Gaza Thread Discussion Part IV

Discussion in 'International News' started by Ismitje, Jan 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    "Today there are more than 3.7 million Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps throughout the Middle East and many more exiles worldwide. Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestian [sic] immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state."
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/returnindex.htm

    "The Israeli Government has announced that it will allow the immigration of another 20,000 Ethiopians of Jewish origin. "
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2769453.stm
     
  2. odessit19

    odessit19 Member

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    The Palstinians became refugees because Arabs told them to leave, so let those Arab nations accept them.
     
  3. The_ChelseaSupporter

    Mar 25, 2007
    Olympia, WA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well done, and I'll say that Palestinians should be allowed to immigrate into Israel, not have a right to return to the land that they willingly left.
    But then again, I'm one of those loonies who supports complete freedom of movement so my opinion on immigration is pretty radical.
    Imo Jews being let into Israel has no connection to Palestinians, though.
     
  4. The_ChelseaSupporter

    Mar 25, 2007
    Olympia, WA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And also this does not change the fact that Hamas are terrorists and Israel has the right to defend themselves.
     
  5. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Well, if you don't want to accept international law as the basis for the rights of the Palestinian refugees, i guess i'll have to drop down a notch and use your reasoning.

    "The Jews left Europe because Europeans forced them out, so let them go back to Europe?"

    Hows that for a fair argument?
     
  6. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Do the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves too? And will you concede that it is "a stupid policy"?

    BTW there is a difference between fleeing your land due to being terrified, and willingly leaving. And under international law, if a person leaves their land on the outbreak of war, they are entitled to return later.
     
  7. odessit19

    odessit19 Member

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    Moronic as usual.
    Are Israelis or Jews asking to go back to Europe? Is it under international law to try to destroy another country and its people several times while not accepting an international's body decision of granting that country a right to exist?
    During a defensive war, a displaced people are not guaranteed a right of return. Plus, Israel did not kick them out, they left either on their own accord or because of idiotic and cowardly Arab leaders.
     
  8. Umar

    Umar Member+

    Sep 13, 2005
    One step ahead
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Palestine
    Link? International Law source? I'm off to bed, I look forward to reading the link and source when i wake up.
     
  9. bobbybhoy1

    bobbybhoy1 Member

    Jul 27, 2007
    in a State of Grace
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.
    [​IMG]
     
  10. odessit19

    odessit19 Member

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    Good night and good luck.
    How many refugees by thew way should return, just those that originally left, the new generations - any way you cut it, it cannot make sense of who you alow to return and whom you don't.

    http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=554

    Both views, but this one stuck out the most

     
  11. weasel

    weasel New Member

    Oct 31, 2000
    NYC
    If Israel intended to nuke anyone, they could/would have done it long ago. The only situation where Israel could conceivably use nukes would be if they face an existential threat, meaning either:

    1) The Arabs/Iran somehow get their act together and Israel faces defeat and extermination through conventional war.
    2) The Arabs/Iran make a nuclear first strike.

    In those cases, if Israel is about to be wiped out, they may resort to the final option.

    I don't see anyone willing to risk it. I think the Arabs/Iran would rather live with an Israeli state they despise than die under a mushroom cloud. Likewise, I think Israel would rather live with nuclear armed enemies than commit suicide.

    Just like the Cold War. Just like Pakistan and India. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Nothing will be solved by nuclear blackmail. The only thing it will do is get all the Arab/Iranian fanboys on BS hot and bothered.
     
  12. bobbybhoy1

    bobbybhoy1 Member

    Jul 27, 2007
    in a State of Grace
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    Since we cannot agree on much as well as going head first into school yard name calling how about we end this... that is we come up with a solution that could solve this M.E quagmire State yourself Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestine you could even add to my list or add a disagreement to it but the petty name calling adds little..so lets play Political Science 101

    My vote
    1)Hamas recognize the state of Israel
    2) Hamas end Rocket attacks
    3)Israel remove settlements in the W.Bank remove the 600+ road blocks within the W.Bank
    4)move the peace process forward towards a Palestinian State with or without Hamas....pre67 boarders
    5)recognize the legitimist and fair election of Hamas.
     
  13. Earthshaker

    Earthshaker BigSoccer Supporter

    Sep 12, 2005
    The hills above town
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    I think to date, only Jordan accepts Palestinian refugees. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this). The rest of the arab world is content to see the palestinians suffer in refugee camps so they can keep up the rhetoric of hatred against Israel.
     
  14. yasik19

    yasik19 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2004
    Daly City
    your point?
     
  15. bobbybhoy1

    bobbybhoy1 Member

    Jul 27, 2007
    in a State of Grace
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    once more not my words..
     
  16. The_ChelseaSupporter

    Mar 25, 2007
    Olympia, WA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well if they really are denying ALL Palestinians entrance into Israel, I disagree with that. It is of my opinion that anyone should be allowed anywhere, though, so I'm not specifically getting behind the Palestinians. Also, if they were to allow refugees access, just as anyone else, they would have to go through a process that involves determining if they are terrorists and what not and also Jews should be allowed into Gaza and the West Bank as well to make everything fair.
     
  17. The_ChelseaSupporter

    Mar 25, 2007
    Olympia, WA
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would support your vote, but I just ask what exactly do you mean by pre67 borders? Can you specifically describe this and what it would entail for both sides?
     
  18. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    lol, I like how the order of their ethnicity is important to you.

