Politics & Stuff

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Sure, because there won't be anything called Israel anymore

There was nothing called Israel before 1948. It was just Palestine.

Of course they can't give the land back to the Palestinians, they brought in millions of Jews from around the world, and it's their home too now. They can't be thrown into the sea (although Zionism has tried to do just that with the Palestinians with some success I must say).

The only solution I see is a single fully integrated state with everyone living as equals. The root of the problem is the horrible, horrible, conditions that the Palestinians live in and the daily racist harassment, and I'm only talking about the days of peace.

As long the Palestinians are treated as inferior to the Israelis then there can be no peace.

That is an interesting point, I was hoping it can be discussed. The one state versus the two state solution. You don't think that the one state solution is eutopic? I mean such a solution, the clearly ideal in a democratic frame, is hard to achieve. It means the people in Israel have to actually approve this or vote for this because they have their international legal rights for self determination. We know that the basis for a Jewish state according to zionist is that the majority of state would be Jewish. A one state solution blows that out of proportion for them, hence they will never agree to this. Can you explain more?

[Fernando 6,585]

LOL. I am not using the Arab's point of view. I am using the west's point of view. So that arguement about "side that doesn't like Israel" is non sense.

As per Ecuador, I assume you didn't just ask your invaders to give you back your land politely.

And as far as "terrorism" is concerned, the ex foreign minister of Israel describes such behavior from Israel as "terroristic". Strong coming from an Israeli politician if you ask me.

Okay so the west point of view is in that link you send me right?

Fair enough.

This is what I read there:

However, U.S. efforts to preserve the regional balance of power were soon undermined by Fatah and other Palestinian guerilla organizations, which began attacking targets inside Israel. The Johnson administration tried to intercede with Fatahs Syrian patrons and to prevent Israeli retaliation against Jordan, from which most Palestinian raids were launched. U.S. officials worried that Israeli reprisals could undermine Jordans King Hussein, who had secretly agreed to keep Jordans strategically crucial West Bank a buffer zone. In November 1966, when the Israelis attacked the West Bank town of Samu , the Johnson administration voted for a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel, admonished Israeli officials, and authorized an emergency airlift of military equipment to Jordan.

Here I clearly read that militia from Palestinian located in Jordan attack Israel.....

Well what is that about then?

Nothing?

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Oh thanks.

So from what you've explained to me, the story goes like this. Israel and palestine have a two state agreement. Israel builds settlements on palestine soil, hamas fire rockets in anger because Israel have continually broke agreements. And now Israel feel firing rockets is an act of war (and like US did in iraq after the 9/11) israel decide to start a ground offensive to try to disarm hamas at the cost of so much casualties (like usa did in iraq)

My main problem is,

1. why is this agreement not made public to UN as proof of israel's wrong doing so that international help can be on palestine side?

2. Why is hamas the FBI for palestine? Why are the palestine govt not carrying out their decisions on their own instead of hamas??

Regarding the first point, it is public and in UN resolutions. What Israel has been doing as far as the settlements is has been condemned. The media doesn't focus on it, but it is there and ignored by Israel.

As far as the second point is concerned I am afraid the answer to too complex. But simply speaking the Palestinians don't have the means to remove Hamas. Personally I would like them removed.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Sure, because there won't be anything called Israel anymore

There was nothing called Israel before 1948. It was just Palestine.

Of course they can't give the land back to the Palestinians, they brought in millions of Jews from around the world, and it's their home too now. They can't be thrown into the sea (although Zionism has tried to do just that with the Palestinians with some success I must say).

The only solution I see is a single fully integrated state with everyone living as equals. The root of the problem is the horrible, horrible, conditions that the Palestinians live in and the daily racist harassment, and I'm only talking about the days of peace.

As long the Palestinians are treated as inferior to the Israelis then there can be no peace.

That is sad. Hard to be peace if options are limited. But I wish loss of civilian lives could be limited somehow.

From what I understand, israel will not allow palestine to be a single state. Their vote is needed for that so its a lost cause.

But imo, the reason why palestine is receiving less sympathy from the international community is because of links with hamas (which is widely viewed as a terrorist organisation) and their massive influence throughout the country.

If they disassociate themselves from hamas, israel will have no excuses to be there and the international community will have no choice but to step in and punish any infringements done by israel as a war crime.

