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.

Point one is a pile of bollocks. The land might have been under British administration, but it was owned and settled by the people who friggin' lived there!

Point two is an attempt to undermine his argument.

Point three tries to conflate Palestine and ISIS, which is a neat trick but doesn't work on anyone with half a brain.

Try again later!

The longer Israel and the US can deny the Palestinians their right as a nation, the longer they can abuse them without fear of consequence, and further their own objectives in the region.

Absolutely disgusting.

Palestinian 'terrorists' shoot rockets at Israel. Sure they do. If I was in their position I would too.

If my country was being occupied and taken away, my friends and relatives forced off their land and to live of handouts inside a refugee camp, if a hostile force was committing a slow campaign of genocide, whilst the rest of the 'developed world' looked on and does nothing, you could be damn sure I would do something.

It is very obvious to the so called militants that diplomacy is clearly not working, as diplomacy is being perverted by the US and Israel.

This latest news story is simply another example of this. Israel is angry that Palestine is trying to appeal to a higher authority and break the status quo through diplomatic means. They feel the best way to 'persuade' the Palestinians that this is not a good idea, is to break more laws and further degrade the life of the people in the area.

Alternately, they could accept living in Israel as Israeli citizens, but that's unacceptable to them

Are you being serious? Really?

How about my country comes and claims your country. Takes its land. Puts it's people into camps. And then tells you that you should be disregard all of your culture, your rights and property, and accept that you are now citizens of my country. Sounds good right?

Because that is what you are suggesting.

Well there went the thread. I was looking forward to a thread where it wasn't the US's fault.

Frankly we all know its Norway's fault. Yes all of it.

All evilz of the world = USA

USA came from UK

UK came from England conquering Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Mordor that is Liverpool.

England was united and conquered by the French. (Germans bear with me now and don't immediately invade them)

However these were French Normans

French Normandy was created by the Norse

The Norse came from Norway and Sweden

Therefore its all the fault of the Norse and Swedes.

However the Swedes also created he Swedish Bikini Team so all is forgiven.

So that just leaves Norway.

Curse you Ikea!!!

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Something about how the middle east diets lack something which is found in marmite in large amounts. Said something (I forget what) leaves people irritable if they don't get it.

So, give them all lots of marmite.

Edit: Googled, it's Zinc, which we get in yeast, but in the middle east they apparently eat unleavened bread which lacks it?

Well... it's worth a shot. After how many years of bloodshed, it can't hurt to try something new, right?

 Grey Templar wrote:


An unprovoked war that was declared on them by aggressive neighbors.

That land is theirs, fair and square. If Syria wants it back, they can come and take it.

Ad Victor de spoliis

In June 1967 Israel launched an invasion of Syria and Egypt, it was a sneak attack. Jordan joined in the fighting of its own accord, but was scheduled for attack anyway.
Syria attacked to recover the Golan heights in October 1973.

The UN considers the Golan heights occupied territory.

Try learning some history, then you won't look exceptionally ignorant.

squidhills wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Something about how the middle east diets lack something which is found in marmite in large amounts. Said something (I forget what) leaves people irritable if they don't get it.

So, give them all lots of marmite.

Edit: Googled, it's Zinc, which we get in yeast, but in the middle east they apparently eat unleavened bread which lacks it?

Well... it's worth a shot. After how many years of bloodshed, it can't hurt to try something new, right?

Well, it would work if Israel didn't just seize all the Marmite that we try to send

 djones520 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Territory that they claimed in war.

Kinda like Wales...

Kind of like California, kind of like Poland, kind of like....anywhere.

Sorry no.

Wales was conquered in the 13th century, if it was conquered in 1967 England/UK would have no right to hold onto it.

Someone tell the N. Vietnamese that.

Johnson tried, but... Communism. Also North Vietnam re-unified the country. it is retrospectively valid. There isn't a noticable seperatist movement in Vietnam, its one country and one people. Just two economo-political bloks back at the time.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


An unprovoked war that was declared on them by aggressive neighbors.

