Cyprus).

Now, substitute the following in the sentence:

X = Turkish cypriots/ Jews
Z = Arabs/Greeks
B = US or UK/Turkey

 

[Apocalypse]

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?

In the context of your comment you are absolutely correct.
Do notice however that when Jallman was making that remark it was completely out of context.
That is unless he was referring to what he believes to be the thoughts of the posters he was arguing against, and that's something that he completely rejects.

 

[jallman]

In the context of your comment you are absolutely correct.
Do notice however that when Jallman was making that remark it was completely out of context.

WRONG. It was completely within the context of illustrating how the Western world underestimated the Arabs' indignation and why. It was to illustrate general Western racism toward the Middle East (except its precious Israel...but even that is capricious and only extended so long as Israel behaves itself and doesn't make too many waves).

That is unless he was referring to what he believes to be the thoughts of the posters he was arguing against, and that's something that he completely rejects.

I think you need to go back and read it again, this time dropping agenda briefly in favor of comprehension.

 

[donsutherland1]

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?

There was no existing sovereign state that comprised the territory in question prior to Israel's re-establishment. The territory was a British possession.

Earlier kingdoms and states were not really considered in the same terms as the modern-nation state as defined following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Nonetheless, ancient Israel was among the earlier ethnic states. That state, as distinct from the southern Kingdom of Judah, was conquered in the early to middle 8th century BCE.

 

[jallman]

There was no existing sovereign state that comprised the territory in question prior to Israel's re-establishment. The territory was a British possession.

Earlier kingdoms and states were not really considered in the same terms as the modern-nation state as defined following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Nonetheless, ancient Israel was among the earlier ethnic states. That state, as distinct from the southern Kingdom of Judah, was conquered in the early to middle 8th century BCE.

Then there you have it. The Jews were displaced from the land for 2000 years and then suddenly a chunk of the most contested land in the world was handed over to them at the insistence of outside influences.

I'd say that was a pretty bad move on the part of the western world.

 

[mbig]

Then there you have it. The Jews were displaced from the land for 2000 years and then suddenly a chunk of the most contested land in the world was handed over to them at the insistence of outside influences.

I'd say that was a pretty bad move on the part of the western world.

Jews have lived there continuously for those 2000 years, if most of the time in small number.
Achieving significant settlement and number in the 19th century. (when anglos were just starting to settle Australia and move West of the Mississippi.)

All-in-All the Arabs did spectacularly well in the Ottoman break-up, getting about 99% of it (and 100% of the oil) and ruling perhaps 110% of their original range... including over the Kurds.
'Iraq' was given to a Saudi Prince willy-nilly to lord over them.. and Jordan (77% of the British Mandate) was given to another Saudi Prince to lord over mostly 'palestinians'.
Lebanon was gerrymandered out of the French Mandate to have a Christian majority.
Israel, Otoh, was one of the few states to be voted on by an International body.

All 'Israel' entailed was a change of sovereignty for a few arabs (390,000) who had never ruled themselves anyway.. and of course, in addition to Jordan, a 'Palestine' was also Created, but rejected. And we're only talking a tiny sliver here.

"Misjudging arab indignance" (aka Greed and anti-semitism), was probably true, but not unjust.

Also see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land.html
for a previous discussion.

 

[Degreez]

There was no existing sovereign state that comprised the territory in question prior to Israel's re-establishment. The territory was a British possession.

The treaties that saw the break up of the Ottoman Empire recognized the territoriies lost were sovereign successor states.
State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.

You are wrong again, don.

Earlier kingdoms and states were not really considered in the same terms as the modern-nation state as defined following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Nonetheless, ancient Israel was among the earlier ethnic states. That state, as distinct from the southern Kingdom of Judah, was conquered in the early to middle 8th century BCE.

It was more of a nation, than a state:

* Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, origins, and history. However, the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.

* State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population.

 

[mbig]

The treaties that saw the break up of the Ottoman Empire recognized the territoriies lost were sovereign successor states.
State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That doesn't change what he said one bit.
There was no palestine. more....

You are wrong again, don.

So he can't be wrong "again" if he wasn't the first time.

