ISRAELIS TO THE RESCUE!! YAY!!

[Sulkdodds]

My point: How about you get your affairs in order in your OWN ****ING HOUSES before you start complaining about your neighbor's.

That's nice. This is actually a thread about Israel, though.

Deal with it.

Isn't that what we're doing?

 

[Rico]

1) My post was entire on-topic. However if you have failed to spy the meaning behind my words, perhaps you should re-read it.

2) I'm sure the UN would be glad to know that this issue is being taken care of by qualified parties. Are you going to tell them the problem is being solved, or should I? While we're at it we should phone Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East while we're at it. Might as well kill two birds with one stone!

 

[Eejit]

This thread just took a turn for the hilarious.

Guys reread Rico's post. He's too subtle for you, his underlying theme appears to have escaped your notice.

 

[Sulkdodds]

1) My post was entire on-topic. However if you have failed to spy the meaning behind my words, perhaps you should re-read it.

Your point was perfectly clear. It was just stupid.

We're talking. Nobody is pretending that will have a positive effect. And what we are talking about is Israel, not Britain or the US. Where the bad behaviour of those countries enters into the situation we have discussed it; where they are the subject of discussion, they will be discussed. But not having utterly stainless and perfectly functioning democracies does not disbar us from talking about the state of the world. That would be stupid. Being at arm's length from the conflict also doesn't stop us from having some knowledge of it, through journalism, oral history, UN studies, subjective accounts, etc. To suggest we're not allowed to talk about it unless we're involved in it is also stupid. Of course we are all involved in it in some measure. Forget Donne's "no man is an island" speech. Our tax money goes places, stupid.

2) I'm sure the UN would be glad to know that this issue is being taken care of by qualified parties. Are you going to tell them the problem is being solved, or should I? While we're at it we should phone Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East while we're at it. Might as well kill two birds with one stone!

Ah, sorry. When you said "deal with it" you didn't actually mean "this is just the way the world is", which is what it looked like you meant (ie, what you literally said). You were actually telling us to go out there and pick up a gun or a white flag or something. Please make this distinction more clear in future. It's difficult to tell what you mean when you don't actually say it.

As it happens, I'd say arguing with each other on an evidential basis is a pretty alright response to the problem of biased history.

This thread just took a turn for the hilarious.

It did, didn't it? Here I was thinking to myself "ho hum, this thread went pretty well, I mean it's quite interesting and people are making good points and stuff." But now it turns out we're not actually allowed to talk about this!

Rico, presumably, must be held to the same standards as ourselves. He too is not allowed to criticise Israel, because his own country has done bad things too (all countries have). He too confronts the epistemological problem of certainty, unable to truly know 'jack shit' about the situation without being personally involved. Even if he could speak of the matter, he too would be instantly obligated to materially 'help out', because the fact that we talk about it is evidence of our motivation to do something about it. He too is faced with the terror of history - that there is no rule, no order, no law, only contingence and force. But at least he is wise enough to know that he knows nothing, and, like Plato, endeavours to warn us of our folly.

 

[VirusType2]

Israel looks like an Arabian sword.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=scimitar&aql=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi... or similar :http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=1&q=falchion&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5g-m3&start=0


Everything should be peaceful soon.

 

[CptStern]

There sure seems to be a lot of hypocrisy coming out of the mouths of people who live in imperialist countries who have done more wrong in the world than Israel has ever done.

US: I seem to recall a certain group of native people who were displaced and massacred not that long ago.

UK: Gee, I wonder how many centuries of blood and slaughter Europe has been responsible for? It's almost like every developing nation in the world goes through a similar situation on their way to maturity. And plus, it's not like the Israelis have any reason to be hostile to Palestine or any of the other Muslim nations surrounding them... right?

And you know, Africa is a veritable paradise right now, and we all know who's responsible for that...

