Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[F1jocker12]

You answer is to the wrong article...

Read UN Security Council Resolution 242 and UN Security Council Resolution 338.

Essentially, this is the situation with the occupied land:

Any questions you ask from here means you are questioning United Nations Resolutions... Are you sure that is what you wanna do?.. Because is pointless.

edit - I have a feeling you do not like homework either... I just realised is a double posting... sorry... needs to be added at the end of my previous comment... my bad.

 

[Blitz24]

And again you didn't answer the question.

 

[squadops]

@F1jocker12, what government controls/will control this land you want returned?

BTW, I first asked you on March 6th here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/11-lies-netanyahu-told-congress-on-iran.324956/#post-10516533 what in the world you were talking about, hard to believe you still refuse to answer.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Any questions you ask from here means you are questioning United Nations Resolutions... Are you sure that is what you wanna do?.. Because is pointless.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

Finally we're getting somewhere... now we know that you know that Israel aren't occupying all the lands they cover, right?

 

[F1jocker12]

@F1jocker12, what government controls/will control this land you want returned?

BTW, I first asked you on March 6th here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/11-lies-netanyahu-told-congress-on-iran.324956/#post-10516533 what in the world you were talking about, hard to believe you still refuse to answer.

You got an answer at comment #27 on that thread. Again, questioning UN authority and decisions is pointless and absurd, any answer irrelevant. Resolutions are to be followed by Israel, which is not questioning them. All this time they were using the veto trick, being covered by the US.

Israel aren't occupying all the lands they cover

I think you are a little confused or you are trying the "patronizing" card... hmmm... As long as I use the term "Israel", than any reader can understand what I am referring to. "Occupied territories" is something else, land illegally acquired after 1967 war.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

If Netanyahu would have said that, I would have said he is delusional. Do you have a seat, as your country representative, at the UN Security Council?

 

[Famine]

"Occupied territories" is something else, land illegally acquired after 1967 war.

What land, acquired from whom?

 

[squadops]

@F1jocker12, what government controls/will control this land you want returned?

I say resurrect Gamal Abdel Nasser and let him have Gaza alone as it's own state with a form of the pre 67 borders

Oh, and there is nothing wrong with questioning the UN, in fact it's a really good idea.

 

[F1jocker12]

What land, acquired from whom?

@F1jocker12, what government controls/will control this land you want returned?

I say resurrect Gamal Abdel Nasser and let him have Gaza alone as it's own state with a form of the pre 67 borders

Oh, and there is nothing wrong with questioning the UN, in fact it's a really good idea.

"Claimed by" on the chart

Palestinians meaning Palestinian Authority with Mahmoud Abbas its president, until they will agree over the 2 state solution with Israel on a side and Palestine on the other.

Good idea or not, questioning UN decisions is pointless. Theoretically you can question the sun on the sky...

 

[Blitz24]

That isn't occupied land. To call it occupied means that they are holding it from the prior owner. Unless the Palestinians are the prior owners the correct phrase would be Palestine wants the land that Jordan and Egypt had.

 

[squadops]

"Claimed by" ok, so you are not advocating a Palestinian state at all but yet you say "a two state solution" elsewhere(or maybe you just linked to someone else saying "two state").

The problem is there is no resemblance of a steady capable government of Palestinians imo.

 

[F1jocker12]

That isn't occupied land. To call it occupied means that they are holding it from the prior owner. Unless the Palestinians are the prior owners the correct phrase would be Palestine wants the land that Jordan and Egypt had.

You are chasing your tail. That land was not given to Israel thru the Nov 29th 1947 Partition plan, period. It was "temporary" occupied after the 1967 war.

The problem is there is no resemblance of a steady capable government of Palestinians imo.

The retreat doesn't have anything to do with your hypothesis. That is up to the palestinians to disappoint or succeed.
To give you an example. Abolishing the Apartheid regime in South Africa, didn't have anything to do with the fact that the country is socially and economically struggling today. It was a step to try to achieve normality.

 

[Blitz24]

You are chasing your tail. That land was not given to Israel thru the Nov 29th 1947 Partition plan, period. It was "temporary" occupied after the 1967 war.

The partition plan was REJECTED by the Arabs. As have almost EVERY one of the partition plans given as offers. The only ones that haven't been rejected were the ones which were completely unreasonable.

 

[F1jocker12]

The partition plan was REJECTED by the Arabs. As have almost EVERY one of the partition plans given as offers. The only ones that haven't been rejected were the ones which were completely unreasonable.

The plan was implemented and Israel was declared state on May 14th 1948. Fact. The origins of the actual conflict are to be found immediately after 1967 war, when Israel refused to retreat. It took a long time to leave Sinai Peninsula and Southern Lebanon... they are still occupying Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights today. Built illegal (under international law ) settlements and alienated the locals. They also transformed Gaza Strip in a concentration camp. People are dying as we are typing words, here on GTPlanet forum.

 

[squadops]

The retreat doesn't have anything to do with your hypothesis. That is up to the palestinians to disappoint or succeed.
To give you an example. Abolishing the Apartheid regime in South Africa, didn't have anything to do with the fact that the country is socially and economically struggling today. It was a step to try to achieve normality.

What does retreat have to do with anything? I didn't realize I had an hypothesis lol (you really do come off as sitting on some sort of high horse and I have no idea why). South Africa has nothing to do with it. What is normality?

Anyway, you are completely missing my point. As things stand today there is no way a two state solution is going to happen because the Palestinians are too unstable, who is going to step into peace talks with the likes of hamas? No one, they need to show something that can be taken seriously or it'll stay in this holding pattern. It was already tried with the plo, hell they even gave that dude a nobel prize

I forgot to mention, the U.S. currently gives something like $450,000,000 yearly to the Palestinians. Some of that has to be in the hopes they can figure out how to govern, we are helping them and so are others around the globe. Despite what you might think there are many sensible people in other governments who support both the state of Israel and the people of Palestine.

 

[Tornado]

That land was not given to Israel thru the Nov 29th 1947 Partition plan, period.

It wasn't given to Jordan either, yet strangely they (not Israel, and certainly not Palestine) were the first to end up with it.

The plan was implemented

No it wasn't. I know you're big on just copy pasting Wikipedia articles and acting like that is good enough for a talking point, so here's one for you:

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented.[11]

and Israel was declared state on May 14th 1948. Fact.

Surely you're not deluded enough to think that just because the UN forced the Israel state declaration into action that the Arab states accepted it.

The origins of the actual conflict are to be found immediately after 1967 war, when Israel refused to retreat.

Oh.


I think you'll find that the origins of the actual conflict are to be found on May 15th, 1948, when a coalition of Arab states who rejected the partition plan rolled tanks right into Israel, ultimately deciding that they were alright with instead completely dividing up "Palestine" between them when they couldn't beat Israel outright.

People are dying as we are typing words, here on GTPlanet forum.

I'm sure no one here would object if you'd stop.

 

[F1jocker12]

What does retreat have to do with anything?

Retreat is the basis of discussions... Is what United Nations are asking Israel to do, and what United States is not willing to cover anymore. Without the retreat you wont have peace. South Africa was an example... and as I've said, was up to the south africans to succeed or disappoint, as will be up to palestinians. Normality?.. That is my point... You can win or we can lose... Achieving freedom it doesn't necessarily means they will be flourishing in 3 or 4 years. The "psychological demons" of the conflict will be following jews and arabs together... But having peace will drastically reduce the number of the victims.

In addition to that, peace will reduce terrorism, because at this point, one of the main reasons different arab organizations are attacking and fighting the West is because of its friendship with Israel's which is oppressing civilians in the occupied territories.

 

[Famine]

"Claimed by"

And what claim do Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, "the Palestinians" and Egypt have to these territories that supercedes the claim the Israel thinks it has?

You haven't established that these lands were owned by anyone at any point at all. In fact I've pointed out to you that they weren't owned by anyone until the British established a territorial claim to them and then the newly formed state of Israel, emergent from the expired British Mandate, had the same territorial claim when created in 1948.

Whereupon it was immediately invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, who took large chunks of that land in what you'd presumably term an 'illegal occupation' (gaining territory through war) before being driven back out to the original borders of the Mandate...

 

[TenEightyOne]

South Africa was an example...

It seemed to be a poor one as a comparison to Israel. After apartheid nobody actually went or moved anywhere, the rules simply changed. Are you saying that Palestine and Israel should just run a merger?

 

[Blitz24]

Retreat is the basis of discussions... Is what United Nations are asking Israel to do, and what United States is not willing to cover anymore. Without the retreat you wont have peace. South Africa was an example... and as I've said, was up to the south africans to succeed or disappoint, as will be up to palestinians. Normality?.. That is my point... You can win or we can lose... Achieving freedom it doesn't necessarily means they will be flourishing in 3 or 4 years. The "psychological demons" of the conflict will be following jews and arabs together... But having peace will drastically reduce the number of the victims.

In addition to that, peace will reduce terrorism, because at this point, one of the main reasons different arab organizations are attacking and fighting the West is because of its friendship with Israel's which is oppressing civilians in the occupied territories.

Peace will reduce terrorism if we are assuming that everyone in the region is willing to compromise. Is there ANY proof that the Palestinians are willing to compromise or will they just take it or leave it? What happens if they go ahead and attack Israel after they get their two state solution, choosing to immediately ignore the stipulations?

 

[squadops]

Retreat is the basis of discussions... Is what United Nations are asking Israel to do, and what United States is not willing to cover anymore. Without the retreat you wont have peace. South Africa was an example... and as I've said, was up to the south africans to succeed or disappoint, as will be up to palestinians. Normality?.. That is my point... You can win or we can lose... Achieving freedom it doesn't necessarily means they will be flourishing in 3 or 4 years. The "psychological demons" of the conflict will be following jews and arabs together... But having peace will drastically reduce the number of the victims.

Not surprising, none of that is relevant to the first of my posts you responded to. That's what is so tiring trying to converse with you; someone says 1+1= and you respond with i before e. Your comparison to Africa and using the example as a reason Israel should do xyz reminds me of something @Dotini said in another thread.

A basic tenet of liberalism is that an action may be considered justified even though the action results in expected or bad consequences - if the original intention of the action was to achieve a good outcome. Only in this way can progress be achieved.

Accordingly, IS is presently justified since social progress is being achieved through the destruction of decadent kingdoms and corrupt nation states which are the real threat. Hey, the Arab Spring didn't pan out, so now we do this thing. The end justifies the means.

So as I compare to your comparison I'll stick with my notion that the Palestinians need to show something in good faith before anything will progress.

In addition to that, peace will reduce terrorism, because at this point, one of the main reasons different arab organizations are attacking and fighting the West is because of its friendship with Israel's which is oppressing civilians in the occupied territories.

The U.S. has it's fist in many mid east pies and it should be clear they aren't going to bow down to terrorism. You skipped the part where I noted the U.S. gives plenty of aid to the Palestinians?

Check this out to get an idea of all the complexities of the situation.




You can click on that pic and hidden under each face is a brief description sometimes with related links for your browsing pleasures 👍

 

[F1jocker12]

It wasn't given to Jordan either, yet strangely they (not Israel, and certainly not Palestine) were the first to end up with it.


No it wasn't. I know you're big on just copy pasting Wikipedia articles and acting like that is good enough for a talking point, so here's one for you:





Surely you're not deluded enough to think that just because the UN forced the Israel state declaration into action that the Arab states accepted it.


Oh.


I think you'll find that the origins of the actual conflict are to be found on May 15th, 1948, when a coalition of Arab states who rejected the partition plan rolled tanks right into Israel, ultimately deciding that they were alright with instead completely dividing up "Palestine" between them when they couldn't beat Israel outright.


I'm sure no one here would object if you'd stop.

You are ignoring UN decisions which expands the discussion to the Matrix... All you need to focus is what UN Security Council is trying to achieve thru multiple Resolutions. That's why it was created.

From the link you provided...
"Arab leaders 'did what they possibly could to avoid being directly involved[80]' in support for the Palestinian cause.[81]"
What brought a lot of them together is the Palestinian cause after 1967. Terrorism ( as we define it today) also ignited after 1967 with its major tragedy at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich.

So I'm saying:

People are dying as we are typing words, here on GTPlanet forum.

and you are saying you're sure no one here would object if I would stop? You just lost me by comparing constant innocent victims over insane zionism, with me stopping... Is there any relation? If you can prove that, I'll immediately stop and save human lives... Or you quietly realise what you just wrote doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

 

[Famine]

You just lost me by comparing constant innocent victims over insane zionism, with me stopping... Is there any relation? If you can prove that, I'll immediately stop and save human lives... Or you quietly realise what you just wrote doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

It's called a joke. Here it is in the more usual form:

At a U2 concert, Bono asks the audience for total quiet.

Then, in the silence, he starts to slowly clap his hands...
He claps once every few seconds, with the audience in complete silence
He leans into the microphone and says:

"Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies."

There's silence from the audience until a voice yells back:

"Well, 🤬 stop doing it then, you evil 🤬!"

 

[F1jocker12]

And what claim do Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, "the Palestinians" and Egypt have to these territories that supercedes the claim the Israel thinks it has?

You haven't established that these lands were owned by anyone at any point at all. In fact I've pointed out to you that they weren't owned by anyone until the British established a territorial claim to them and then the newly formed state of Israel, emergent from the expired British Mandate, had the same territorial claim when created in 1948.

Whereupon it was immediately invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, who took large chunks of that land in what you'd presumably term an 'illegal occupation' (gaining territory through war) before being driven back out to the original borders of the Mandate...

You can discuss over this forever, but....

Any questions you ask from here means you are questioning United Nations Resolutions... Are you sure that is what you wanna do?.. Because is pointless.

The UN Security Council " has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

Israel is not questioning the resolutions, it plays the veto trick, covered by the US.

@sqoadops - Not surprising, none of that is relevant to the first of my posts you responded to. That's what is so tiring trying to converse with you; someone says 1+1= and you respond with i before e. Your comparison to Africa and using the example as a reason Israel should do xyz reminds me of something @@Dotini said in another thread

An example is an example.. is not a reason... I was trying to explain how, if peace will be achieved, and palestinians will have Palestine, they still can fail in the future, over social and economical issues, like south africans did... Peace wont guarantee success but will be a step forward for the Middle East.

@squadops - So as I compare to your comparison I'll stick with my notion that the Palestinians need to show something in good faith before anything will progress.

At this point, considering so many resolutions ,and Bibi's lies, Israel needs to prove if its leaders want peace or not. UN is not asking palestinians to show anything... And all that matters is what UN says, corroborated with United States future position.

 

[Famine]

You can discuss over this forever, but...

Any questions you ask from here means you are questioning United Nations Resolutions... Are you sure that is what you wanna do?.. Because is pointless.

I've got no problem questioning UN Resolutions whatsoever - particularly as the United Nations didn't exist when the British Mandate expired and Israel came into existence, but also because there is no authority that should be held to be above doubt or questioning.


But I'm not asking them anything. They're not posting here. You are.

I'm asking you to say who owns the land you claim that Israel illegally occupies and what claim they have to it. You keep saying things about 1967 but you're just not recognising the fact that everything within the borders of Israel and the Palestinian Authorities was British in 1948, then Israeli and then invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. If you want to stay consistent to your claim that no country may take territory from another by force, all the land in that big shoe-shaped blob between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean is either Israel or the United Kingdom, by being the first sovereign states to make a territorial claim on them.


The reason I'm asking you is to get you to stop and think about why you have formed the opinion that you have formed. But you hold the position that Israel has stolen someone's land so fervently it has become belief and you won't even ask yourself the questions, let alone someone else...

 

[Furinkazen]

In between all this headache inducing back and forth questioning, I would like to ask a simple question. I've heard a shed load of pro-Palestine stuff from friends in past year, and whilst I am not questioning how Palestinians should not be killed in the conflict, I just want to simply know - where did it start, and where can I find information on the land that is always debated.

As I understand it, part of it started after WW2, when the Arabs in Palestine put in a request for the UN to have it recognised as their own formal state and country. This was rejected, and then the Israelis, with wealthy Jews somewhat conveniently that appeared on the side, applied a couple years later for the same land and it was accepted.

Feel free to correct me, and if so, I'd like some actual legit sources and not biased propaganda.

 

[Famine]

As I understand it, part of it started after WW2, when the Arabs in Palestine put in a request for the UN to have it recognised as their own formal state and country. This was rejected, and then the Israelis, with wealthy Jews somewhat conveniently that appeared on the side, applied a couple years later for the same land and it was accepted.

Feel free to correct me, and if so, I'd like some actual legit sources and not biased propaganda.

The essence of its genesis is actually the Brits - and a little bit the French - screwing the place over.

We basically fed the anti-Turk Arab Revolt in the Levant towards the end of WW2 - the Ottomans were allied with the Germans and though the whole thing had been festering for a number of decades, with the Ottomans doing some pretty mean spirited stuff, we convinced the Hashemites that helping us to drive the Ottomans out of the Levant would be met with the reward of an Arab State.

Turns out that we were actually lying about that and made plans to divide the region up with France, but the Balfour Declaration kinda committed us to making a Jewish homeland in the region (not nation) of Palestine that we took for ourselves. Naughty Brits. Prior to that, Jew and Arab had been living in a reasonable state of coexistence throughout much of the Levant, but we ensured in influx of Jewish settlers to the region, tipping the population from about 1 in 20 to 1 in 3 - and by breeding suspicion of Jewish motives through our own actions, we ensured anti-Jew sentiment in other areas of the Levant, leading to fewer Jews elsewhere and even more in Israel...

As usual there were protests that became riots that became murders. It kind of degenerated after that with both Arab and Jewish paramilitary attacks against each other and the British - the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy.

 

[KSaiyu]

Retreat is the basis of discussions... Is what United Nations are asking Israel to do, and what United States is not willing to cover anymore. Without the retreat you wont have peace. South Africa was an example... and as I've said, was up to the south africans to succeed or disappoint, as will be up to palestinians. Normality?.. That is my point... You can win or we can lose... Achieving freedom it doesn't necessarily means they will be flourishing in 3 or 4 years. The "psychological demons" of the conflict will be following jews and arabs together... But having peace will drastically reduce the number of the victims.

In addition to that, peace will reduce terrorism, because at this point, one of the main reasons different arab organizations are attacking and fighting the West is because of its friendship with Israel's which is oppressing civilians in the occupied territories.

You. Yes you. You remind me of someone. Probably this guy:

Covers what? Calling buildings "terrorist infrastucture", and killing over 10 times more civilians than militants? I'd love to see the reaction if this was the other way around and Palestine was bombing Israel to hell to try to get them to release the innocent prisoners the Israelis have in their jails.

My advice? Get an education and wise up. You're sounding like an idiot because you are not wise to the world but it's never too late to read a book other than wikipedia.

 

[Scaff]

My advice? Get an education and wise up. You're sounding like an idiot because you are one but it's never too late to read a book other than wikipedia.

The AUP is quite clear on this....

• You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

....argue the point, don't attack the person.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm used to joking with my tutees, I guess it doesn't translate well over t'internet. Edited.

Interesting aside, our best anatomy demonstrators (including a world famous surgeon who has co-edited parts of Gray's Anatomy) makes me realise I was probably born in the wrong decade - or envious of those who went to a selective school. How they can get away with giving students a slight smack on the hand and calling grown men and women "boy" and "girl" is a freedom I believe should be re-instated at the state school level from Year 1. As it is now my fellow younger state-educated peers, who only got into medical school by ticking a box under religion and/or race have to be told to shut up when such Professors are speaking.

 

[F1jocker12]

I've got no problem questioning UN Resolutions whatsoever - particularly as the United Nations didn't exist when the British Mandate expired and Israel came into existence, but also because there is no authority that should be held to be above doubt or questioning.


But I'm not asking them anything. They're not posting here. You are.

I'm asking you to say who owns the land you claim that Israel illegally occupies and what claim they have to it. You keep saying things about 1967 but you're just not recognising the fact that everything within the borders of Israel and the Palestinian Authorities was British in 1948, then Israeli and then invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. If you want to stay consistent to your claim that no country may take territory from another by force, all the land in that big shoe-shaped blob between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean is either Israel or the United Kingdom, by being the first sovereign states to make a territorial claim on them.


The reason I'm asking you is to get you to stop and think about why you have formed the opinion that you have formed. But you hold the position that Israel has stolen someone's land so fervently it has become belief and you won't even ask yourself the questions, let alone someone else...

Questioning UN is irrelevant. This is not about somebody rebelling against the authorities. If you will check its Charter you will see why we need to understand how following UN decisions is important for global stability. All its members agree to implement its decisions. Besides that, the courts are working with present law not previous law, so decisions can be made based on current values. I recognize and admire your efforts to historically identify "who" or/and "what" is correct, but even if you will get there (which I doubt by the way), won't change anything on the current issue. This is not an old conflict like you think... The Zionism concept is older than the fight and is fueling a part of the jewish communities everywhere. The arabs have a complicated history which kept them divided, but the palestinian issue brought most of them together...

@KSaiyu - I have a feeling you do not sleep too well.... I hope you'll get better. Edit- I see how you were trying to turn the table... "was the other way around and Palestine was bombing Israel to hell to try to get them to release the innocent prisoners the Israelis have in their jails." So what you were trying to say was that Israel ( in reality) was bombing Palestinians because Palestinians had innocent prisoners in their jails (and you were trying to make an argument by using the other way around)? Read your comment again, and again... Palestinians did not and do not have any jails... . You never changed.

@Furinkazen - You ask for unbiased sources... It is difficult to find them... The conflict with palestinians started when Israel got created, some will say. The big struggle, in my opinion, started after 1967 war. That was the moment when US realised Israel will be a huge weapons market, and they started their support as well. Some will disagree... My advice..read as many sources as you can and use logic... Good luck!