It was more of a nation, than a state:

Israel/Zionism/the Jewish national movment, Really was a nation and were immediately an ongoing concern.
While virtually no one believed in 'palestine'.
The territory taken over by Jordan and Egypt after the 1948 war.
Palestinian Nationalism, in the Main, emerges as an anti-Israel movement in the 1960's (and even the use of 'palestinian' in reference to local arabs), not a proactive 'palestinian' one previous.

 

[donsutherland1]

The treaties that saw the break up of the Ottoman Empire recognized the territoriies lost were sovereign successor states.
State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are wrong again, don.

States in waiting so to speak are not fully sovereign states. Such entities are only fully sovereign once they are capable of exercising jurisdiction within their boundaries and they exercise such jurisdiction. Prior to UNGA Res. 181, the territory never reached that stage.

Had the territory been a fully sovereign state in 1920 rather than having been envisioned as becoming such a state at some point in time, the British would not have received formal jurisdiction for that territory under the League of Nations Mandate of 1922. The Mandate remained in force until the UN devised a solution to bring the territory to sovereignty. By that time, even if a single "successor state" had been envisioned in the territory in the past, such an outcome was no longer practical given the irreconcilable differences between the area's two peoples if the equal right to self-determination of those two peoples was to be respected.

 

[joergan]

But Kaya, people are not suggesting Israel dissappear, just that there is a proper inquiry into what happened and that everything be done to remove the boackade on Gaza while taking measure to also secure Israel.

And what suggestions do you offer toward that end? You demand an end to the blockade, yet believe that israel's security can be maintained. To a thinking person, the 2 are incompatible.

If israel goes, in order, the next targets to fall as the islamist terrorist filth moves forward:

1-jordan, saudi, and egyptian regimes
2-north africa and asian nations on the brink like indonesia
3-balkans spreading out to southern europe
4-internal uprisings within europe by the burgeoning muslim populations such as in france, denmark, etc.
5-after europe falls, pursue russia and china through internal muslim insurgencies
6-australia/phillippines through internal muslim insurgencies
7-forcibly conquer and convert south america, isolating US and Canada
8-combined forces attack on north america.

This is a 50-year planned Crusade, the first step of which targets israel and aims to massively increase the size of the muslim populations in EU nations...

 

[joergan]

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.

Congratulations for the stupidest post on this forum, and I've read alot of dumb ones here...

 

[joergan]

to a people who neither deserved nor earned it.

Your posts are indicative of someone who is completely devoid of any facts or history of the area, as well as patently anti-semitic and dismissive of jews' aspirations. Jews have been in israel for thousands of years, and to deny them their national homeland is to deny reality. But it would appear you live in a very different reality from the rest of us.

 

[joergan]

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.

Please explain to the forum why a UN general assembly vote creating israel is LESS legitimate than a British cartologist drawing on a map and creating iraq, jordan and syria. Unless of course, you are actually honest enough to directly question the legitimacy of those nations as well.

 

[joergan]

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.

This statement is so completely devoid of facts or reality, all I can is you are totally clueless. You know absolutely nothing about arab muslims, their history, or what has been going on in the middle east over the last century. Go look up the words: copts, assyrians, bahai, maronites and zoroastrians.

I actually feel pity for posters like you, as all you can do is further embarrass yourself with each further post on the topic. Its as if I decided to state my opinions on the syntax of the Mandarin language - yet never studied it nor speak a word of it. You are even further away from the truth than that...

 

[joergan]

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?

Prior to the formation of Israel in 1948, when was the last time there was unified and sovereign state of "Palestine" - or any other formalized nation on that land?

 

[Gardener]

I say feed Israel to the rest of the middle east and watch much of the conflict die down.

Peace through genocide.

I figured somebody would suggest it eventually. :roll:

 

[joergan]

Peace through genocide.

I figured somebody would suggest it eventually. :roll:

Yes, the jewhaters, after a while, have a very difficult time in hiding their true beliefs. This forum requires some element of obfuscation/fig leaves to hide their abject racism, but most of the time, they cannot contain themselves for very long - and the true feelings, just like with Helen Thomas - start to flow.