My point: How about you get your affairs in order in your OWN ****ING HOUSES before you start complaining about your neighbor's. None of you assholes in this thread know jack about what's going in in Palestine or Israel, because you don't live there and are not part of the conflict. If you cared so much about any of this conflict as you seem to in these boards, you'd be doing something to help them instead of squabbling on the internet amongst yourselves. The fact of the matter is that whether one of them is right or wrong, the side with the most power will win, as it has always happened in history. And you know what? The winners will be declared as righteous, because that is just how history works.

Deal with it.

woohoo I'm from canada I get to criticise EVERYBODY!!! **** you israel


also did you just invoke that old "let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" thingy did you? cuz it didnt work out for jebus as he was eventually crucified for being the king of the jews

 

[Sulkdodds]

Canada is deliberately wrecking all possible multilateral climate agreements and racing to exploit megabad tar sand resources with unregulated industrial processes which are killing the First Nations communities downriver (whose objections are consistently and illegally ignored).

 

[jverne]

I would edge towards Gerrard Winstanley's conviction that true ownership consists in the usage of land - in living there - but let's go with the conventional law of private property. Palestinians were forced off land that they owned and houses that they lived in. Laws were passed to specifically deny their right to ever reclaim their property. Or never mind the past: right now, Palestinians live and operate communities in territories where Israel continues to be the de facto occupying power, and into which violent settlements (and forced removals) have intruded since the Six Day War. These conditions have been catastrophic for the area's economy and for the welfare and liberty of its people. I'm sure you could compile evidence of Palestinian assaults on Israeli citizens as well, although it probably wouldn't constitute the same kind of systematic (and governmental) economic/social destruction.

So perhaps the question of ownership doesn't actually enter into this. There are communities living there. These communities are oppressed and disrupted by other communities. None of said communities have the right to do that to each other.

That seems surprisingly simple for what is widely and rightly acknowledged as one of the most complex political situations in the world.

Since it is so complicated, I don't know how I would deal with Israel and Palestine. I am not a diplomat. The Arab Peace Plan looks pretty alright. Asking "how would you deal" doesn't really detract from the point, i.e. nobody gets to blow up airports and/or each other just because they feel they have a 300-year or 2000-year old mandate.

You still haven't explained the smell.

So, the Palestinians should get compensation, get back their property?
You're awfully shy at suggesting any possible solution but quite aggressive in criticizing.


One possible solution would be for the Palestinians to just get over the fact that they'll probably never gonna see their property again. Make peace with Israel and try to rebuild their lives on what they got left.
If you think of it, Israel is way less brutal than if let's say someone like Stalin invaded. Sure they act now as real ****s but if the Palestinians would accept and come peacefully Israel might have mercy. Maybe arrange to pay some tribute to Israel for renting some land.
Maybe when the local Israelis would stop hating their muslim neighbors integration would take place.
Until they have some real plan to wipe Israel off the map in one day, they are really wasting their time by killing each other. Israel is the military winner this is a fact.
Of course also Israel should ease up on the politics but i don't see another way aside from Palestine surrendering to Israel for the time being.

 

[No Limit]

So, the Palestinians should get compensation, get back their property?
You're awfully shy at suggesting any possible solution but quite aggressive in criticizing.


One possible solution would be for the Palestinians to just get over the fact that they'll probably never gonna see their property again. Make peace with Israel and try to rebuild their lives on what they got left.
If you think of it, Israel is way less brutal than if let's say someone like Stalin invaded. Sure they act now as real ****s but if the Palestinians would accept and come peacefully Israel might have mercy. Maybe arrange to pay some tribute to Israel for renting some land.
Maybe when the local Israelis would stop hating their muslim neighbors integration would take place.
Until they have some real plan to wipe Israel off the map in one day, they are really wasting their time by killing each other. Israel is the military winner this is a fact.
Of course also Israel should ease up on the politics but i don't see another way aside from Palestine surrendering to Israel for the time being.

How about we start by leaving alone what Palestine already has? Instead of blocking vital food and supplies start letting all that stuff through. Then don't bomb them every other week because you were trying to show the world how big your cock is. how is that for a start?