What hamas is giving them is an excuse to come under the flag of "war against terrorists"

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That is an interesting point, I was hoping it can be discussed. The one state versus the two state solution. You don't think that the one state solution is eutopic? I mean such a solution, the clearly ideal in a democratic frame, is hard to achieve. It means the people in Israel have to actually approve this or vote for this because they have their international legal rights for self determination. We know that the basis for a Jewish state according to zionist is that the majority of state would be Jewish. A one state solution blows that out of proportion for them, hence they will never agree to this. Can you explain more?

I made a long-ass post but it got deleted by mistake I'm on my phone right now (and half asleep). I'll rewrite it later, sorry.

Oh thanks.

So from what you've explained to me, the story goes like this. Israel and palestine have a two state agreement. Israel builds settlements on palestine soil, hamas fire rockets in anger because Israel have continually broke agreements. And now Israel feel firing rockets is an act of war (and like US did in iraq after the 9/11) israel decide to start a ground offensive to try to disarm hamas at the cost of so much casualties (like usa did in iraq)

My main problem is,

1. why is this agreement not made public to UN as proof of israel's wrong doing so that international help can be on palestine side?

2. Why is hamas the FBI for palestine? Why are the palestine govt not carrying out their decisions on their own instead of hamas??

Actually the illegal settlements are just the lesser side of the issue. The main issue is the living conditions of the Palestinians. I made a post explaining it a few days back: http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/13128-politics-stuff/?p=941551

There are something like 156 UN resolutions against Israel IIRC. Israel just laughs at them.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That is sad. Hard to be peace if options are limited. But I wish loss of civilian lives could be limited somehow.

From what I understand, israel will not allow palestine to be a single state. Their vote is needed for that so its a lost cause.

But imo, the reason why palestine is receiving less sympathy from the international community is because of links with hamas (which is widely viewed as a terrorist organisation) and their massive influence throughout the country.

If they disassociate themselves from hamas, israel will have no excuses to be there and the international community will have no choice but to step in and punish any infringements done by israel as a war crime.

What hamas is giving them is an excuse to come under the flag of "war against terrorists"

Yes, Hamas is the excuse. But they are just the current excuse. Hamas is very new to the struggle. Israel have committed similar atrocities when the Palestinians had only rocks not rockets as weapons. The resistance against Israel, even in Lebanon, was initially from the secular left parties, but still no one stepped in to stop Israel. While Hamas are bad, there have been numerous excuses before them, and there will be numerous excuses after them most likely.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Okay so the west point of view is in that link you send me right?

Fair enough.

This is what I read there:

However, U.S. efforts to preserve the regional balance of power were soon undermined by Fatah and other Palestinian guerilla organizations, which began attacking targets inside Israel. The Johnson administration tried to intercede with Fatahs Syrian patrons and to prevent Israeli retaliation against Jordan, from which most Palestinian raids were launched. U.S. officials worried that Israeli reprisals could undermine Jordans King Hussein, who had secretly agreed to keep Jordans strategically crucial West Bank a buffer zone. In November 1966, when the Israelis attacked the West Bank town of Samu , the Johnson administration voted for a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel, admonished Israeli officials, and authorized an emergency airlift of military equipment to Jordan.

Here I clearly read that militia from Palestinian located in Jordan attack Israel.....

Well what is that about then?

Nothing?

It shows more and more of ignorance from your side and continuous attempts to evade points and jump from one subject to another. The link was to answer the point you made about the 1967. It was to point that Iraq was not involved and Egypt did not fire anything against Israel. It was clearly not an attempt to say that people did not resist occupation as I told you many times that people will keep trying to get their land back. It was to clearly indicate that Israel wants to invade other countries.

Now, just a proof that you are fishing and trying to take bits and pieces, here is the entire paragraph that CONDEMNS ISRAEL. But ofcourse you fail to understand that as you have demonstrated.

However, U.S. efforts to preserve the regional balance of power were soon undermined by Fatah and other Palestinian guerilla organizations, which began attacking targets inside Israel. The Johnson administration tried to intercede with Fatah’s Syrian patrons and to prevent Israeli retaliation against Jordan, from which most Palestinian raids were launched. U.S. officials worried that Israeli reprisals could undermine Jordan’s King Hussein, who had secretly agreed to keep Jordan’s strategically crucial West Bank a buffer zone. In November 1966, when the Israelis attacked the West Bank town of Samu‘ , the Johnson administration voted for a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel, admonished Israeli officials, and authorized an emergency airlift of military equipment to Jordan.

i.e. the Jordanian government was actually seeking to contain this to create a buffer (safe zone ) for Israel.