 

[jallman]

Congratulations for the stupidest post on this forum, and I've read alot of dumb ones here...

Blah blah blah. Did you have anything of substance to contribute?

 

[jallman]

This statement is so completely devoid of facts or reality, all I can is you are totally clueless. You know absolutely nothing about arab muslims, their history, or what has been going on in the middle east over the last century. Go look up the words: copts, assyrians, bahai, maronites and zoroastrians.

I actually feel pity for posters like you, as all you can do is further embarrass yourself with each further post on the topic. Its as if I decided to state my opinions on the syntax of the Mandarin language - yet never studied it nor speak a word of it. You are even further away from the truth than that...

All I'm hearing is "blah blah blah". Try substance and you will get a little further...

 

[jallman]

Yes, the jewhaters, after a while, have a very difficult time in hiding their true beliefs. This forum requires some element of obfuscation/fig leaves to hide their abject racism, but most of the time, they cannot contain themselves for very long - and the true feelings, just like with Helen Thomas - start to flow.

And here you go again spewing garbage without a shred of truth behind it. Once again the idiotic "anti-semite" crap gets tossed about in when there is a total void of true and substantive argument.

 

[jallman]

Jews have lived there continuously for those 2000 years, if most of the time in small number.
Achieving significant settlement and number in the 19th century. (when anglos were just starting to settle Australia and move West of the Mississippi.)

All-in-All the Arabs did spectacularly well in the Ottoman break-up, getting about 99% of it (and 100% of the oil) and ruling perhaps 110% of their original range... including over the Kurds.
'Iraq' was given to a Saudi Prince willy-nilly to lord over them.. and Jordan (77% of the British Mandate) was given to another Saudi Prince to lord over mostly 'palestinians'.
Lebanon was gerrymandered out of the French Mandate to have a Christian majority.
Israel, Otoh, was one of the few states to be voted on by an International body.

All 'Israel' entailed was a change of sovereignty for a few arabs (390,000) who had never ruled themselves anyway.. and of course, in addition to Jordan, a 'Palestine' was also Created, but rejected. And we're only talking a tiny sliver here.

"Misjudging arab indignance" (aka Greed and anti-semitism), was probably true, but not unjust.

Also see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/48220-myth-1-israel-stolen-land.html
for a previous discussion.

Thank you. This is an informative and reasonable post unlike the other horse**** that's getting thrown around here in this thread from certain other posters.

 

[joergan]

Thank you. This is an informative and reasonable post unlike the other horse**** that's getting thrown around here in this thread from certain other posters.

As unsubstantive and factual useless as "jews have no rights to the land - but everyone else does" or "israel is a failed experiment"? You mean those comments contained some nugget of value?

 

[Degreez]

Please explain to the forum why a UN general assembly vote creating israel is LESS legitimate than a British cartologist drawing on a map and creating iraq, jordan and syria. Unless of course, you are actually honest enough to directly question the legitimacy of those nations as well.

Let's see:

1. Why are completely foreign nations determining the future of the inhabitants of Palestine? That is a concept that is contradictory to the UN Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations.
2. The British administered Palestine for over two decades. It was mainly British forces that expelled Ottoman rule. I think they have more of a say than dozens of other nations whose biggest concern from voting in the General Assembly is if they will stay in America's good light.
3. Britian entered into negotiations with the Arabs during World War I. Had it not been for incessant meddling by foreign nations who happened to be on the victor's side, there would most likely have been a much larger Arab state that was more open to the West.

 

[alexa]

Congratulations for the stupidest post on this forum, and I've read alot of dumb ones here...

Maybe but I have to say I was wondering what was being talked ab out in the OP

global Christian-Jewish cooperation

Given that that was in the quote in the OP Jallman's post seems completely acceptable to me.

 

[Apocalypse]

Given that that was in the quote in the OP Jallman's post seems completely acceptable to me.

How do they relate to each other?
The OP is speaking about the relationship between the Jewish state and the US&Europe.
Jallman was simply stating his opinion that he believes Israel should have never been established and that the Jews should have never been given a state in the land they came from.
You do not sound so rational with that statement.