By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Poll: Israel or Palestine?

 

Who do you support in the conflict and why?

Israel 124 34.35%
 
Palestine 235 65.10%
 
Total:359
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:

Interesting to note though.... when asked, more Arabs in Eastern Jerusalem say they would rather be a part of the Israeli state then the Palestinian state.

Something like 40% of people polled actually say that if the two state solution happened and Palestine gained control of East Jersualem they would leave their homes to stay on the Israeli side.

If back in the 1940s you asked 100 jews if they would rather live in the Warsaw Ghetto or Nazi Germany, they'd probably still choose Nazi Germany. But what does that prove?

Except I was talking about a fully liberated Palestine.

Could it be that maybe they're afraid of living in an Islamic state? A sham democracy where they're treated as second class citizens is better than livign in an Islamic state (granted, not by that much).

Nah.

It's more that economic needs outway politcal ones.

I mean... would you rather live in Israel or Jordan?  etc.


Israel is, one of the nicest countries in the region from a purely non-religious view.  If not the nicest.

Best school systems, Best colleges, most well rounded economy, best technology sector by far, much more of a chance to "share the wealth" of your nation.


Palestinians in Jerusalem are muslims just like the ones in Palestine.  They just live nicer lives.

Well, maybe that would be an issue to the women who are used to a more Israeli society now a days.



Around the Network
lololol said:
badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:

The Jews banished a lot of the Arabs who lived in the lands they invaded. There should actually be more Arabs than Jews living in Israel.

And there were, right up until the Jews had enough of the Arabs attacking them and beat the shit out of them. The idea that the Jews should have ever just laid down their arms over the last 60+ years and trusted the Arabs not to try and slaughter them this time is utterly risible, and it's based on nothing more than adolescent left-wing ideas about how the world works and/or the desire to see those fucking kikes finally get what they deserve.

After World War 2 the Zionists went to Palestine and killed the Arabs. The Arab nations then retaliated. It was provoked and the Zionists fault.

LOL, no.



sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:
sapphi_snake said:
badgenome said:

sapphi_snake said:

I must've misunderstood your post.

And regardign C, hey, they left, it's no longer theirs anymore. The Jews who currently live in Israel came from Europe a couple of decades ago. Palestinians have been living there for centuries. They're more natives to the land than the Jews are. Sucks for the Jews that they're trying to perform ethnic cleansing in the 21st century.

 

They didn't "leave", they were driven out. But never entirely, as there has always remained a Jewish minority, and since the ruling Ottomans allowed more Jews to return to Palestine and purchase land there over the centuries, the idea that their presence is somehow illegitimate seems dodgy at best and repugnant at worst.

Most of the Jews living in Israel came from Europe a couple of decades ago. Heck, even the language they speak was invented in Europe less than a century ago. And how does this excuse the ethnic cleansing?

Typically when there is an ethnic cleansing, there is less of that particular ethnicity afterwards. Sort of like what happened to the Jews or the Armenians. Since there are more Palestinian Arabs than ever before and Israel has over 1 million Arab citizens, this has to be the most cackhanded ethnic cleansing in the history of the world.

The Jews banished a lot of the Arabs who lived in the lands they invaded. There should actually be more Arabs than Jews living in Israel.

I would consider read a couple hsitory books on the matter... because that isn't remotely what happened.

Early Jewish plans generally amounted to "Keep buying land and moving people to Israel until we own most of the land/are the most population then form a jewish state."

Which started with the Ottomans.  The actual pushing people out didn't happen until well after there was a decent Jewish population there, the arabs broke a deal for a Jewish national homeland and the Arabs started trying to violently push out the immigrating Jews.

The first actual big conflcit of violence between the two groups being the Jaffa Riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots

In general the conflcit starts like this before it even gets violent at all.

 

Jewish people buy lands in Palestine from arabs there.

Arabs get pissed that they themselves are selling land to the jews and complain to the ottomans.

Ottomans change the rules so Jewish people have a harder time buying land by making it so only locals can buy land.

The Arab and Jewish peoples combined together with the British to get rid of the Ottomans.

The Arabs were promised Arab control over Arab lands, and the Jewish people were promised a homeland in the Palestine area.  (Which at that time was what we know as Palestine & Jordan.)

Official Mandate for Palestine is formed promising the Jews a self administration agency to protect them from Arabs.  (Much how many nations today have self administered zones to protect themsleves from groups that want to wipe them out.)

