Discussion: North Africa & Southwest Asia Regional Issues II

[Shemtov]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I just bought a house, before, it belonged to someone else, I suppose if they said God came to them tomorrow, and said they needed to still live there I should give it to them?

What if you stole the house?
Becuse the Arabs-the Palestinians- conquered it from the Byzantines, who inheited it from the Romns, who conquered it from the Jews, who formed an independent state out of Greek Territory, who conquered it from Persia, who conquered it from Bbylon, who conquered it from the Jews.
Sure, we conquered it from the Canaanites, but please tell uswhere to find Canaanite, so we cn give it back to him.
please pardon the bad spelling. My "a" key is on the fritz.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I think more than anything else, emotion has to be taken out of this....and law has to be applied here. I think many are forgetting International Law...

The law is broken. When one country gets a free pass to build settlements, subjugate another population with apartheid and economic blockade, supported by the United States, the law is definitely not working.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Can i just say that it cant be argued that the Jews have had a prsence in the middle east going back thousands of years. They most certainly have had a presence. That isnt based on any holy book. Its based on historical fact. Up until the Jewish-Roman Wars the Jews were a major population of the Eastern Mediterranean. After the wars the majority of the population was scattered, persecuted, and sold into slavery. The Romans and countless cultures and their historical records document the Jews presence in the middle east. Their history isnt made up and soley based on a holy book.

Jews were in the Middle East, but before the creation of Israel and the Zionist colonization, they were no where near the numbers they are today. Much of the hostility towards Jews by Arabs happened after Zionists from Europe & Eurasia planned to depopulate and colonize Palestine.

If Palestine was a 'waste land desert' as Israelis claim, they wouldn't try so hard to erase the 400+ villages, and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

The law is broken. When one country gets a free pass to build settlements, subjugate another population with apartheid and economic blockade, supported by the United States, the law is definitely not working.

There's not much else you can say. This clearly isn't about protecting human rights. It's just cronyism, and frankly we're about two steps from becoming Nazi Germany, or at least the USSR if this keeps up.

As much as I like *some of* what FDR did, he was pretty close to a Fascist. The parallels between him and his enemies are scary. He propped up America on the blood of so many people and turned war into a business. That may have been somewhat unavoidable, but between running for four terms, making friends with Stalin, and then all the really f***ed up sh** we did domestically during that period. His social policies were asinine and racist, and he pretty much introduced the idea of us handing the military blank checks. I agree with a lot of the social programs he introduced, but he distorted our relationship between Government, War and business in a way we're still recovering from.

FDR also gets credit, for some baffling reason, for getting the ball rolling on Civil Rights. That's pretty much a flat out lie. His wife was far more tolerant than he, and supposedly she was the one who pushed hard within his administration for better Civil Rights. FDR? FDR snubbed Jesse Owens and only invited white athletes to the White House. Jesse Owens is even reported as saying: "Hitler didn't snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram."

Eisenhower was the first to recognize Jesse, naming him Ambassador of Sports.

I'm never sure why historians always try to paint FDR as not racist. He was a Social Darwinist like so many back then. It was Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon who made all the major strides in Civil Rights.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Jews were in the Middle East, but before the creation of Israel and the Zionist colonization, they were no where near the numbers they are today. Much of the hostility towards Jews by Arabs happened after Zionists from Europe & Eurasia planned to depopulate and colonize Palestine.

If Palestine was a 'waste land desert' as Israelis claim, they wouldn't try so hard to erase the 400+ villages, and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

That is due to Romans raping the population up and down the region. Prior to that the Jews were a major population in the middle east. Like i said, that is historical fact. Any historian and archeologist of the region will tell you the same. The Jews were in the region until the Jewish-Roman War. That was the conflict that destroyed the population. Had it not happened the Jews would have remained a major population in the region. Yes they were small group compared to the surrounding nomads and empires but that is irrelevent. They were destroyed by the romans and had been in the region for thousands of years up until that event.

Also one thing to remember is that world wide population was much lower. Total population worldwide was less than 50 million at the time of the wars. There were no where near the number of other demographics in the region either. All population in the region has boomed over time. Not just the Jewish population. The problem is that the other populations grew naturally and over time. Where as, the Jewish population boomed in the region quickly and unnaturally due to a sudden immigration of Jews from all over the world. It has caused growing pains and shock to the region.

[Kelly]

Interesting.... : )

http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

[Shemtov]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

That is due to Romans raping the population up and down the region. Prior to that the Jews were a major population in the middle east. Like i said, that is historical fact. Any historian and archeologist of the region will tell you the same. The Jews were in the region until the Jewish-Roman War. That was the conflict that destroyed the population. Had it not happened the Jews would have remained a major population in the region. Yes they were small group compared to the surrounding nomads and empires but that is irrelevent. They were destroyed by the romans and had been in the region for thousands of years up until that event.