 

[jverne]

How about we start by leaving alone what Palestine already has? Instead of blocking vital food and supplies start letting all that stuff through. Then don't bomb them every other week because you were trying to show the world how big your cock is. how is that for a start?

Yeah but considering the situation it's Palestine who has to make the first move.

Unless of course Israel is planning to systematically exterminate Palestinians despite their surrender.

 

[CptStern]

Canada is deliberately wrecking all possible multilateral climate agreements and racing to exploit megabad tar sand resources with unregulated industrial processes which are killing the First Nations communities downriver (whose objections are consistently and illegally ignored).

ya ...so? he said imperialism nothing about ****ing with the enviroment (we wont even mention killing yurt-dwelling yak herders in afghanistan and or seal-clubbing and fur trade). I STILL GET TO CRITICISE ISRAEL!!!

 

[No Limit]

Yeah but considering the situation it's Palestine who has to make the first move.

Unless of course Israel is planning to systematically exterminate Palestinians despite their surrender.

What? Why does Palestine have to make the first move? They are the ones that are under seige? What do you want them to do?

 

[Solaris]

What the hell Jverne? You think the solution is to force to the Palestinians to 'pay tribute' to Isreal? That sounds ludicrous, they'd never do it and shouldn't have to.

 

[jverne]

What? Why does Palestine have to make the first move? They are the ones that are under seige? What do you want them to do?

Because when somebody stronger is beating you up, you beg for mercy not them. Is that morally correct, probably not, but hey.

What the hell Jverne? You think the solution is to force to the Palestinians to 'pay tribute' to Isreal? That sounds ludicrous, they'd never do it and shouldn't have to.

Well then, let them kill each other again and again and again

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's a pretty odd form of imperialism where you're looting your own resources and thus killing the planet maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

So, the Palestinians should get compensation, get back their property?

One possible solution would be for the Palestinians to just get over the fact that they'll probably never gonna see their property again. Make peace with Israel and try to rebuild their lives on what they got left.

Forget the past for moment: the Gaza strip is currently, now, in the present, a tiny and overpopulated area corraled by strict security controls imposed by an occupying force which has taken every possibly opportunity and excuse to destroy infrastructure like the planned harbour (essential) and the local airport. In 2008, 80% of its population was below the poverty line. Later that year into early 2009, fighter planes recommenced air strikes (a fairly common occurence that decade), whose casualties were almost all civilians. The Red Cross claims Israel's continuing blockade has made it impossible for the country's economy to recover. The people who live here often go without running water, or power, and both their government and their occupier's government stand accused of war crimes.

What you're saying is that Palestinians should "just get over" this.

Or, alternatively, they should do nothing, and hope that Israel "might have mercy".

riiiight. Obviously, there's a vast and colourful collection of Palestinian bastards who are also sustaining the situation. You seem to think it's more likely that they would stop fighting back. But look at the casualty figures for the last big flare-up. Palestine lost between 1000 and 1400. Israel lost 13. This doesn't seem like much of an existential threat. Check out the accuracy too: in Palestine it's very difficult to get body counts because of the chaotic situation. But Israel is a functioning first world state with a decent economy and technological infrastructure. Its politics are not characterised by violent warfare between factions. Its democracy seems to work at least as well as in the UK or the US (not saying much). 80% of its population are not below the poverty line. Its people are not so materially desperate.

Practically speaking, which of these states do you think is more likely to actually be capable of backing down from a conflict? And which of these states, being the more powerful, has more of an ethical imperative to do so?

You're awfully shy at suggesting any possible solution but quite aggressive in criticizing.

So what? My failure to come up with a comprehensive peace plan doesn't really invalidate my criticisms of the current inadequate 'solution'. Of course the current solution is nothing of the kind. It's the problem.

By the way, did you ever actually find the source of that smell? You still haven't really outlined that 'contradiction' in my post back there.

 

[Bob_Marley]

What? Why does Palestine have to make the first move? They are the ones that are under seige? What do you want them to do?

Because thier elected government is an internationally recognised terrorist organisation with the stated aim of the destruction of Israel and who's first act once placed in office was to systematically eliminate all political opposition in the Palestinian teretories?

I mean if I were head of the Isreali government, I'd be hesitant about dealing with them too.

The other problem is that these days noone knows how to loose a damn war anymore. It used to be you lost, the other guys took your stuff and did some ethnic cleansing and then most things reverted to normal.

But these days, soon as it looks like you're gunna loose you call the waaaambulance... I mean uh... UN and say that those nasty people who were beating you did it totally unfairly (best to accuse them of war crimes too at this point) and that you want to enter peace negotiations, demand that the other guys stop winning, ask for a peace keeping force at everyone elses expence then start fighting again.

If the international communiuty just turned a blind eye for a few years the whole problem would solve its self.

 

[CptStern]

It's a pretty odd form of imperialism where you're looting your own resources and thus killing the planet maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

ya well you dont live next to those people who's demand for oil is ever increasingchokingkillingthreateningoursovereigntywithwarandheyhey

also it isnt anything new we've been raping our vast resources to sell to the americans pretty much from the start (which they sell back to us as finished goods and say cha-ching cuz we're stupid). we're america's Home Depot. I guess it's better than being America's Punching Bag or America's Lackey or America's Tester of Missles on Civilians-ers

 

[jverne]

It's a pretty odd form of imperialism where you're looting your own resources and thus killing the planet maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.


Forget the past for moment: the Gaza strip is currently, now, in the present, a tiny and overpopulated area corraled by strict security controls imposed by an occupying force which has taken every possibly opportunity and excuse to destroy infrastructure like the planned harbour (essential) and the local airport. In 2008, 80% of its population was below the poverty line. Later that year into early 2009, fighter planes recommenced air strikes (a fairly common occurence that decade), whose casualties were almost all civilians. The Red Cross claims Israel's continuing blockade has made it impossible for the country's economy to recover. The people who live here often go without running water, or power, and both their government and their occupier's government stand accused of war crimes.

What you're saying is that Palestinians should "just get over" this.

Or, alternatively, they should do nothing, and hope that Israel "might have mercy".

Shooting a few RPGs every now and then is a better tactic to get running water and food?

"Just get over it" well if they don't this situation will probably continue for a long time.

riiiight. Obviously, there's a vast and colourful collection of Palestinian bastards who are also sustaining the situation. You seem to think it's more likely that they would stop fighting back. But look at the casualty figures for the last big flare-up. Palestine lost between 1000 and 1400. Israel lost 13. This doesn't seem like much of an existential threat. Check out the accuracy too: in Palestine it's very difficult to get body counts because of the chaotic situation. But Israel is a functioning first world state with a decent economy and technological infrastructure. Its politics are not characterised by violent warfare between factions. Its democracy seems to work at least as well as in the UK or the US (not saying much). 80% of its population are not below the poverty line. Its people are not so materially desperate.

Practically speaking, which of these states do you think is more likely to actually be capable of backing down from a conflict? And which of these states, being the more powerful, has more of an ethical imperative to do so?

What the hell did you mean by that? That the Palestinians kill as many Israelis to get even?
Of course they are not an existential threat. The palestinians have alot more to loose than the Israelis and if they don't want to acknowledge that Israel is probably not going anywhere they're gonna worsen their situation.

Since the United nations are doing jack shit to end it. It's probably left for them to settle it.

By the way, did you ever actually find the source of that smell? You still haven't really outlined that 'contradiction' in my post back there.

Honestly now, who lived where in the past is the most ridiculous foundation to build any kind of justification on. That would warrant various native peoples rounding up European-descended Americans and forcing them out of the country. The only important political reality is that both peoples and both cultures live there now. Asserting one's right of superiority over the other is unethical and pointless, and therefore insane.

So how exactly are borders defined in civil cases? Does that imply military conquest is one of the legitimate options?
I didn't understand what exactly those three sentences implied.

