[W:#299]Is Israel dying as the middle East's only liberal democracy?

[oneworld2]

It was perfectly fine where it ended up.

The constant wars say otherwise

 

[vegas giants]

Well I am sure if the UN had settled on throwing you and yours out of your home/state so as to give it to recently arrived immigrants with an alien culture you might just see it differently.

Palestinians were offered a country


They declined

 

[oneworld2]

Everybody was fine with a Two State Solution except the Palestinians. .

No they were not. None of the Arab states agreed to it and some on the Jewish side never . The vote in the UN on it was, apparently, as shameful a display of bullying and coercion as it is possible to see.

 

[vegas giants]

No they were not. None of the Arab states agreed to it and some on the Jewish side never . The vote in the UN on it was, apparently, as shameful a display of bullying and coercion as it is possible to see.

Palestine was never a country and they were given the chance to have a country but declined


They should live with their choice

 

[oneworld2]

"Two state solution" is a complete ****ing joke.
Literally nobody on earth believes that except for the duped morons in the USA that believe it.

When I first starting into this subject over two decades ago now, I was one of those two state fools. I thought the Palestinians should have a state in the OPTs but the Israelis have changed the facts on the ground so much so now that any notion of a viable two state solution is hogwash.

The fight should be to allow the annexation and set in progress a civil rights movement to end apartheid there.

 

[Bodi]

No they were not. None of the Arab states agreed to it and some on the Jewish side never . The vote in the UN on it was, apparently, as shameful a display of bullying and coercion as it is possible to see.

Blame the Nazi's

The constant wars say otherwise

Legally and morally it was... it was unfortunate though, that racists and terrorists decided to launch an unending terror campaign for 80 years though.

Well I am sure if the UN had settled on throwing you and yours out of your home/state so as to give it to recently arrived immigrants with an alien culture you might just see it differently.

Nobody was getting thrown out of anywhere... Palestinians were free to stay... and did.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

it was unfortunate though, that racists and terrorists decided to launch an unending terror campaign for 80 years though.

In all fairness, Israels terror campaign and the Palestinian Holocaust have been dragging on, but it hasn't been quite "80 years" though. Yet.

 

[Bodi]

In all fairness, Israels terror campaign and the Palestinian Holocaust have been dragging on, but it hasn't been quite "80 years" though. Yet.

This post is dumber than most of the ones you post....

 

[Jacksprat]

It could have happened here. Still could.

When did Israel become a democracy?

 

[oneworld2]

Blame the Nazi's

Which has little/nothing to do with my response to your comment. For the record people on many sides disagreed with the two state Partition Plan. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas

Legally and morally it was... it was unfortunate though, that racists and terrorists decided to launch an unending terror campaign for 80 years though.

I disagree. What is truly moral or legal about one people, giving the land of another people, to yet another people ?

Would you count the First Nation American, resisting European settler colonialist dispossession and displacement, to be based on " racism" ? You don't think the overarching reason might be the enforced, at the point of a gun, dispossession and displacement from their land?

Nobody was getting thrown out of anywhere... Palestinians were free to stay... and did.

Well, they actually were and had been since the first European Jews started to arrive at the end of the 1800s. The Palestinian peasants had worked and lived on the land for centuries. Once Jewish people passed money to the absent ( Turkish) landlords the peasants were kicked off that land.

 

[Bodi]

Which has little/nothing to do with my response to your comment. For the record people on many sides disagreed with the two state Partition Plan. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas



I disagree. What is truly moral or legal about one people, giving the land of another people, to yet another people ?

I still don't see an argument. The Jews Were there. The Palestinians were there. England and the UN tried to create a two state solution. The Palestinians and Arabs fought and continue to fight. Israel has the right to defend itself. *shrugs*

Would you count the First Nation American, resisting European settler colonialist dispossession and displacement, to be based on " racism" ? You don't think the overarching reason might be the enforced, at the point of a gun, dispossession and displacement from their land?

Different situation. The Natives tried for peace and entered into Treaty after Treaty trying for peace.