That land is theirs, fair and square. If Syria wants it back, they can come and take it.

Ad Victor de spoliis

In June 1967 Israel launched an invasion of Syria and Egypt, it was a sneak attack. Jordan joined in the fighting of its own accord, but was scheduled for attack anyway.
Syria attacked to recover the Golan heights in October 1973.

The UN considers the Golan heights occupied territory.

Try learning some history, then you won't look exceptionally ignorant.

In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

1) Britain did give some land, but not all of it. Much of the land occupied today by israel was not given to them by the British. It was taken forcibly. Even then, the claim that the land was British is morally shaky. Palestine is as much British as America is.

2) http://www.nfaragallah.com/about-me/ Tell me how this is not a ghetto. People caged into a small area with poor living conditions and little to no water or food. Read how the author describes her life in the camp.

3) Britain had one of the most developed societies in the word in the 19th century, so that made colonialism, slavery and exploitation totally acceptable. Nice logic. Please don't pretend the military action in Palestine is for anything other than the expansion of Israel. The lives of normal Palestinians are irrelevant to this.

Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.

 Frazzled wrote:


In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.

Seriously, just because some land was administrated by the British Empire, it did not make the private property rights of people living on the land obsolete. Whatever about their "moral" right to the land, they had no real legal right to it. It wasn't owned by the crown or something. People owned properties, businesses and agricultural land in that region.

Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.

The argument is that its using the UN to get Palestinian concerns addressed but none of the Israelis, so your argument is, as the British say, bullocks.

Oh wait I need to say it louder

BULLOCKS!

Ah I feel better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squidhills wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.

The Isrealis were just re-unifying parts of their country broken off by the ROMans.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Because that is what you are suggesting.

1) It was not the Palestinians land to begin with. It was British land that was given to the Israelis.

2) You make it seem like the Israelis are putting the Palestinians into Concentration Camps. They're not even remotely close to that.

3) Israel is a pretty free society, certainly more than the people surrounding them, which includes such highlights of human depravity as having guidelines for how to treat your captured sex slaves.

Some serious straw clutching in the comments above.

1. It was Ottoman Turkish land, handed to the British as a mandate for eventual handover. Palestine was not formally part of the Empire.
It was NOT given to the Israelis, it was put forward for partition for a dual state solution. This would likely have worked but the chief diplomat involved Count Bernadotte was assassinated.
The UK abstained in the UN process for the development of the Palestinian territory an over the vote for the creation of the state of Israel out of neutrality.

2. Gaza is not a concentration camp, people organising concentration camps tend to police them from the inside and tend not to bomb them. Concntration camps also expand as more inmates are put in them, Palestianian land is getting smaller as it's salami sliced away.
There are other differences.
I still wouldn't call Gaza a concentration camp, but there are some comparisons to hostile ghettoization, including forced enclosure, and deliberate resource tampering.

3. A common piece of propaganda. Israel is a free society if you are Jewish, its not so free if you are Israeli Arab, and rights for Arab residents are being eroded. Jordan is a decent place to live, as are most of the gulf city states. Turkey is a democratic state with a better human rights record than Israel, but has its issues.
Israel tauts itself as the only democracy in the middle east.
Thats bs for a start, even if we exclude Cyprus. A democracy offers voting rights for all people born there, Israel denies any form of citizenship for a very large minority of people born there, and offers second class citizenship a further portion of others based on their race and religion. Apartheid South Africa was a 'democracy' too.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
1) Britain did give some land, but not all of it. Much of the land occupied today by israel was not given to them by the British. It was taken forcibly. Even then, the claim that the land was British is morally shaky. Palestine is as much British as America is.

2) http://www.nfaragallah.com/about-me/ Tell me how this is not a ghetto. People caged into a small area with poor living conditions and little to no water or food. Read how the author describes her life in the camp.