 

[Kinslayer]

Terror campaigns increased, identifiable as a war between the British and the proto-Israelis, in which the British were effectively forced out of Palestine. After that, the UN stepped in to designate a partition plan, which most Jews agreed with, but most Arabs did not. Riots and conflict developed into a civil war in which the Jewish provisional government declared itself independent.

I believe you have a few things mixed up. The UN Partition Plan was drawn up before they had left so they could leave without bloodshed - it essentially designated the parts of present-day Israel which had a larger Jewish population to the Israelis, and left the rest to the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians rejected the plan (as they both thought it was unfair as well as not wanting to submit to the rule of Western nations; the plan was designed to satisfy both their promise to the Jews and their promise to Palestinians), Israel declared independence directly after British withdrawal. The British withdrew mainly because they were losing colonies everywhere and wanted to protect their main holdings, rather than direct actions by the Lehi or Irgun.

This thread just took a turn for the hilarious.

Guys reread Rico's post. He's too subtle for you, his underlying theme appears to have escaped your notice.

etc

You guys could actually TRY not to be assholes by focusing on the one phrase in his post that was erroneous.

As for relating to the OP, he was on topic. The OP calls the Jews "hypocritical", yet the OP is American. His initial point was the Native American extermination. Sounds pretty on-topic to me.

Israel has done bad things, mmkay? There's no actual debate about it. Palestine has too, particularly under Hamas. Does that warrant killing thousands in Gaza whenever a PM gets itchy over a few territories in the West Bank or a failed missile launch into south Israel? No, but that's how history tends to play itself out. Both sides act irrational but Israel is too valuable a partner for us to pull our thumbs out of their ass and draw up real peace ultimatums.

Israel can't "act rationally" by European and American standards. I don't think you realize how SMALL and indefensible Israel is - their very survivability has depended on their philosophy of "hit back first"; or, in other words, preliminary strikes, especially in the case of the 1967 war. When a modern jet can go from one border to another in about 5-10 minutes, then you have some serious defense problems. That's why Israel is so aggressive; they'd LOVE to have lasting peace with the Arab nations, but the massive Arab hate against Israel really doesn't allow it.

Jumping on the Western bandwagon and saying "o dat bad. dont do dat" is exactly what Israel is IGNORING, especially because of their massive success in the Six Day War, regardless of what America said of "We won't help you if you attack first." Guess what? They still attacked first, because of this overwhelming need to protect themselves, and it worked.

Ever wonder why Israel spends so much money per person on their military? That's why.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You guys could actually TRY not to be assholes by focusing on the one phrase in his post that was erroneous.

As for relating to the OP, he was on topic. The OP calls the Jews "hypocritical", yet the OP is American. His initial point was the Native American extermination. Sounds pretty on-topic to me.

Just to note this before I go to bed - Rico was not attacking the OP. He was attacking everyone else in the thread just for having opinions about the situation. I'm not sure whose posts you read if you think we only focused on one part of his post rather than the entire stupid attitude.

 

[Xevrex]

well, that absolutely changes everything. a scroll written thousands of years ago by some guy supposedly communicating with god decided that their people should be the rightful owners of land that was never theres to begin with. makes perfect sense. god said it was ok

Yeah, I agree, that point was stupid.

yes this is what the palestinians want: for the jews to convert to islam. source please

When they were told, "Believe in that God has sent down," They said, "We believe in what was sent down on us"; and they disbelieve in what is beyond that.

I'd imagine that the Muslims would have some wish for the collective "children of Abraham" to all unite under Islam ("Abraham in truth was now a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one of pure faith" Qu'ran 2:130-32).

like when they helped them found the state of isreal. goddam oppresors. Palenstine was a british colony before it was made into the state of israel. if anything it was the brits who "oppressed" the jews not the US. and if by oppressing you mean defending themselves from jewish zionist/nationalist fueled terrorism then you'd be correct

Indeed, they were defending themselves from extremely hostile refugees of the Kristallnacht.

really? too bad they werent the only people there. in fact they were the overwhelming majority up until 1947, the year they were given a plot of land to be shared with the non jews also living there:

WE ARE THE JEWS, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED

Huh, interesting. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[xdrive]

This doesnt change the fact that the land was the jews land years before it was palatine.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Location: Melbourne, Australia

This doesnt change the fact that the land was the jews land years before it was palatine.