This is what I've been saying all along.
Basically, the Palestinians inherited the land from the real colonists and thieves: the Romans.

[Thundercrack85]

The Palestinians have as good a claim on the land as anyone else can. Humans migrated to that part of the world, gradually. No one lived there originally. There were probably other hominids living in that area before humans even started moving out of Africa.

[Shemtov]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

The Palestinians have as good a claim on the land as anyone else can. Humans migrated to that part of the world, gradually. No one lived there originally. There were probably other hominids living in that area before humans even started moving out of Africa.

The earliest nation/ethnicity that is still identifiable today to inhabit the current land possessed by Israel is the Jews.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

The earliest nation/ethnicity that is still identifiable today to inhabit the current land possessed by Israel is the Jews.

And they are there. But there should also be a place for the Palestinians.

[Bim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20550864

Palestinians win upgraded UN status by wide margin

The UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine as a non-member observer state - a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said this was the "last chance to save the two-state solution" with Israel.

Israel's UN envoy said the bid pushed the peace process "backwards", while the US said the move was "unfortunate".

The Palestinians can now take part in UN debates and potentially join bodies like the International Criminal Court.

The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining.

Hundreds of Palestinians celebrated on the streets of Ramallah, in the West Bank after the result was announced.

'Birth certificate'

"Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Mr Abbas said shortly before the vote in New York.

"The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.

But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the vote "meaningless", and said that Mr Abbas' address in New York had not been "the words of a man who wants peace".

Opponents of the bid say a Palestinian state should emerge only out of bilateral negotiations, as set out in the 1993 Oslo peace accords under which the Palestinian Authority was established.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vote "unfortunate and counter-productive", saying it put more obstacles on the path to peace.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also called for more talks, saying the resolution underscored the need to resume meaningful peace negotiations.

The UK abstained from the vote, as did Germany. The Czech Republic, Canada, the Marshall Islands and Panama were among the nations voting with the US and Israel.

In the West Bank, crowds celebrated the vote by waving flags and chanting "God is great!"

"For the first time, there will be a state called Palestine, with the recognition of the entire world," Amir Hamdan was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"Today the world will hear our voice," he added.

Symbolic milestone

The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the lands Israel captured in 1967.

While the move is seen as a symbolic milestone in Palestinian ambitions for statehood, the "Yes" vote will also have a practical diplomatic effect, says the BBC's Barbara Plett, at the UN.

The Palestinians hope that access to UN bodies will bring new rights: A successful application for membership of the ICC could be used to accuse Israel of war crimes or make other legal claims against it.

"This is a whole new ball-game now. Israel will be dealing with a member of the international community, a state called Palestine with rights," senior PLO official Hanan Ashrawi told the BBC.

"We will have access to international organisations and agencies and we will take it from there."

There had been lobbying by Israel and the US to try to delay the vote or change the text to obtain guarantees that no international legal action would be taken against Israel.

Last year, Mr Abbas asked the UN Security Council to admit the Palestinians as a member state, but that was opposed by the US.

Mr Abbas was much criticised by many Palestinians for remaining on the sidelines of the conflict earlier this month in Gaza and efforts to achieve a ceasefire with Israel.

His Fatah movement, based in the West Bank, is deeply split from the militant Hamas movement which governs Gaza.

Gaza's Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh said in a statement sent to the BBC that Hamas' "support for the UN bid is based on the 'rule of non-recognition of the occupier'... and the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland".

How did key countries vote?

Voted for: France, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Turkey, China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria
Voted against: Israel, US, Canada
Abstained: UK, Germany, Australia, Colombia

[Compi716]

I can't help but feel this is going to cause even more problems. Peace negotiations are not finished, and this won't sleek things up. Israel and Palestine are not ready, as stated by Hilary Clinton. The two state solution is a great intention, but it shouldn't be UN-forced.

Also, keep this in mind: if rockets are launched from Gaza now, it's no longer terrorism--it's a declaration of war.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Compi716

I can't help but feel this is going to cause even more problems. Peace negotiations are not finished, and this won't sleek things up. Israel and Palestine are not ready, as stated by Hilary Clinton. The two state solution is a great intention, but it shouldn't be UN-forced.

Also, keep this in mind: if rockets are launched from Gaza now, it's no longer terrorism--it's a declaration of war.

Well, if the UN doesn't force it, it's not going to ever happen. The thing is NOW, if they do fire from Gaza, it is a Declaration of war you are correct, and Israel can now official blow them off the face of the earth, take that land.....international law...it is theirs. Which is how they got a lot of it as is.....

