www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:I'm of the opinion that the entire thing is just one complete clusterfuck. Blame can be levelled at everyone in this; the Jewish settlers, the Palastinians, the various Arabs, the people who decided to put a Jewish state right in the middle of a highly anti-Jewish area, etc ,etc ,etc. Pointing the finger at one specific faction and saying "it's all their fault!" is foolish. There's more than enough blame to go around.

QFT.

In the final analysis, thi whole ongoing situation isn't about territory; it's about people killing each other because of inborn, irremediable hatred for each other. While Israel, as I mentioned above, doesn't have the same current inclination towards actual terrorism, that can probably be ascribed more to the fact that in 1947 they got what they wanted, rather than any national morality.

Teaos wrote:I believe both Brazil and Argentina offered some very feritle land for the formation of Israel.

Wrong. Herzl and some of the early Zionists mused about South America as a location for settlement, but Argentina and Brazil never offered any territory. The notion of an attempted Zionist state in Argentina (the "Andinia Plan") exists mainly as a right-wing myth used to stir up antisemitic sentiment in Argentina. As far as I know, the only other territory that was seriously offered to the Zionists was Uganda.

Mikey wrote:#1 - If you want to blame someone for the gerrymandering and arbitrary formation of the current state of Israel, talk to the Brits.

Yip they hold a fair amount of the blame. Infact I believe they were warned by their people on the ground there that this exact situtation would happen if they choose to split the middle east up the way they did.

But blaming people achives sweet fuck all so aside from being interesting trivia its pointless to bring up.

#2 - The Jews had as much historical claim to that land as the people who now call themselves Palestinians

Yip they owned it several thousand years ago. Lets use that logic to decide who gets what land in the world... I'm sure it will work out just great.

Again interesting trivia but totally irrelivant here and now.

#3 - All that aside, the current fact of the matter is that the Gaza Strip (and Sinai, BTW,) were conquered by Israel in a defensive war - a war in which the Arabs who lost that land fired first. Yet, Israel eventually still chose to give that land back. Now, the people who got that land back (even though Israel won it fair and square) are making demands against the sovereignty of undisputed Israeli territory.

Here is things get really messy.

Yeah they got the strip in a defensive war. A war in which they were attacked by pretty much everyone else in the middle east. But that was in retaliation to the (in their minds) the theft and illegal formation of the Jewish state on their lands.

Just because the rest of the world said it was okay doesnt make it ok.

It was not the unprovocked war people try to make it out to be.

#4 - Israeli forces are attacking targets beleived to house or countenance militants. Hamas is attacking apartment buildings. That's the difference between war and terrorism.

Then the Israels are really fucking shit at their jobs. They may try to hit targets were Hamas are hiding but they arent trying very hard if they manage to kill 1 civie for every 3 supposed terrorists.

#5 - Now, Hizbollah is throwing their hat in. Excuse me, what does anythign in the Gaza Strip have to do with Lebanon?

Yours point?

America is supporting Israel, WTF has this got to do with America?

#6 - If you truly felt the way you claim, Teaos, you'd GTFO of New Zealand and give it back to the Maoris.

Yeah because the two situations are exactly the same... oh wait, they're not even close.

Teaos wrote:
Then the Israels are really f***ing s**t at their jobs. They may try to hit targets were Hamas are hiding but they arent trying very hard if they manage to kill 1 civie for every 3 supposed terrorists.

Part of the problem with this is that Israeli HUMINT isn't the greatest. And of course the other problem is that none of these guys wear a uniform or carry ID that says "I am a bad guy", so some of those civvies could very well be Hamasites. They also aren't above shoving weapons caches in local homes and using the inevitable civvie deaths as a propoganda tool or hiding rockets in walled off rooms and doing the blame game.

Teaos wrote:But blaming people achives sweet f**k all so aside from being interesting trivia its pointless to bring up.

Then why did I have to respond to your point about assigning blame?

Teaos wrote:Yip they owned it several thousand years ago. Lets use that logic to decide who gets what land in the world... I'm sure it will work out just great.

Well, it's exactly the same logic by which the Palestinians make their claim, so why do you hold it acceptable for one side and not the other? In addition, it is the ignoring of historical cultural claims which led to WWI, in part to WWII, and more recently to the issues in Yugosavia/Serbia/Kosovo, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, etc. Since you want to hold those types of claim in no regard, that must mean you wholeheartedly approve of the "ethnic cleansings" in Serbia (for example.)