...char

 

[Solaris]

This doesnt change the fact that the land was the jews land years before it was palatine.

And it was aborigines land before whietys arrived. So I presume you don't believe you have a right to live in Australia?

 

[Eejit]

This doesnt change the fact that the land was the jews land years before it was palatine.

Palatine? Oh you mean the hill in Rome overlooking the Forum?. Yes the Romans took control of Jewish lands but that was millennia ago it's hardly relevant here and now.

 

[xdrive]

And it was aborigines land before whietys arrived. So I presume you don't believe you have a right to live in Australia?

That's correct, we don't really have the right to be living here now. If the aboriginals can rise up against us and take there land back, then go them.

 

[Eejit]

Bullshitbullshitbullshit

I guess all the British descendants of the Saxons, Normans, Romans, Huguenots have no right to live in England compared to the prehistoric settlers?
Those of Norman ancestry should also leave France too btw.

I GUESS WE SHOULD ALL MOVE BACK TO WHERE OUR ANCESTORS LIVED RIGHT AFTER THE AFRICAN DIASPORA IT'S ONLY FAIR


(Good gawd, a relevant slippery slope)

 

[xdrive]

Bullshitbullshitbullshit

I guess all the British descendants of the Saxons, Normans, Romans, Huguenots have no right to live in England compared to the prehistoric settlers?
Those of Norman ancestry should also leave France too btw.

I GUESS WE SHOULD ALL MOVE BACK TO WHERE OUR ANCESTORS LIVED RIGHT AFTER THE AFRICAN DIASPORA IT'S ONLY FAIR


(Good gawd, a relevant slippery slope)

No. Do you know the definition of indigenous people? Obviously not.

Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection.

Regardless of where we all came from at the start of human evolution (Africa as many people claim)

Indigenous people are the people that have the earliest known connection to the land. I would consider the Brittish people as the indignation people of the British isles.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I would consider the Brittish people as the indignation people of the British isles.

In what I suspect is a haze of booze, xdrive comes out with a deliciously apt description!

 

[Bob_Marley]

But we're not. Its blatantly obvious we're not. The "British" are a mixed up mongrel race with Roman, German, French, Scandanavian and God knows whatelse in there, the product of repeated invasion prior to 1067. The Native Britons were here well before us Anglo-Saxons.

Or is that what you're saying? That its OK to take people's land provided you elimiate them and in doing so make your own race the ones with the "earliest known historical connection"?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

He said indignation!
Hmph.

 

[CptStern]

I'd imagine that the Muslims would have some wish for the collective "children of Abraham" to all unite under Islam ("Abraham in truth was now a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim and one of pure faith" Qu'ran 2:130-32).

this is somehow supposed to prove that the palestinians want to covert israels to islam?

"The Palestinian Christians are Christians of any denomination who have ethnic or family origins in Palestine."

I guess they want to convert jews to christislam

Indeed, they were defending themselves from extremely hostile refugees of the Kristallnacht.

did you even read the link you provided?

The ship returned to Europe docking at Antwerp, Belgium. The United Kingdom agreed to take 288 of the passengers who disembarked and traveled to the UK by other steamers. After much negotiation by Schröder, the remaining 619 passengers were allowed to disembark at Antwerp; 224 were accepted by France, 214 by Belgium, and 181 by the Netherlands.

the ship didnt come anywhere near british mandated Palestine. you're trying to negate jewish terrorism by providing an unrelated event in hopes of drawing sympathy for their cause. however both incidents are completely unrelated so your point is invalid

 

[Xevrex]

this is somehow supposed to prove that the palestinians want to covert israels to islam?