3) Britain had one of the most developed societies in the word in the 19th century, so that made colonialism, slavery and exploitation totally acceptable. Nice logic. Please don't pretend the military action in Palestine is for anything other than the expansion of Israel. The lives of normal Palestinians are irrelevant to this.

Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.

On #2
She had it made compare to the Refugee camps in/around Iraq and the ones in/around Afghanistan. It sucks overall.

 Frazzled wrote:

Frazzled: The US openly denies the Palestinians the rights to join the ICC, as well as their bids to become a recognised nation. Normally the only 2 countries to do so are the US and Israel. So please don't claim that this is some general attack on America. This is a genuine and legitimate citisism of American foreign policy.

The argument is that its using the UN to get Palestinian concerns addressed but none of the Israelis, so your argument is, as the British say, bullocks.

Oh wait I need to say it louder

BULLOCKS!

Ah I feel better.

No. The argument is that Israel and the US use their political leverage to deny Palestine access to the global community, and recognition as a state. In this way they are able to prevent the Palestinians from having a voice, and also any legal retribution over their criminal actions.

 Frazzled wrote:


In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

Vietnam was never really two countries. Following the defeat of the french it was temporarily split in half until an election could take place in 1956 to elect a unified vietnamese government. Ngo Diem took control of the south and those elections never took place.

They have a voice now and 38,572 UN resolutions against Israel. It also ignores the gazillions the US and UN give to Palestinaian agencies. After all, where do you think the PLO's gets its budget?

Saying that this is the US's fault is equivalent to saying its the UK's fault for bolloxing it up in the first place.

Here's a hint, its the fault of the guys, you know, there.

If you want to see discrimination against non Jews in Israel, look at the Christian community of Bethlehem, and how their lives have been made more and more difficult to the point where Bethlehem's Christian population has declined dramatically in the last few years and it's economy has tanked.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

Vietnam was never two official countries. Following the defeat of the french it was temporarily split into two until an election could take place in 1956 to elect a unified vietnamese government. Ngo Diem took control of the south and those elections never took place.

Israel was never two countries either, until it was conquered.

Its all a point of view.

How about Tibet? Where are the UN fact finding missions?
Where's the UN on that little joy called ISIS, on the RUssian invasion of Ossetia?

Leave the UN out of it. Its legalistic nonsense thats irrelevant as they are toothless.

 dogma wrote:
That's false. You are only under the force of the laws requiring mandatory service once you have exercised the right of return granted by the Law of Return, thereby becoming an Israeli citizen. You are not an Israeli citizen simply because you are a Jew.

I never claimed that, I simply stated that due their law, a Jew can be granted citizenship, which the United States recognizes, and once you do so, you are compelled to be conscripted.

The maintenance of a dual citizenship, including military service, which could easily be argued to go against the interests of the US.

And yet, thousands of American citizens do just that every year and the State Department has absolutely no problem with it.

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Individual has to renounce their Citizenship in front of Consulate officer and must be current on his/her taxes five years past

Most of the time. Technically you can't take an oath under the authority of a foreign government and remain a US citizen which, as I understand, is required of people who serve in the IDF.

That's about the only way to give up your citizenship as the Supreme Court and various procedural practices the State Department has adopted make it pretty hard to involuntary lose your citizenship outside of engaging in hostilities with the United States.

Like I've said, Israel is a special case because of the way the Law of Return works and because their military service is not voluntary. The United States understands that, and through USC 1841, makes it possible for Americans to do just that.

 dogma wrote:
Yes, but I also know I care more about the US than I do about Israel and that I don't like the fact that the US essentially gives a free pass US citizens who want to go fight with the IDF.

There is nothing wrong with caring about anything more than anything else and you are in no position to dictate that to anyone.

You may not like the fact American Jews can join the IDF, but that doesn't matter, it's perfectly legal under US law and it isn't going to change.