Dude, you are getting nowhere. The same " old, it is all their fault " statement seems to suit you. As I told you, fine by me. You can't manipulate much. Maybe you can now explain, why the world, even the allies of Israel, realize the right for a Palestinian state. They are their allies right? The U.S is one of them. Maybe you can also tell me which country opposes any sort of peace solution for the Palestinians might that be a one state or two state solution? Polls show that Israelis are for it. I have no clue on what basis you place your arguments.

[Fernando 6,585]

It shows more and more of ignorance from your side and continuous attempts to evade points and jump from one subject to another. The link was to answer the point you made about the 1967. It was to point that Iraq was not involved and Egypt did not fire anything against Israel. It was clearly not an attempt to say that people did not resist occupation as I told you many times that people will keep trying to get their land back. It was to clearly indicate that Israel wants to invade other countries.

Now, just a proof that you are fishing and trying to take bits and pieces, here is the entire paragraph that CONDEMNS ISRAEL. But ofcourse you fail to understand that as you have demonstrated.

However, U.S. efforts to preserve the regional balance of power were soon undermined by Fatah and other Palestinian guerilla organizations, which began attacking targets inside Israel. The Johnson administration tried to intercede with Fatahs Syrian patrons and to prevent Israeli retaliation against Jordan, from which most Palestinian raids were launched. U.S. officials worried that Israeli reprisals could undermine Jordans King Hussein, who had secretly agreed to keep Jordans strategically crucial West Bank a buffer zone. In November 1966, when the Israelis attacked the West Bank town of Samu , the Johnson administration voted for a United Nations Resolution condemning Israel, admonished Israeli officials, and authorized an emergency airlift of military equipment to Jordan.

i.e. the Jordanian government was actually seeking to contain this to create a buffer (safe zone ) for Israel.

Dude, you are getting nowhere. The same " old, it is all their fault " statement seems to suit you. As I told you, fine by me. You can't manipulate much. Maybe you can now explain, why the world, even the allies of Israel, realize the right for a Palestinian state. They are their allies right? The U.S is one of them. Maybe you can also tell me which country opposes any sort of peace solution for the Palestinians might that be a one state or two state solution? Polls show that Israelis are for it. I have no clue on what basis you place your arguments.

It condems Israel cause USA was trying to get a peace agreement.

But as the paragraph said,

it failed to address the underlying problem of Palestinian cross-border attacks.

So the whole time I see Israel waiting and Palestinians militia attacking Israel.

That doesn't sound like a nation that wants peace with Israel.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

It condems Israel cause USA was trying to get a peace agreement.

But as the paragraph said,

it failed to address the underlying problem of Palestinian cross-border attacks.

So the whole time I see Israel waiting and Palestinians militia attacking Israel.

That doesn't sound like a nation that wants peace with Israel.

Fernando buddy, you haven't answered my question. Why do the closest allies of Israel, agree on some state solution for Palestinians if they are terrorists as you say? Why are there resolutions for that?

[Fernando 6,585]

Fernando buddy, you haven't answered my question. Why do the closest allies of Israel, agree on some state solution for Palestinians if they are terrorists as you say? Why are there resolutions for that?

Because they believe that is the easiest way to resolve this mess.

But in truth is like making a pact with the devil.

It will work for 3 years or so and then it goes all to hell.

I think as you said Israel want peace more then anything, but there's a lot of hate toward them that won't go away with 4 years of a treaty.

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Because they believe that is the easiest way to resolve this mess.

But in truth is like making a pact with the devil.

It will work for 3 years or so and then it goes all to hell.

I think as you said Israel want peace more then anything, but there's a lot of hate toward them that won't go away with 4 years of a treaty.

Well Fernando, your ideology and calling others the devil doesn't really help that hate thing, assuming that it is hate. Anyways, we will see in the future how this works out. I didn't say Israel as a government wants peace as I saw nothing but claims. But what gives me hope is that many Isreali citizens are for that two state solution. You and I know well, there is a huge difference between what the people want and what governments interests are. I do hope it turns out well in the end for both nations.