"The Palestinian Christians are Christians of any denomination who have ethnic or family origins in Palestine."

I guess they want to convert jews to christislam

My argument is under the impression that the majority of Arabs in Palestine were Islamic. I've searched for any documents, charts or graphs that could prove or disprove that, but I haven't. If you can find one, I'll accept your argument.

did you even read the link you provided?

the ship didnt come anywhere near british mandated Palestine. you're trying to negate jewish terrorism by providing an unrelated event in hopes of drawing sympathy for their cause. however both incidents are completely unrelated so your point is invalid

That wasn't the point. You argued against my assertion that the US oppressed the Jews, and proceeded to say that I would have been correct if I meant that they were defending themselves from Jewish terrorism. I provided a valid example of when the US refused the Jews the right to dock; I was providing an example of any time that the US oppressed Jews, not related to Israel or Palestine. It was in defence of my point that the US had oppressed Jews at one time; nothing was related to terrorism in any form. There was no virtual risk that they would harm the US as they were refugees from a German pogrom. Unless you can provide evidence that the Jewish refugees of the MS St Louis had malicious intent?

Also,

Legally the refugees could not be entered on tourist visas, as they had no return addresses, and the U.S. had enacted immigration quotas in 1924. Telephone records show discussion of the situation by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's cabinet, who tried to persuade Cuba to accept the refugees. Their actions, together with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, were not successful.

While they may have had to refuse them the privelege to dock on the grounds of legality, surely they could have allowed them to dock on humanitarian grounds. Of course this may be slipping into logical fallacy, but we permit refugees to seek solace in the US after disasters such as Haiti, why couldn't we have done the same then?

 

[xdrive]

In what I suspect is a haze of booze, xdrive comes out with a deliciously apt description!

I am aware i spelt, Indigenous wrong. My spell checker changes words sometimes by it's self.

 

[Shyam]

That's correct, we don't really have the right to be living here now. If the aboriginals can rise up against us and take there land back, then go them.

Except you don't really want that to happen do you ? It's not going to happen I know, bu hypothetically if the Aborigines were to rise up, I suspect you wouldn't be cheering them on.

 

[Wanted Bob]

I'm pretty sure the last time the Aboriginies rose up to fight for their land many of them were killed. Doesnt inspire confidence does it?

Even if that wouldnt happen nowadays, there is no way they could boot everyone off Australia.

 

[CptStern]

My argument is under the impression that the majority of Arabs in Palestine were Islamic. I've searched for any documents, charts or graphs that could prove or disprove that, but I haven't. If you can find one, I'll accept your argument.

the burden of proof lies with you. you're trying to weasal your way out of proving your own statements. you said Palestinians want Israelis to convert to islam. I asked you to provide evidence to back up your statement. you provide none and instead ask me to prove it for you. it's up to you to prove your point not me

That wasn't the point. You argued against my assertion that the US oppressed the Jews, and proceeded to say that I would have been correct if I meant that they were defending themselves from Jewish terrorism.

look. you said the US and the UK oppressed the jews. I countered by saying that the UK defended themselves from jewish terrorism NOT the US in this particular. palestine was controlled by the brits NOT the US. you then said they were defending themselves because they had been oppressed by the US by not being allowed to immigrate. excecpt your facts are all wrong; first of all the people you said were defending themselves by bombing the king david hotel were nowhere near isearl at the time. they settled in europe not israel. it's clear that you're simply stringing this unrelated incident to somehow justify jewish terrorism. typical of zionist bullshit where you scream "OH BUT THE HOLOCAUST!!!" every single time israel is criticised in any way shape or form.

it's clear you didnt even bother reading the link I provided about the King David Hotel bombing. it's not my fault you dont even know what it is we're discussing

I provided a valid example of when the US refused the Jews the right to dock; I was providing an example of any time that the US oppressed Jews, not related to Israel or Palestine.

did you even read the link you provided?