 Da Boss wrote:
If you want to see discrimination against non Jews in Israel, look at the Christian community of Bethlehem, and how their lives have been made more and more difficult to the point where Bethlehem's Christian population has declined dramatically in the last few years and it's economy has tanked.

I know right. If only Christians could get to the safety of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Oh wait.

Also how is that at all relevant to the issue?

So it was conquered, but Palestinians that try to "conquer it back" by fighting back are terrorists? How does that work? If might makes right for one side, then the other should be totally okay to use force to achieve it's goals right?

Or does it depend on which side you support?

Fraz: I'm just pointing out that this idea that everything is rosy for non-Jews in Israel is not entirely true.

 Da Boss wrote:
So it was conquered, but Palestinians that try to "conquer it back" by fighting back are terrorists? How does that work? If might makes right for one side, then the other should be totally okay to use force to achieve it's goals right?

Or does it depend on which side you support?

It means the argument is essentially irrelevant.

Again, everyone in that region has a grievance and excuse to kill each other if they want to.

Or they can act like adults and just play in separate sandboxes.

They seem to like option A a lot more than option B.

squidhills wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


In 1975 North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. I await your recital of the UN missives against this illegally occupied territory.

Technically, this was the re-unification of what had, only two decades prior, been one single country. Yeah, it was violent. No, it wasn't pretty. But overall, if the West had been able to accept that Ho Chi Minh legitimately defeated the French, and not try to call do-over, there would've been no need for the invasion.

Agreed. Ho Chi Minh made diplomatic approaches to Washington, circa 1962. Kennedy didn't see anything in it for him. The reunification could have happened peacably and with a pro-West Hanoi.

 Da Boss wrote:
Seriously, just because some land was administrated by the British Empire, it did not make the private property rights of people living on the land obsolete. Whatever about their "moral" right to the land, they had no real legal right to it. It wasn't owned by the crown or something. People owned properties, businesses and agricultural land in that region.

The British mandate also respected those land ownership claims, both Jewish and Arab.

Orlanth wrote:
Agreed. Ho Chi Minh made diplomatic approaches to Washington, circa 1962. Kennedy didn't see anything in it for him. The reunification could have happened peacably and with a pro-West Hanoi.
.

Kennedy ran on outrightwining Nixon. He wasn't going to be seen giving into Da Commies. Advisors in the region were arguing stay the out of it.

(interestingly, Kennedy would be considering a raving right winger by both of today's parties).

Wonder how it would have turned out if Egyptian armored divisions had not moved out from under air cover. Wasn't Jordan though talked into assisting in a attack that had "NO" stamped all over it to draw off Israeli forces from other fronts.

The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.

I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!

 Ketara wrote:
The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.

I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!

I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.

Edit

I will just claim the dirt on those tags ONLY

 Jihadin wrote:
Wonder how it would have turned out if Egyptian armored divisions had not moved out from under air cover. Wasn't Jordan though talked into assisting in a attack that had "NO" stamped all over it to draw off Israeli forces from other fronts.

Egypt moved out because their allies were being beaten.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.

I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!

I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.

Edit

I will just claim the dirt on those tags ONLY

It seems you have already attempted to abscond with some of the spoils. Into the arena with you!

 Ketara wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
The number of people who have a strong opinion on this subject vastly outweigh the number of people who know anything about it.

I say we build a giant wall around the Middle-East, and then deposit all people with a strong opinion one way or another in the middle. Last one standing is right, battle royale style. All are welcome, nationalities irrelevant. To the victor go the spoils!

I pass. Been there. Still have all the dirt from there still on my boot tags.

Edit

I will just claim the dirt on those tags ONLY

It seems you have already attempted to abscond with some of the spoils. Into the arena with you!

Woops just remember. I jumped in the rain puddles when I stopped taking my meds for a couple of days.....wait....I was on my meds but drank quite a bit of Devil Cut....