PALESTINIAN GENOCIDE - ISRAELI-TERRORISM AWARENESS THREAD

[paliplaya2010]

They have no right to that land.  The land was owned by Britain, not Palestine or Palestinians. 

ok, im done here. theres no way to reason with you. colonizers owned the americas, not the indians so therefore their massacre was completely justified. that is the analogy youre using. theres literally no way you truly believe that people living on a land have no right to that land. if so, you are evil and im not going to waste my time trying to reason with u

 

[rhythm808]

ok, im done here. theres no way to reason with you. colonizers owned the americas, not the indians so therefore their massacre was completely justified. that is the analogy youre using. theres literally no way you truly believe that people living on a land have no right to that land. if so, you are evil and im not going to waste my time trying to reason with u

No there was no massacre.  Britain gave the land to Israel and you don't like it.  That is your problem but it doesn't give you a right to the land.

Palestine owned nothing.  If you don't own something, it can't be stolen from you.

Britain gave land that they owned to Israel.  

 

[paliplaya2010]

Well I'm just asking you if you know better than the UN because it seemed like you were mocking me for having a position that isn't within the standards of their consensus. 


And don't forget, you are arguing about a piece of land that the Palenstinians have no ownership over.  If anything, the Palestinians are the occupiers.

none of this makes sense if you would like to clarify it. no where did i say that the UN was wrong... you were the one that said that. i am not denying that hamas hid weapons in a vacant school. so what are u saying?

and palestinians definitely owned that land. your ignorant if u cant see that.

 

[rhythm808]

none of this makes sense if you would like to clarify it. no where did i say that the UN was wrong... you were the one that said that. i am not denying that hamas hid weapons in a vacant school. so what are u saying?

and palestinians definitely owned that land. your ignorant if u cant see that.

I was just asking.

Britain owned the land.  Palestine didn't.  It's simple.   

 

[whywesteppin]

private individuals own the land they live on. that's a different concept from who's in charge of government.

let's try to be more precise when making arguments. if I didn't know better I'd think some of you are being disingenuous in the way you construct your arguments... but I know you're all experts on property rights and eminent domain and international law. that's why the debates in this thread are so well-articulated and fascinating and balanced too.

 

[me love nutella]

This article makes the point well - things have changed. Even if you believe Israeli actions in the past were immoral, things have changed. Where once bombing the house of a Hamas commander was controversial, now it is uncontroversial to bomb houses simply because they contain Palestinians, with some token and unreliable warning.

The debate in Israel has shifted dramatically, and not in a good way from the point of view of someone hoping for peace.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...itary-most-moral-no-more-outrage-indifference

 

[me love nutella]

No there was no massacre.  Britain gave the land to Israel and you don't like it.  That is your problem but it doesn't give you a right to the land.


Palestine owned nothing.  If you don't own something, it can't be stolen from you.


Britain gave land that they owned to Israel.  

Are you seriously that dense and dumb? Then why is called an occupation?

Britain colonized half the world before giving those countries their independence, so I guess these current nations never owned that land because they were colonized by Britain.

 

[rhythm808]

private individuals own the land they live on. that's a different concept from who's in charge of government.

let's try to be more precise when making arguments. if I didn't know better I'd think some of you are being disingenuous in the way you construct your arguments... but I know you're all experts on property rights and eminent domain and international law. that's why the debates in this thread are so well-articulated and fascinating and balanced too.

Now-a-days yes. Back then it wasn't that simple.  In the Ottoman Empire "the bare ownership of the land belongs to the state" (www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/76d3af00-aa76-4f3b-b156-d0cf55592a98.doc)

When Britain took over the land that was formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire, it inherited land that was owned by the state and not by the people.  
By transferring the land to Israel, they also transferred the rights and ownership to the land.

 

[jab step]

 
I was just asking.

Britain owned the land.  Palestine didn't.  It's simple.   

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. A major reason for this problem is the fact that Israel isn't abiding by the UN drawn up guidelines. They have taken over places that should have been under Palestine. 

Sure Britain owned it, gave it up to the UN to draw up a solution. They did, but Israel hasn't followed through. You keep brushing that off. 

 

[rhythm808]

Are you seriously that dense and dumb? Then why is called an occupation?

Britain colonized half the world before giving those countries their independence, so I guess these current nations never owned that land because they were colonized by Britain.

They gave the land to Israel and not to Palestine.  It was their land that they owned to do with as they pleased.  

 

[me love nutella]

They gave the land to Israel and not to Palestine.  It was their land that they owned to do with as they pleased.  

No Britain gave delegation to the U.N to partition the plan to divide under a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.

Over the course of history, the British screwed up because they promised the Jews a homeland in that region while they did not consult the indogenous Arab Palestinians of that specific region. The Arabs helped the British defeat the Ottoman empire and promised all the Arab states independence, including Palestinians.

So the British were like uh shoot we messed up and gave it to the U.N . To divide it. REMEMBER, the Arabs were never consulted during this process. So they give Jews the fertile lands and more land went to them. The Arabs rejected this proposal and thought it was completely unfair and were never consulted in this process. The rest is history.