Some histories recount that on June 4, 1939, Captain Schroder believed he was being prevented from trying to land St. Louis on the Florida shore. Material from that time was conflicting. Legally the refugees could not be entered on tourist visas, as they had no return addresses, and the U.S. had enacted immigration quotas in 1924. Telephone records show discussion of the situation by Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, members of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's cabinet, who tried to persuade Cuba to accept the refugees. Their actions, together with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, were not successful.[4] The Coast Guard was not ordered to turn away the refugees, but the US did not make provision for their entry

US officials worked with Britain and European nations to find refuge for the travelers in Europe

this is your proof that the US was oppressing the jews which then justified the bombing the King David hotel in BRITISH controlled palestine? if anything it sounds like they were prevented from immigrating due to a technicallity and that the US went out their way to find some other safe port. your example is at best circumstantial and at worst a one-sided slanted account to fit your agenda

It was in defence of my point that the US had oppressed Jews at one time

by denying them entry and then helping them find another safe port? ZOMG THEY WERE OPPRESSED!!!! ..they're also denying a ton of haitians without toursit visas. OMG THE EVIL INHUMANE BASTARDS!!!! they should accept everyone without question!

; nothing was related to terrorism in any form.

only because you couldnt be bothered to read the link I proived. you said the british and US were oppressing the jews. I countered by saying they were exactly saints themselves at the time they were being "oppressed" by the brits. then you go off on some completely unrelated tangent about some ****ing boat that was turned away years before the bombing even happened to somehow justify the bombing of british headquarters because the US was oppressing them. it's like we're having 2 completely duifferent conversations. all of this could have been avoided had you read the link I provided. I read your link why couldnt you have done the same thing?

There was no virtual risk that they would harm the US as they were refugees from a German pogrom. Unless you can provide evidence that the Jewish refugees of the MS St Louis had malicious intent?

for all that is holy. what the **** are you talking about? the refugees were no were near israel at the time of the bombing.

Also,

While they may have had to refuse them the privelege to dock on the grounds of legality, surely they could have allowed them to dock on humanitarian grounds. Of course this may be slipping into logical fallacy, but we permit refugees to seek solace in the US after disasters such as Haiti, why couldn't we have done the same then?

you're really comparing modern day Haiti to something that happened over 50 years ago in the middle of a global war? really?

 

[Sulkdodds]

This isn't a particularly reasoned analysis, but it seems as if the Brits oppressed the arabs in the area far more than they ever oppressed the jews. Sure, they were used, but the main instrument of "oppression" would appear to be immigration caps, which were a practical measure implemented to try and quell arab riots. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[Shyam]

by denying them entry and then helping them find another safe port? ZOMG THEY WERE OPPRESSED!!!! ..they're also denying a ton of haitians without toursit visas. OMG THE EVIL INHUMANE BASTARDS!!!! they should accept everyone without question!

My god! Stern is defending the U.S. ? World as we know it is about to end.

 

[Rico]

Just to note this before I go to bed - Rico was not attacking the OP. He was attacking everyone else in the thread just for having opinions about the situation. I'm not sure whose posts you read if you think we only focused on one part of his post rather than the entire stupid attitude.

No actually, I merely pointing out how hypocritical some people were being by trying to "pin the blame" on one party or another. If the issue were as simple as saying "you are right, they are wrong" this would have been long resolved. I'm saying that people sure seem eager to make Israel into some sort of monster, and judge an entire nation based on some code of ethics that you are unwilling to apply to yourselves.

If you find this insulting, then that is not really my problem. Perhaps the reason you find it inflammatory is because I have struck a nerve.

I'm still quite unsure as to how my post was offtopic to be honest.

Have any of you guys been to Israel or the surrounding areas where the conflict is? My GF was there during the war, and believe me, the story you get in the paper is NOT all that's going on (just like with most international news, IE, Venezuela). Perhaps I'll have her sign on to these boards and tell you guys a few stories. They are very interesting to be sure, and will perhaps give a few people a new perspective on this whole thing, they certainly did for me.

She knows her stuff too. She can give her credentials later if she so desires.