 

[oneworld2]

I still don't see an argument. The Jews Were there. The Palestinians were there. England and the UN tried to create a two state solution. The Palestinians and Arabs fought and continue to fight. Israel has the right to defend itself. *shrugs*

Is it because you don't want to see it?

I'll ask you again and hope you can actually answer the question this time.

What is truly moral or legal about one people,( the British) giving the land of another people,( the Palestinians) to yet another people ( European Jews)?

Different situation. The Natives tried for peace and entered into Treaty after Treaty trying for peace.

We are not yet talking about who or what actions were involved in any peace agreements.

You inferred, I think, that the Palestinians were , somehow, " racist" for rejecting the reality of their own dispossession and displacement from their lands ? How is that rejection based on racism and not on a wish to avoid their own ethnic cleansing?

 

[Apocalypse]

The reference to the Irgun is probably a reference to the use of terrorism by some Jewish actors in order to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its Arab population.

If the Arabs there and in the OPTs ever decide to drop the push for their own state and take on a civil rights anti apartheid stance/protest movement themselves, the state might well cease to exist as it has.

This very dumb reason might be the reason, and it might not be the reason. I'd like to hear it from the person who formed the stupid statement without you giving it some maybe different stupid interpretation though.

 

[Bodi]

Is it because you don't want to see it?

I'll ask you again and hope you can actually answer the question this time.

What is truly moral or legal about one people,( the British) giving the land of another people,( the Palestinians) to yet another people ( European Jews)?

A bizarre question. The UN Mandate made it legal and trying to help people, at the cost of money and their own soldiers lives... made it moral.

We are not yet talking about who or what actions were involved in any peace agreements.

I am. That is what shows your analogy to be a bad one.

You inferred, I think, that the Palestinians were , somehow, " racist" for rejecting the reality of their own dispossession and displacement from their lands ? How is that rejection based on racism and not on a wish to avoid their own ethnic cleansing?

Initially it was not racist and I already pointed out that the Palestinians were not forced to leave their lands... they are a people, not a government. There was no nation but they could have stayed, and many did, in Israel. Those that left were certainly racist.

 

[multivita-man]

In a word, yes. Ironically, it comes at a time when some Gulf States are trying to be a little more accommodating to personal freedoms, as long as they don't roundly criticize the regimes.

 

[oneworld2]

A bizarre question. The UN Mandate made it legal and trying to help people, at the cost of money and their own soldiers lives... made it moral.

The UN wasn't around when Britain and France got their Mandates for conquered Ottoman lands, that was courtesy of the League of Nations. They were fig leaves for ongoing European colonialism and were sold as temporary custody until such times as the conquered peoples could govern/rule themselves. The obvious breach of that ,imo, changed the colonialist legality for everything that followed, including the UN Partition Plan.

Colonialism was and is never " moral" , it's the right of the mighty to abuse the weak. That you cast the lives of soldiers lost to its nefarious enforcement tells me you might not understand ethics and morals to any great degree.

The only reason the British and French gave up their colonialist assets in Syria/Palestine was they they didn't have the capacity in the post war period to hold on to them. Your allusions to altruistic considerations are way off the mark.

I am. That is what shows your analogy to be a bad one.

Ok, but the analogy is fine and hasn't been discussed in any detail thus far, thus I think your assumption is premature

Initially it was not racist and I already pointed out that the Palestinians were not forced to leave their lands... they are a people, not a government. There was no nation but they could have stayed, and many did, in Israel. Those that left were certainly racist.

I already showed you how they were forced off the land prior to any Partition Plan. Those that " left" didn't leave, they fled or were ousted during the war and never allowed back in. The same would apply to those that were ousted or fled during the 67 war. To class them as racist seems bizarre and can only , imo , be based on something other than their actual plight.

 

[Bodi]

The UN wasn't around when Britain and France got their Mandates for conquered Ottoman lands, that was courtesy of the League of Nations. They were fig leaves for ongoing European colonialism and were sold as temporary custody until such times as the conquered peoples could govern/rule themselves. The obvious breach of that ,imo, changed the colonialist legality for everything that followed, including the UN Partition Plan.