Teaos wrote:Yeah they got the strip in a defensive war. A war in which they were attacked by pretty much everyone else in the middle east. But that was in retaliation to the (in their minds) the theft and illegal formation of the Jewish state on their lands.

Call it what you will, but "retaliation" assumes by definition that the action is actually against the perpetrators of the perceived offense. The Allies, led by the UK, were the people who formed the state of Israel. "Retaliation" would mean that those Arab nations attacked the UK, the US, and France. No, the Yom Kippur War, The Six Days' War, etc., were perpetrated out of nothing less banal than hatred.

Teaos wrote:Just because the rest of the world said it was okay doesnt make it ok.

Absolutely true. I'm sure there is a conversation somewhere in which this statement is relevant.

Teaos wrote:It was not the unprovocked war people try to make it out to be.

Also true. This has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the first shot was fired by the Arabs, not the Israelis - and that the Israelis conquered those territories "fair and square" under the conventions of war.

Teaos wrote:Then the Israels are really f***ing s**t at their jobs. They may try to hit targets were Hamas are hiding but they arent trying very hard if they manage to kill 1 civie for every 3 supposed terrorists.

Do you mean as opposed to Hamas, who are doing the right thing in actually targetting the civilian men, women, and children that the kill? They don't kill 1 civilian per 3 soldiers - they kill 1 civilian for every 0 soldiers.

Teaos wrote:Yours point?

America is supporting Israel, WTF has this got to do with America?

WTF? When did I ever say anything about discussing America's involvement or support? I didn't assume you were talking about New Zealand's foreign policy simply because you live in New Zealand; I'd ask you to offer me the same courtesy and call me on what I said, not what you assume I mean.

Teaos wrote:Yeah because the two situations are exactly the same... oh wait, they're not even close.

You mean, because then the sacrifice would have to be personal instead of half a world away? Let's see... you said the Palestinians should have those lands because they have a historical and cultural claim to them. Hmmm, who was in New Zealand first, white men or Maoris? The same could be said of my own country (wait, Tsu already said it.)

Yip they hold a fair amount of the blame. Infact I believe they were warned by their people on the ground there that this exact situtation would happen if they choose to split the middle east up the way they did.

I'd be surprised if they didn't see this coming from a mile away.

Honestly, it seems like every time the Brits try drawing new lines on the map they just make things worse.

Rochey wrote:
I'd be surprised if they didn't see this coming from a mile away.

Honestly, it seems like every time the Brits try drawing new lines on the map they just make things worse.

Well decades down the road. Who would have thought that shoving a bunch of hostile tribes together would cause a problem....

Anyways, the UN holds a fair share of blame for this as well. They did play a part in the formation of Israel.

That ought to promise something nice in the future of Montenegro.

It's little different than the forced division of Europe after WWII. Anytime you try drawing national territories without regarding the actual cultural nations, you're in for trouble.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Anyways, the UN holds a fair share of blame for this as well. They did play a part in the formation of Israel.

The UN approved (and the Jewish leadership accepted) a partition plan that was much more generous than anything the Arabs could achieve now, in which each side would get about half of the habitable territory, and Jerusalem would be a neutral international city. The Arab Palestinian leadership, and the surrounding Arab nations, all rejected it immediately and declared war on the Jewish state.

IIRC, that was the origin of a divided Jerusalem. Maybe that's why the Arabs are so angry - they're pissed because they realize they gave up a good deal!

Mikey wrote:IIRC, that was the origin of a divided Jerusalem. Maybe that's why the Arabs are so angry - they're pissed because they realize they gave up a good deal!

*shrug* Who knows, whatever had happened they likely would have attacked Israel anyways. Insert whatever reason you want, I hear the Jew's that were living there prior to Israel where engaging in terrorist attacks against the Arabs. Maybe they were pissed about that.

Well, it's exactly the same logic by which the Palestinians make their claim, so why do you hold it acceptable for one side and not the other?

The Palestinians had held that land for hundreds, thousands of years. They did not lose the land through a war of conquest or anything like it. The rest of the world told them to fuck off and gave the land away.

So yeah it is a different issue. The issue about the formation of Israel doesnt have a good parrallel is human history cause nothing like it has ever happened.