[Dion 2,476]

Just because you had land taken from you, it doenst mean it was Brazil who did it.

Like I said, we are no saints and we have taken land from a few neighbors. However, think before posting shit because Brazil never came near your country!

Besides, Uruguay had land taken away from them? LOL. They werent even a country to begin with. England just created it so Brazil and Argentina would stop fighting for Rio de la Plata Basin. They were never bigger then they are today...

This. Now I realize it's England's fault we didn't have Suarez and Cavani as our strikers this year.

But I was looking for what he was talking about and it seems he's "correct". Way back in the past, in colonial times, Ecuador was much bigger than that. And their territory would go up to somewhere in Rio Amazonas, so the western part of our Amazonas state used to be spanish territory. We didn't take a lot but from looking at the map I'd say maybe about 15% or so of Amazonas state was a contested territory by Ecuador, however they signed a peace treaty about it in 1904. And if I understood it correctly, the reason why we don't share borders there anymore is because Peru and Colombia took a lot of land from them consequently making we lose territorial contact.

But now that I think about it, it's weird he mentioned us and not Colombia since what we took was very minor, everything (Peru and Colombia) considered.

[Fernando 6,585]

This.

But I was looking for what he was talking about and it seems he's "correct". Way back in the past, in colonial times, Ecuador was much bigger than that. And their territory would go up to somewhere in Rio Amazonas, so the western part of our Amazonas state used to be spanish territory. We didn't take a lot but from looking at the map I'd say maybe about 20% or so of Amazonas state was a contested territory by Ecuador, however they signed a peace treaty about it in 1904. And if I understood it correctly, the reason why we don't share borders there anymore is because Peru and Colombia took a lot of land from them consequently making we lose territorial contact.

But now that I think about it, it's weird he mentioned us and not Colombia since what we took was very minor, everything (Peru and Colombia) considered.

That's the difference between a South America nation and a middle east nation.

Countries took land from other countries.

Hostility form and eventually peace treaty signed.

And a lot has to do with our culture and religion.

We have a lot of in common.

Israel peace treaty with an Islamic nation, say Iran who at times called Israel the little Satan and USA the big Satan would be a disaster.

Especially when some of its leader have called for the anhilation of Israel.

Culture wise and their religion where they tend to have a lot of radical Islamic makes for a nightmare.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That's the difference between a South America nation and a middle east nation.

Countries took land from other countries.

Hostility form and eventually peace treaty signed.

And a lot has to do with our culture and religion.

We have a lot of in common.

Israel peace treaty with an Islamic nation, say Iran who at times called Israel the little Satan and USA the big Satan would be a disaster.

Especially when some of its leader have called for the anhilation of Israel.

Culture wise and their religion where they tend to have a lot of radical Islamic makes for a nightmare.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are simplifying and understating things so much it's like saying WW2 was a slight misunderstanding!

It's not countries taking land from each other, because first of all Israel didn't exist before the 1940s; millions of Jews from all over the world to replace the Palestinians. And second it's not just taking land, it's trying to out wipe an entire people of the map just because they aren't Jewish. You're comparing changes in borders and taking of land from an uninhabited amazon to this:

Millions of Palestinians were thrown out of their homes and country and to this day they still live in camps mostly in poverty waiting to return to their homes. Entire villages were wiped out, thousands of houses cleared of their Palestinian inhabitants to be replaced by Israelis.

The Palestinians have NO CHOICE. Someone is trying to erase them completely off the face of the earth. They either resist or they and all their future generations cease to exist. That simple.

Mere existence for the Palestinians is resistance of the Zionist plans. They don't need to have weapons to be killed by the Israelis. Look up all the methodical assassination of Palestinian poets and artists in the 70s and 80s because they were resisting with art.

And it's much more than just about the land. The Palestinians live in hell each day. I'm not talking about during wars, I'm talking about their typical everyday life. Living controlled and oppressed by the Israelis while being harassed discriminated against.

Read this and tell me what you would do in their places: http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/13128-politics-stuff/page-74#entry941551

[Fulham Broadway 17,300]

Stopped watching after the pictures commenated over as '' Lebanon in the 70s '' with Starbucks lolz. Whooops !

The youtube propaganda would have trouble as a representation of history ,but maybe successful as some crude fictional demonisation of islam as a b movie