An agreement was signed between the Arabs and Jews that included a promised homeland for the Jews, and that the arabs would greatly promote RAPID Jewish immigration into Palestine.  This agreement was broken almost as soon as it was signed.

Concerned by the Jews immigration (that they just agreed to) the arabs pressured the British who then said the Jews now nolonger had any right to lands east of the Jordan river.  This is what created the nation of Jordan.

Jewish immigration kept increasing due to anti-semtism.  Israrel was basically the only "safe" place to be.  Well Israel and the USA who had antisemtism, but it wasn't as bad.

Arab people beleiving the region was starting to lose it's "arabnes" started attacking Jewish immigrants in much larger numbers, and the Jewish people retaliated.

Things get MUCH more violent as Mohammad Amin  El-Husayni starts a religious based riots vs the Jews.  (Before then it was more about the Jews being Europeon then Jewish.  The whole religious part of it is actually just a cover for the original ethnic pretext.)



Kasz216 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots

1921, you say? But the Jews weren't even there yet! They all showed up in 1948 and invaded the place with tanks and gundams and wanzers!

*adds Wikipedia to the list of untrustworthy Jewish media*



sad.man.loves.vgc said:

Why? are they playing football soon or something and we have to cheer for one team against the other? it's either that or you should've included a third option. "Israel and Palestine". I'd vote for that. A Palestinian here.


You won my heart and my respect. I follow this guy, even if I came here to state how I feel UK and western countries are to blame for colonialism even to this day: all the death and violence we experience in conflicts as those are responsability of those countries who became rich by growing industries and technology by colonizating and slaving foreing countries, even to this day. Sorry, it kindda came out anyway. Still, I follow him. 



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots

1921, you say? But the Jews weren't even there yet! They all showed up in 1948 and invaded the place with tanks and gundams and wanzers!

*adds Wikipedia to the list of untrustworthy Jewish media*


What i like best about that comment is you added Wanzers.



It's reasonably important to assert that no historical claim has eminence over any other historical claim. All you have are a state and a state-like body, one of which needs territorial integrity to survive (e.g. get the settlers out), and which deserves its right to self-determination as much as the Israelis did. The Israelis took exceptional measures to make sure that their state had territorial integrity, the least the Palestinians deserve is a peaceful process to achieve the same (e.g. get the settlers out). Israel has to move first because of their relative positions, and because presenting the olive branch is the only way to get rid of Hamas short of total extirpation of the Gaza Strip

And cash settlements for current market value on the property that Palestinian refugees were forced off of in lieu of a right of return



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
It's reasonably important to assert that no historical claim has eminence over any other historical claim. All you have are a state and a state-like body, one of which needs territorial integrity to survive (e.g. get the settlers out), and which deserves its right to self-determination as much as the Israelis did. The Israelis took exceptional measures to make sure that their state had territorial integrity, the least the Palestinians deserve is a peaceful process to achieve the same (e.g. get the settlers out). Israel has to move first because of their relative positions, and because presenting the olive branch is the only way to get rid of Hamas short of total extirpation of the Gaza Strip

And cash settlements for current market value on the property that Palestinian refugees were forced off of in lieu of a right of return

How did that work in 2005?



Mr Khan said:
It's reasonably important to assert that no historical claim has eminence over any other historical claim. All you have are a state and a state-like body, one of which needs territorial integrity to survive (e.g. get the settlers out), and which deserves its right to self-determination as much as the Israelis did. The Israelis took exceptional measures to make sure that their state had territorial integrity, the least the Palestinians deserve is a peaceful process to achieve the same (e.g. get the settlers out). Israel has to move first because of their relative positions, and because presenting the olive branch is the only way to get rid of Hamas short of total extirpation of the Gaza Strip

And cash settlements for current market value on the property that Palestinian refugees were forced off of in lieu of a right of return

The problem with that is, if one side's idea of peace is simply a hudna (so, 10 years max) and the price of that phony peace is that Israel quits all of its settlements and gives all "refugees" the right of return (meaning Israel is demographically no longer Jewish, so the whole thing becomes moot anyway), there really can be no peace. And this has been the moderate Palestinian position.



Israel ...

There have been several two party state solutions proposed over the years, even ones with Palestine getting the "lion's share" of the division, and these have always been accepted by Israel and rejected by Palestine.

It is fairly clear that the Palestinians are not looking for their own state, they're looking for the destruction of Israel ... which is a position I simply can not support.