Call it what you will, but "retaliation" assumes by definition that the action is actually against the perpetrators of the perceived offense. The Allies, led by the UK, were the people who formed the state of Israel. "Retaliation" would mean that those Arab nations attacked the UK, the US, and France. No, the Yom Kippur War, The Six Days' War, etc., were perpetrated out of nothing less banal than hatred.

Well considering that the US/UK ect ect were the ones funding/supporting/aiding Israel the attacking nations were pretty much attacking them through proxy. And I didnt see the Isreals saying no to the land when it was offered to them, in most countries recieving stolen property is just as much a crime as stealing it.

Also true. This has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the first shot was fired by the Arabs, not the Israelis - and that the Israelis conquered those territories "fair and square" under the conventions of war.

Wars dont have to start with a bullet or a bomb.

Do you mean as opposed to Hamas, who are doing the right thing in actually targetting the civilian men, women, and children that the kill? They don't kill 1 civilian per 3 soldiers - they kill 1 civilian for every 0 soldiers.

Yip two wrongs make a right... oh wait.

WTF? When did I ever say anything about discussing America's involvement or support? I didn't assume you were talking about New Zealand's foreign policy simply because you live in New Zealand; I'd ask you to offer me the same courtesy and call me on what I said, not what you assume I mean.

Sorry that was a miss type on my part, it was in responce to you bringing up Lebannon throwing their hat into the ring now. I was pointing out that that is totally irrelivant to the points being made.

You mean, because then the sacrifice would have to be personal instead of half a world away? Let's see... you said the Palestinians should have those lands because they have a historical and cultural claim to them. Hmmm, who was in New Zealand first, white men or Maoris? The same could be said of my own country (wait, Tsu already said it.)

Israel - Formed through a global decision to create a Jewish state after WWII against the wishes of the locals.

New Zealand - Settled slowly by collonists, while yes, they did have conflicts they solved them and we now have a treaty which is our nations founding document. We live together in mutual respect and peace.

So... yeah, totally fucking different. Just because you fucked over your natives didnt mean we did it to ours.

Teaos wrote:The Palestinians had held that land for hundreds, thousands of years. They did not lose the land through a war of conquest or anything like it. The rest of the world told them to f**k off and gave the land away.

Yes, "the rest of the world" - the Israelis only took what was offered to them by the sanctioning world governance organization.

Teaos wrote:So yeah it is a different issue. The issue about the formation of Israel doesnt have a good parrallel is human history cause nothing like it has ever happened.

Except for all the post-WWII nation-builiding I referenced in a previous post, and 19th-century colonial Africa, and...

Teaos wrote:the attacking nations were pretty much attacking them through proxy.

No. "Getting shot at"="attacked;" "hearing about people half a world away getting shot at"="not attacked."

Teaos wrote:And I didnt see the Isreals saying no to the land when it was offered to them, in most countries recieving stolen property is just as much a crime as stealing it.

See above about "sanctioned by global governance organization." Did it suck for the Arabs? Yep - I'm not arguing that. Is it OK to call it theft? Nope.

Teaos wrote:Wars dont have to start with a bullet or a bomb.

Philosophical hot air. The people who shoot first are the aggressors.

Teaos wrote:Yip two wrongs make a right... oh wait.

Nothing to do with the point. I was merely pointing out that you thought it was bad that Israeli soldiers incurred civvie casualties while attacking militants, but somehow you didn't think it was bad that Hamas militants specifically attacked civvie targets. At least now you admit that both are wrong, although I can't see how you'd even think they were equivalent.

Teaos wrote:Sorry that was a miss type on my part, it was in responce to you bringing up Lebannon throwing their hat into the ring now. I was pointing out that that is totally irrelivant to the points being made.

No, I was just adding that as a news update.

Teaos wrote:New Zealand - Settled slowly by collonists, while yes, they did have conflicts they solved them and we now have a treaty which is our nations founding document. We live together in mutual respect and peace.

So... yeah, totally f***ing different. Just because you f***ed over your natives didnt mean we did it to ours.

So, all the Maoris feel like they have a better deal now than before their land was taken?

Rochey wrote:Honestly, it seems like every time the Brits try drawing new lines on the map they just make things worse.

It must be freely admitted, we Brits absolutely suck balls when it comes to making new countries. By nature we far prefer to invade and conquer and just rule them ourselves, treating the locals as second class serfs there for our benefit. We're really, really good at that kind of thing, and it seems to work very well for all concerned, but when it comes to getting people to run their own countries, it all just goes to pot every time.