[Schlosser85]

It's kind of pointless to argue about what ethnic group has the longest history in the land. The Israelis and Palestinians are there now, both have lived there for generations, and you can't expect either Israelis or Palestinians who were born and raised there to just "go away" somewhere else.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

What if you stole the house?
Becuse the Arabs-the Palestinians- conquered it from the Byzantines, who inheited it from the Romns, who conquered it from the Jews, who formed an independent state out of Greek Territory, who conquered it from Persia, who conquered it from Bbylon, who conquered it from the Jews.
Sure, we conquered it from the Canaanites, but please tell uswhere to find Canaanite, so we cn give it back to him.
please pardon the bad spelling. My "a" key is on the fritz.

Do you support giving back Manhattan to the Native American tribes currently attempting to sue to get their property back? Their claim to the land is far more recent and has changed hands far less times.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Do you support giving back Manhattan to the Native American tribes currently attempting to sue to get their property back? Their claim to the land is far more recent and has changed hands far less times.

Hey, Manhattan was bought twice, once by a neighboring tribe, and then bought from the actual tribe that lived there....we can't help now that it was a bad deal.

[Smashlilman]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Do you support giving back Manhattan to the Native American tribes currently attempting to sue to get their property back? Their claim to the land is far more recent and has changed hands far less times.

NO we shouldn't give back Manhattan to Native Americans. American eventually did right by the Native Americans and gave them citizien ship. Native Americans now have the right as American Citiziens to buy Land in Manhattan and move there if they please. That's a right that a majority of Palestinians don't have at the moment. Isreal is an apartheid state that doesn't want the people on the land.

[Thundercrack85]

Not to be annoying but the Dutch purchased Manhattan from the locals. The English then took it from the Dutch by force. So, arguably the rightful owners of Manhattan are the Dutch who purchased it fair and square from the original inhabitants.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Smashlilman

NO we shouldn't give back Manhattan to Native Americans. American eventually did right by the Native Americans and gave them citizien ship. Native Americans now have the right as American Citiziens to buy Land in Manhattan and move there if they please. That's a right that a majority of Palestinians don't have at the moment. Isreal is an apartheid state that doesn't want the people on the land.

Yes, because citizenship is a fair trade for genocide, destruction of a way of life, and the destruction of multiple cultures. Even today, the native american situation in this country isnt all candy canes and lollipops.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Not to be annoying but the Dutch purchased Manhattan from the locals. The English then took it from the Dutch by force. So, arguably the rightful owners of Manhattan are the Dutch who purchased it fair and square from the original inhabitants.

Actually they purchased it 2x.....

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Compi716

I can't help but feel this is going to cause even more problems. Peace negotiations are not finished, and this won't sleek things up. Israel and Palestine are not ready, as stated by Hilary Clinton. The two state solution is a great intention, but it shouldn't be UN-forced.

Also, keep this in mind: if rockets are launched from Gaza now, it's no longer terrorism--it's a declaration of war.

Israel, which has the most bargaining power in a settlement, hasn't been an honest partner for peace. This nominal step in the UN proves that the rest of the world agrees.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Hebron before the announcement




Palestinians and Orthodox Jews in Ramallah came out to support Mahmud Abbas



Israelis in Tel Aviv coming out in of support the Palestinian U.N. bid

--

Israel's response has been the same...build build build. They just approved another expansion into East Jerusalem for 3,000 new homes for Jews only. They also plan to build more Judea and Samaria. Israel also announced that it would begin planning thousands of new units in E-1, the area that connects Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim. You might recall that the Americans asked the Israelis to not build there.

Yup...

[Hobgoblin]

I have to say, the Orthodox Jews position on Israel and Palestine absolutely fascinates me. I would have thought that the most devout of the Jewish people would be the most vocal supporters of Israel are often some of the most condemning.

I'm generalizing when I say that but still...

[Compi716]

Originally Posted by Hobgoblin

I have to say, the Orthodox Jews position on Israel and Palestine absolutely fascinates me. I would have thought that the most devout of the Jewish people would be the most vocal supporters of Israel are often some of the most condemning.

I'm generalizing when I say that but still...

There's a small sect of Orthodox Judaism that doesn't support Israel at all. They think that Israel should only exist if it's ruled under total Jewish law with a Jewish king.

[Hobgoblin]

Originally Posted by Compi716

There's a small sect of Orthodox Judaism that doesn't support Israel at all. They think that Israel should only exist if it's ruled under total Jewish law with a Jewish king.

I did a project in school two years ago regarding how to interact with minority groups in a library and my group studied Orthodox Jews, as suggested by a woman in the group who was herself Orthodox. Doing my research, I found this video. It fascinated me then and it still does.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!: