Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a choice that has resulted in a lot of bloodshed, and a lot of other bad consequences for many people, Jewish and non. After the Jews often having been treated very badly by the dominant cultures in various places they lived around the world, there is a terrible and discreditable irony to how the Palestinians are treated.

The whole thing is pretty terrible and the smarter move might have been to settle elsewhere; but I don't know where else they could have really had a "homeland."

Argentina

So everybody is cool with giving the United States back to the people who can claim it as their ethnic home land?

 AustonT wrote:
Argentina

Sure, instead of giving them land that one country was willing to give them, lets take land away from another country that is completely not involved.

 d-usa wrote:
So everybody is cool with giving the United States back to the people who can claim it as their ethnic home land?

Sure. They have 10 years to arm. If they can take it they can keep it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Argentina

Sure, instead of giving them land that one country was willing to give them, lets take land away from another country that is completely not involved.

You must not know much about Zionism.

Yeah, we give land back to ethnic groups all the time. And they build fancy Casinos for us to blow our money out at, and they can sell us illegal fireworks too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Argentina

Sure, instead of giving them land that one country was willing to give them, lets take land away from another country that is completely not involved.

You must not know much about Zionism.

Ummm, what?

I was responding to the absurdity of involving Argentina. A country not part of the British Empire.

The land where Israel is now was part of the British Empire. Who then gave the land to them.

So we are willing that we used to be like Palestine? Squatting on the land, killing the ethnic native population that had a history claim to the land, murdering and targeting civilians?

Well, to be fair, most of the native population of North America died of disease. Only a small portion were killed by settlers or died of starvation caused by settlers.

Plus the Natives didn't have the concept of land ownership, so the settlers couldn't have taken the land from people with no concept of ownership(I'm not saying it was right)

Also, nobody living today bears any of the guilt or responsibility associated with what happened.


It was really big mess that was caused by overcrowding in the East. We had no choice but to expand westward. The Native resisted admirably. but it was an inevitable outcome. Some natives understood this and assimilated themselves into US society, and were better off for that.

There was a war in every sense of it. The US won, to the victor the spoils.

We have changed morally since that time, and it would be wrong today. But history has evolving morals and what happened then can't be judged on our modern morals. Just like you can't judge the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, or any other society by our morals.

Are you really in this fething thread talking about a Jewish homeland and you don't have any idea how Argentina might be involved.
Sebster was right. And I think I just swallowed my own vomit.

@d-usa I'm offering the same odds the Jews had, what all of a sudden it's not fair? If the native pop really wants to have a shot at recapturing thier homeland ala Israel I'm all for it. No one is stupid enough to give up what they have, gak though it is, for that kind of oppourtunity. And by oppourtunity I mean certain annihilation.

uggg, sorry. I'm a little hammered right now. I just remembered Argentinas involvement. I'll be more coherent tomorrow.

I'm not saying that the Native Americans should rise up and take their country back.

All I am saying is that all the reasons given to justify why Hamas are bad and why Palestine should get wiped off the face of the earth sound a lot like the history between the United States and the Native Americans.

Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?

The same day white people decided to generally hate muslims and pseudo-muslims.

I can't really say when that was, honestly, I get so many memos, I lose track of them.

Edit : I seem to remember that was around the time we got the 'blacks are allowed to play golf too' one.

That would be the Munich Olympics. Or the first Intafada when Yasser Arafat became a big thing. It's almost certainly one of the two, but I seem to think Munich was more of the eye opener for the west. Though there was also that bombing of a marine barracks back in 83.

And, on a side note, the British Empire did offer the Zionists Madagascar for their homeland, but it was rejected on the ground of there being no mention of it in the Torah.

 AustonT wrote:
Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?

In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?

In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?

There is a bit of difference here...

The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.

Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.

The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?

In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?

There is a bit of difference here...

The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.

Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.

The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.

The native tribes are not the historical equivalent of Palestine.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Really in what way. And who plays who in this play?

In the history of the settlement of the United States and the Native Americans, who is the group with an ethnic and historical claim to the land and who is the group that decided that the ethnic groups with the historical ties to the land are savages, didn't deserve to exist, killed civilians, starved them to death, etc etc etc?

There is a bit of difference here...

The Native Americans were either conquered or treaties where recognized.

Nothing like that happened for the Palistinians. What you have is other countries say "this is now your land Israelis" w/o addressing the other groups.

The name of the tribe escapes me for a moment, but there's a tribe in southwest that is technically still at war with the US and I've met the decendents. Cool people... they're fulling integrated as US citizen, so, not sure how that is reconciled.

The native tribes are not the historical equivalent of Palestine.

Okay... gotcha now

My sarcas-o-meter is broken tonight.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well the area is the historical Jewish homeland. They wouldn't accept any other location and the British Empire didn't care otherwise. At the time it had little value beyond religious significance.

And there was a large Jewish population already there anyway. Why move them elsewhere?

For Palestinians.
1. Romans stomped them out good. i.e. they recognize the 2000 years old 'recognition' that crossed out Israel as a legitimate nation for so many centuries and Iudea as a roman provice ripe for conquest by 'barbarians'. the first barbarian to successfully get a hold of it was Arabians.
2. (modern) Palestinians believed that they descent from eitehr of the two conquerors (Romans did seed many of its citizens there, and even try to convert local populace to worship the Olympians). and by rights of conquest (by the time of the conquerors it was very legitimate) 'they' deserves a nationhood and Jews deserves none. in their minds Jews should be minority race that they rule over. interestingly the earliest palestinians felt annoyed by jewish presence was Christian ones (either Catholics or Byzantinian Orthodox.), muslim joined the fray relatively late and it was originally bourne out of Anti-Imperialism rather than 'Muslims and Jews are bane to each other and will never peacefully coexists'.
3. Palestinians also believed that Jewish nation is one form of western Imperialism. historically since the days of Herod and sons. Jews were hardly allowed self rule. they existed as a 'subject' race ruled over by someone else and this Status Quo is good for them. for Palestinians, Jews who never was a master race (And its last monarch was abolished long before Muhammad of Quraish had founded Islam), is a worst choice of leaderships. (But Arabians are much more acceptable, at least some Arabian monarchs still reigns today)

Brits simply fetched what that was ancient Iudea-- or what that will become Israel, from the ailing Ottomans, providing protection against Russian Empire to the noth in exchange with the governing rights over that plot of land. Ottomans fear the Christian Reprisals (which usually harsh, in 17xx Russia annexed Crimean Khannate (Vassal to Ottomans) and babtized those muslims by various ways, by 1850 Ottomans fear that Russia will easily marches towards Constantinople and annex the city, in turn rebuilding the Byzantine Empire and will baptize any muslims 'by fire'.) needs the protections of the less religious superpower. that's why it comes to Crimean War, and that's why the rules over what's now Israel changed its hands.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... gotcha now

My sarcas-o-meter is broken tonight.

I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine, yet we side with their opponents because "that is the right thing to do".

One of the arguments I hear the most is "The Jews have always lived in Israel, that is their historical homeland, they have ties there, etc etc etc".

To me that is just a stupid argument, and not just because I am sitting on a continent full of white people who are sad that the land that used to be full of "red" people is not white enough anymore.

I also say that because I am sitting in the middle of Oklahoma. A little piece of land that used to be called Indian Territory. A little piece of land where tribes where forcefully relocated to, and with many warriors and civilians that were killed when they refused to leave the land that they had ethnic and historical ties with. A piece of land that was the end of the Trail of Tears. And when all was said and done, we decided to go simply go "feth it, that land is ours now too. Time for a good old fashioned land run. Get yourself some prime farming land people!"

So I find the excuse of "it's their historical home land, the Palestinians are donkey caves for trying to keep them out of it and/or taking it away from them. And since they attack them and kill civilians they should get carpet bombed out of the Gaza Strip" pretty fething stupid and I strongly feel that it includes a stunning amount of ignorance about the history of our own actions and the condemnation we make of people that are doing the same things we did.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine,

That is some epic trolling right there.

^ So you say that Palestinians should either bow before Jewish master and convert to Judaism or being exterminated for good?

If Israelite government intended to do so by force. Israelite tourists safety elsewhere (including in Bangkok) will subject to Muslim reprisals.

Because before the U.N. vote. Palestinians had been recognized a nationhood by other nations (Usually those who's baneful to the US and its allies). any 'Israelite offence against Palestinians' get international attention. the same token doesn't apply with Natives in the U.S. because those tribesmen are not recognized ther nationhood by any (european) empires. and it was Imperial era. concepts of smaller nations becomes part of larger emprie prevails. and any European kings simply says that those tribesmen should bow before either President of the USA or any of them if they wish to maintain its existence. The only superpowers to recognize those tribemen should be either Austria, Ottomans, or Germany. all of which were not in position to intervene and denounce the USA. (Austria had its hand tied to combined Piedmontese (Wars of Italian Unification) and Prussia (which will becomes Germany). Ottomans were at the dire state of dissolution and it was at the mercy of either France, Britain, or Russia.
Britain might be in the position to help those tribesmen (in exchange that they will become vassals to the British Empire). but economic relationships with the US comes first.

This is the logic why Palestinian pleas were heard by the UN. but the natives were silenced and either exterminated or exiled to numerous small enclaves to the west of the US.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not even being sarcastic here. In the history of the United States we have acted more like Palestine,

That is some epic trolling right there.

So Palestine is bad because they refuse to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of Israel to the area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
But we are fine for having refused to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of the native tribes to our area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?

 Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.

Actually it raises a whole slew of issues. The biggest of which would be if the Israel/Palestine issue becomes a legal war, then most of Israel's policies in places like Gaza becomes 'war crimes', as do Hamas rocket attacks on Civilians. Which one I find more offensive, I'm not entirely sure. Israel forces people into ghettos with subhuman living conditions (this seems familiar somehow) and wonders why they have problems.

Actually, I can name the one I find most offensive: Israeli soldiers shooting the red cross/red crescent ambulances. 'Oh, we heard a rumor that Hamas might use them for suicide runs, so we opened fire on every ambulance we saw.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lone Cat wrote:
the same token doesn't apply with Natives in the U.S. because those tribesmen are not recognized ther nationhood by any (european) empires.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that's not correct. Some of us even have the paper to prove that we were recognized, not only by the European powers, but also by the United States. Our problem, for some damned reason, is getting recognized by the UN.

One last post to sum up my feelings on this subject, and then I am leaving this thread:

There is only one group of victims in this conflict:

The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.

I am not defending either side in this. I can understand some of the motivations on both sides, and I can see many errors and wrongs on both sides. My issue with the usual arguments is that they absolve Israel of any wrongs, and that is what I don't agree with. But thinking that Israel is committing wrongs does not mean that I think that Hamas is right.

 d-usa wrote:
So Palestine is bad because they refuse to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of Israel to the area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?
But we are fine for having refused to acknowledge the ethnic and historical claim of the native tribes to our area, and for indiscriminately killing civilians?

No. I couldn't care less about historical claims. Palestinian leadership - and a lot of Palestinians - are bad for other reasons.

 d-usa wrote:

The civilians in the area. Both the Palestinian civilians and the Israeli civilians. They are the ones who don't know if their neighborhood will be blown up tomorrow or if they will see the end of the day. They are the groups that are trying to make a living, raise families, and stay safe and alive.

In this, we agree. Gaza right now is the worst combination of the Warsaw ghetto and Sadr City. Too bad the locals can't flee without most likely getting killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

No. I couldn't care less about historical claims. Palestinian leadership - and a lot of Palestinians - are bad for other reasons.

Ok, color me curious: what makes them bad, per se?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Ok, color me curious: what makes them bad, per se?

Generally speaking I'm not fond of anyone who utilizes terrorism.

 Seaward wrote:

Generally speaking I'm not fond of anyone who utilizes terrorism.

...


I hope you're not too fond of the US then...

Personally, I think of terrorism like any other tool of state. Use where needed, but don't abuse it or it looses it's effectiveness.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Generally speaking I'm not fond of anyone who utilizes terrorism.

...


I hope you're not too fond of the US then...

Personally, I think of terrorism like any other tool of state. Use where needed, but don't abuse it or it looses it's effectiveness.

I'm quite fond of the US.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm quite fond of the US.

Then you are only opposed to people that use terrorism against you. You're just fine with using it on other people.