    It's odd you guys are talking so much about the atomic bombs. The Tokyo fire bombings did much more damage.
    Even from the toned-down information from Truman and the military it's undeniable dropping them fits every requirement of being a terrorist act.
    They were not military installations (unless you're counting the radio facility at Hiroshima Castle manned by a girl scout :rolleyes:) -- they were targeted specifically due to being large city centers with the goal of terrifying and stunning Japan into capitulation. Furthermore the drop sites weren't on military sites... they were at the heart of each city. The exact same applies to the Tokyo bombings.

    On the other hand, it's undeniable that those 2 bombs sadly saved lives... and probably in the exact order as described earlier. The military and Truman also knew this and weighed it carefully in their decision.
    I think it's a very difficult subject to declare right and wrong.

    On the other hand again, the Tokyo Bombings don't deserve any of the "benefits" the atomic bombs offered. That was just straight up terrorist "bomb the monkeys back into the stone age."

    Is there a difference?
    Neither side should be allowed to have nukes, but nobody worries too much about Israel having them ... the entire world worries about Hamas or Arabs or Iran having them.

    That guy was dead on with everything he wrote in that essay. It's hard to believe he wrote it in the 20s. He's extremely realistic, forthcoming, and it's almost prophetic. It's too bad Americans, Jews, etc. can't see it for what it is.
    Reading that over again makes me rethink our goals with Iraq too. Seen in this light, Cheney never wanted to integrate Iraqis... he wanted to align us permanently with Israel in a "spiritual war" against Islam and Arabs.
     
  19. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    The problem faced by the Palestinian people is only the most acute and immediate problem with the state of Israel. No doubt, if that problem is resolved, much of what makes Israel so obnoxious is resolved as well. But there is more.

    As long as the source for Israel's "legitimacy" is derived utimately from what is imposed by and through the West, there will be a problem with the state of Israel -- even if some of the problems that currently existed with it are resolved. Israel can either remain a western colonial outpost, in which case it will invite hostility by those who don't want the west to have a militarized base here, less one with an ideology that can easily support various forms of aggression. Or it can find its legitimacy from within the region where it wants to find a permanent home.

    Moreoever, the boundaries and demarcation lines between "Israel" and the parts that are to be given to a "Palestinian state" are too interconnected, will be too contested, and the whole area is too small, for it to be strictly and seriously separated and segregated. When you add the problem of Jerusalem to the equation, the two-state paradigm becomes even less likely to achieve any lasting peace.

    Finally, the balance of power that exists, in its broadest sense, might compel Israel to seriously negotiate such a solution, but it is not yet the kind of balance that will force it to make the necessary painful concessions. Let me put it this way: even if Ehud Barak's supposed offer to Arafat in the waning days of the Clinton administration could be made acceptable to the Palestinians (and it couldn't in the long run), it was not ultimately acceptable to the Israelis. By virtue of making that offer, Barak led his party to its worst electoral defeat in its history shortly thereafter. Indeed, the real reason why Israel did not resume serious negotiations after that offer was made was because it was clear that the Israeli electorate's conception of what "compromises" are acceptable is way too removed from what would be necessary to sell any deal even to the post Oslo PLO and Fatah. Never mind others within the Palestinian camp.

    I have offered what I believe to be the real solution that can solve this problem - and do so in a framework that helps the region, including the Jewish people, enjoy a rennaisance of their own. I have already mentioned the conditions required for that solution to come to pass as well. Until then, I don't think the promise of the two-state solution willl prove anything but a mirage. The only issue is whether the mirage will be exposed for what it is, or whether those who don't reach a "solution" that was never there to begin with, will be fooled into blaming others for that failure.
     
  20. odessit19

    odessit19 Member

    Dec 19, 2004
    My gun safe
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Nat'l Team:
    Ukraine
    It's not just the Arabs, but UNRWA who have kept them thereThey have accepted many of them there, since without refugees, there would not be UNRWA.

    http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html

    I am not sure if they have citizenship, but the are still refugees, about 1.9million.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_arab_right_of_return_to_is.html
     
  21. #10 Jersey

    #10 Jersey Member

    May 2, 1999
  22. #10 Jersey

    #10 Jersey Member

    May 2, 1999
    The crime of being Jewish??
     
  23. #10 Jersey

    #10 Jersey Member

    May 2, 1999
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    You make some valid points, and (in the last part of your message that I underlined) are close enough to the answer regarding what the Project for a New American Century was all about. But while I don't share some of your assumptions regarding what should go into the moral caculus to determine the "merits" of using atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at least I hope you revisit the part of your message elsewhere that I have highlighted.

    The fact that you believe "nobody" worries about Israel's nukes is a statement about how you don't see millions of Arabs and Moslems as being "anybody". (And that is leaving aside how Israel's nukes do complicate the picture when and if you need to reign Israel in its behavior, since those nukes are implicitly a threat not just to the Moslem world).

    At the same time, the fact that you think the "world" worries about Iran's nuclear program, where in fact that is a worry of a few states, and the worry of some of their puppets in the region, all trying to cajole the rest in sharing that worry, also shows that you don't appreciate that the "world" is just a much bigger place than you imagine.
     
  25. scotch17

    scotch17 Member

    Jun 15, 2008
    Entebbe
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    The reason nobody is worried about Israels' nukes is because
    - they don't need nukes to decimate Arabs and Moslems
    - they've had plenty of opportunities to use them and haven't

    You're right I did forget something... the entire world minus Russia is terrified of Iran getting nukes.
     

Share This Page