Colonialism was and is never " moral" , it's the right of the mighty to abuse the weak. That you cast the lives of soldiers lost to its nefarious enforcement tells me you might not understand ethics and morals to any great degree.

The only reason the British and French gave up their colonialist assets in Syria/Palestine was they they didn't have the capacity in the post war period to hold on to them. Your allusions to altruistic considerations are way off the mark.






Ok, but the analogy is fine and hasn't been discussed in any detail thus far, thus I think your assumption is premature




I already showed you how they were forced off the land prior to any Partition Plan. Those that " left" didn't leave, they fled or were ousted during the war and never allowed back in. The same would apply to those that were ousted or fled during the 67 war. To class them as racist seems bizarre and can only , imo , be based on something other than their actual plight.

I honestly don't care about this debate. I made a comment.

The Palestinians rejected a fair two state plan and have been complaining and terrorizing and killing ever since.

 

[oneworld2]

This very dumb reason might be the reason, and it might not be the reason. I'd like to hear it from the person who formed the stupid statement without you giving it some maybe different stupid interpretation though.

I wouldn't say it was a " dumb reason". I would say it is a real possibility based on the Irgun penchant for terrorist activities. Maybe the fact that Jews have and continue to commit terrorist atrocities is the real reason why you appear irked by my response to their assessment, if that's what it was.

 

[oneworld2]

I honestly don't care about this debate. I made a comment.

The Palestinians rejected a fair two state plan and have been complaining and terrorizing and killing ever since.

Maybe it's best to comment on things from a point of knowledge.

The second sentence kind of reveals where you are on this imo

Expecting turkeys to vote for Xmas doesn't show much in the way of a logical approach to the subject.

Thinking the deal was " fair " is also revealing. You think it's fair for a recently arrived people that constituted around a 1/3 of the population get over 50% of the total territory to be divided?

Both sides have been complaining and killing " ever since", why does it trouble you only wrt Palestinians?

 

[Fledermaus]

In all fairness, Israels terror campaign and the Palestinian Holocaust have been dragging on, but it hasn't been quite "80 years" though. Yet.

Palestinian Holocaust?

OMFG.

What a stupid thing to say.

 

[Apocalypse]

I wouldn't say it was a " dumb reason". I would say it is a real possibility based on the Irgun penchant for terrorist activities. Maybe the fact that Jews have and continue to commit terrorist atrocities is the real reason why you appear irked by my response to their assessment, if that's what it was.

Like I said, that's your dumb reason. I'd like to hear the reason the poster I asked to explain one would provide, not have you reasoning their views.

 

[oneworld2]

Like I said, that's your dumb reason. I'd like to hear the reason the poster I asked to explain one would provide, not have you reasoning their views.

Well you keep saying it's a " dumb reason" without ever attempting to say why and/or how ? Seems like just more hollow words from you imo.

 

[TypicalRussian]

And what denomination do antisemitic white supremacists usually associate themselves with?

Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Britain and Northern Europe is the one area of Europe that has not had a far-right majority government in the past 100 years for a very good reason

 

[Evilroddy]

Well, with Bibi's government attempts to "reform" the State of Israel's judicial system and to push aside the Israeli High Court while hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens take to the streets in protest for the last three weeks, one might conclude that he wheels are falling off that unique brand of democracy for some that is Israeli democracy. Democracy can not usually survive the election of etho-religious ultranationalism and runaway militarism.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-protests-netanyahu-courts-1.6722082

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Mithrae]

Thinking the deal was " fair " is also revealing. You think it's fair for a recently arrived people that constituted around a 1/3 of the population get over 50% of the total territory to be divided?

Hinging a moral opinion about Israel's creation on the recent arrival/numerical aspect of it kind of imputes legitimacy to the historical factors which kept those numbers low: The repeated historical expulsion of Jews, oppression and curtailment of migration. Without those factors, two thousand years of steady and sometimes mass Jewish migration to their historical and cultural homeland (often away from oppression in other regions) would almost certainly have made Palestine a Jewish majority region long before the 20th century. Holding up the long-enforced absence of that majority as a reason why it should never have been permitted to develop seems a little questionable, to my mind, regardless how bad the developments of more recent decades have been.