 

[rhythm808]

 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. A major reason for this problem is the fact that Israel isn't abiding by the UN drawn up guidelines. They have taken over places that should have been under Palestine. 

Sure Britain owned it, gave it up to the UN to draw up a solution. They did, but Israel hasn't followed through. You keep brushing that off. 

The Arab countries boycotted meetings leading up to the formation of Israel as per UN outlines before the country was even formed.  They were against it as a whole even though they didn't have any ownership of the land. 

They also started a war immediately after the formation of Israel. 

 

[rhythm808]

No Britain gave delegation to the U.N to partition the plan to divide under a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.

Over the course of history, the British screwed up because they promised the Jews a homeland in that region while they did not consult the indogenous Arab Palestinians of that specific region. The Arabs helped the British defeat the Ottoman empire and promised all the Arab states independence, including Palestinians.

So the British were like uh shoot we messed up and gave it to the U.N . To divide it. REMEMBER, the Arabs were never consulted during this process. So they give Jews the fertile lands and more land went to them. The Arabs rejected this proposal and thought it was completely unfair and were never consulted in this process. The rest is history.

The Jewish people are indigenous too and they didn't have to consult the Palestinians because the Palestinians didn't own any of the land.

Also, the UN outlined guidelines of the Partition but leading up to the end of British Mandate the UN made it clear they had no intentions of carrying out the partition plan and Britain stated the same thing. 

Edit: Also, they requested the Arabs come to meet and consult but the Arab countries decided to boycott. 

 

[useref15]

This discussion isn't going anywhere...

 

[useref15]

3rd time now.....

U.N. says more rockets found at one of its Gaza schools

GAZA (Reuters) - The United Nations agency that looks after Palestinian refugees said on Tuesday it had found a cache of rockets at one of its schools in the Gaza Strip and deplored those who had put them there.

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) spokesman Chris Gunness condemned those responsible for placing civilians in harm's way by storing the rockets at the school but he did not specifically blame any particular party.

"We condemn the group or groups who endangered civilians by placing these munitions in our school. This is yet another flagrant violation of the neutrality of our premises. We call on all the warring parties to respect the inviolability of U.N. property," Gunness said in a statement.

Israel has targeted a few UNRWA sites during fighting in the current 22-day-old campaign against Islamist militants in the Gaza Strip, and has in the past said the agency's property was used for hostile purposes.

Over 1,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians and 53 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the fighting as Israel attempts to neutralize the threat of militant attacks and rocket fire on its territory.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week expressed alarm at the discovery of 20 rockets at a vacant UNRWA school and at another school a week before that.

Gunness said the body had called in a U.N munitions expert to dispose of the rockets and make the school premises safe, and added that he could not get to the site due to fighting in the area.

(Reporting by Nidal al-Mughrabi, Writing by Ori Lewis; Editing by Bernard Orr)

http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-says-more-rockets-found-one-gaza-235032705.html

 

[whywesteppin]

When Britain took over the land that was formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire, it inherited land that was owned by the state and not by the people.  

By transferring the land to Israel, they also transferred the rights and ownership to the land.

Land was bought and sold by individuals living under the Ottoman empire. The concept of property rights is different from government rule. My problem is with this statement:

And don't forget, you are arguing about a piece of land that the Palenstinians have no ownership over. If anything, the Palestinians are the occupiers.

It makes it sound like Palestinian individuals do not have ownership of their own homes. I realize the British/UN Mandates gave a special designation to the territory, but my understanding was that this designation limited self-governance (unlike what was granted to most other Arab countries), not individual rights. However, I could be wrong. Did the League of Nations Mandate grant Israel also the right to take private property?

Anyway, I agree that Israel was given the legal right to rule, but the other question is if this holds up with more modern concepts of self-governance and so on.

 

[duba169]

UN quick to slander Israel st every opportunity but takes the cowardly position of not condemning the group who placed rockets in another one of their schools.

Maybe the UN should look into the UN for war crimes. Who is running these schools? Why is this allowed numerous times? I'm sure this is just propaganda too?

 

[rhythm808]

Land was bought and sold by individuals living under the Ottoman empire. The concept of property rights is different from government rule. My problem is with this statement:
It makes it sound like Palestinian individuals do not have ownership of their own homes. I realize the British/UN Mandates gave a special designation to the territory, but my understanding was that this designation limited self-governance (unlike what was granted to most other Arab countries), not individual rights. However, I could be wrong. Did the League of Nations Mandate grant Israel also the right to take private property?

Anyway, I agree that Israel was given the legal right to rule, but the other question is if this holds up with more modern concepts of self-governance and so on.

I looked it up before I posted and property in the Ottoman Empire was owned by the state and not individuals.  None of the property was owned by Palestinians.  When Britain took over the land from the Ottoman Empire it was 100% government owned land that was transferred...remember, there is also government owned land in the United States.  It just happens that because of the way the Ottoman Empire operated, it was 100% government land.

 

[paliplaya2010]

I looked it up before I posted and property in the Ottoman Empire was owned by the state and not individuals.  None of the property was owned by Palestinians.  When Britain took over the land from the Ottoman Empire it was 100% government owned land that was transferred...remember, there is also government owned land in the United States.  It just happens that because of the way the Ottoman Empire operated, it was 100% government land.

How is this colonization by Britain and then by Israel displacing the natives not comparable to the native Americans in the Americas?

 

[rhythm808]

How is this colonization by Britain and then by Israel displacing the natives not comparable to the native Americans in the Americas?

 

[gry60]

rhythm808

It is disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that the British made promises of independence to the Arab leaders in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire, only to turn around in 1917 and make the Balfour declaration public (which recognized the right to establish a Jewish state in a land they promised to another party), knowing full well that they would violate some of the agreements they previously signed with their war allies.

But that's not even the problem at hand. The boundaries that are being disputed right now have been agreed upon by Israel and the PA after the 6 day war.

What do you have to say about Israel's current violations of the Green Line? What do you have to say about the fact that Israelis and Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are subjected to different judiciary codes (that too, is illegal)?

How is this colonization by Britain and then by Israel displacing the natives not comparable to the native Americans in the Americas?

[thread="600484"]The Ottoman Empire entered WW1 as aggressors rather than being dragged into the war by an attack.  The Native Americans weren't aggressors in a war at all. 

"But as the weeks dragged by, Enver grew impatient. On 25 October 1914, without consulting any of his ministerial colleagues, he ordered Admiral Souchon to take the Ottoman fleet, including the German-crewed ships, into the Black Sea to attack the Russians. The fleet carried out surprise raids on Theodosia, Novorossisk, Odessa and Sevastopol, sinking a Russian minelayer, a gunboat and 14 civilian ships. On 2 November, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. France and the British Empire, Russia’s wartime allies, followed suit on the 5th. Enver Pasha had succeeded in bringing the Ottoman Empire into the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Whether he would be as successful in achieving his principle war aim – pan-Turkic expansion into Central Asia at Russia′s expense – was another question."



Ironic how the reason the Ottoman Empire joined the war was the expand it's empire into Central Asia, yet in the end, they lost all of their land. [/thread]

You didn't answer his question though...

 

[rhythm808]

@Rhythm808

It is disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that the British made promises of independence to the Arab leaders in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire, only to turn around in 1917 and make the Balfour declaration public (which recognized the right to establish a Jewish state in a land they promised to another party), knowing full well that they would violate some of the agreements they previously signed with their war allies.

But that's not even the problem at hand. The boundaries that are being disputed right now have been agreed upon by Israel and the PA after the 6 day war.

What do you have to say about Israel's current violations of the Green Line? What do you have to say about the fact that Israelis and Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are subjected to different judiciary codes (that too, is illegal)?
You didn't answer his question though...

I answered that in my last post.

I think that they shouldn't violate the Green line law. And I don't know enough about the judiciary codes to really have an opinion on that but if what they are doing is illegal I'd assume it could be improved.

 

[paliplaya2010]

I answered that in my last post.


I think that they shouldn't violate the Green line law. And I don't know enough about the judiciary codes to really have an opinion on that but if what they are doing is illegal I'd assume it could be improved.

I think you are one of the most close minded people I've ever discussed anything with. You're literally going against your own morals to blindly support Israel and u went on to even say that the indigenous people of the land have zero rights to the land. There's no way you truly believe that. I honestly believe that no human could really think that, but maybe I have too much faith in humanity. These indigenous people were a civilization, they had their own currency, trade, property rights. Yet they have no rights to their land.

 

[me love nutella]

I looked it up before I posted and property in the Ottoman Empire was owned by the state and not individuals.  None of the property was owned by Palestinians.  When Britain took over the land from the Ottoman Empire it was 100% government owned land that was transferred...remember, there is also government owned land in the United States.  It just happens that because of the way the Ottoman Empire operated, it was 100% government land.

What are you reading? Zionist right wing b.s. propaganda and revisionist history?

What is your point? Under colonial rule many of today's nations didn't "own" the territory since it was COLONIZED and they were colonies of certain superpowers. So your argument would go for every single former colonized territories.

You're seriously not there in the head. Trying to tell me Palestinians didn't own land. Go look at my parents' and grandparents' wills and estates with the houses and lands they rightly owned before the wars and formation of Israel and own until this day.

Palestinian lands were confiscated, stolen, and the new Israeli army massacred villages to expulse Palestinians to create a new Jewish state. Anyone who claims otherwise is a Zionist brainwashed buffoon trying to twist and erase history.

You have the right your own opinion but not to your own bull "facts".

I swear man, this dude... the sky is blue but he wants to argue the sky is red.

He must be trolling. Can't be this dumb.

 

[me love nutella]

I think you are one of the most close minded people I've ever discussed anything with. You're literally going against your own morals to blindly support Israel and u went on to even say that the indigenous people of the land have zero rights to the land. There's no way you truly believe that. I honestly believe that no human could really think that, but maybe I have too much faith in humanity. These indigenous people were a civilization, they had their own currency, trade, property rights. Yet they have no rights to their land.

I am convinced he is trolling.