Israel to Strike Iran

[Captain VXR]

Two c*ntish governments, lots of innocent civilians killed. Great.

[Greenline]

 

jews and muslims nuking themselves to extinction go right ahead already xD

Hehe ur so funniez. xD f*ck off.

 

 

 

 

and of course there's the religious factor.

religion makes good people do crazy things.

Religion has always been a mask for the Iranian Clergy and is especially important now that what once was the clergy is in power. So, it's really important to remember that the Iranian clergy has been using religion as a mask to do 'crazy things'. Especially when wanting their Feudal power back during the White Revolution of Iran in the 1960s (which was a series of reforms by the Shah which abolished feudalism etc.). So, it's not right if you say that the Iranian government is truly religious.

 

I don't know how religious the Israelis are, but I'm pretty sure they're more on the secular side. So, genuine Religion won't play a major role in this conflict either.

 

I also love how you changed your tone after your theory was disproven by 2 people .

Edited September 9, 2012 by Greenline

[Dragonjack]

This isn't good that i expected to be.

[fireguy109]

Sounds like sh*t to me, to be honest. Isn't Iran famous for propaganda like this, stirring up the people with anti-Zionist bullsh*t? Blame the dirty Jews, bring the Great Satan to its knees, yadda yadda yadda. Israel would never be yapping about this in advance if it were true. They'd just do it.

 

And Israel isn't one of America's best allies, America is one of Israel's best allies.

[EscoLehGo]

Let's say that the Jew menace of Israel is finally wiped off the map or conquered or enslaved or whatever it is radicals want to do, what then? Will a new era peace fall upon the region? What's the end game with these anti Jew fellas because I only see Islamic sectarian violence filling the void if the Jews are removed from the picture.

[Dingdongs]

Let's say that the Jew menace of Israel is finally wiped off the map or conquered or enslaved or whatever it is radicals want to do, what then? Will a new era peace fall upon the region? What's the end game with these anti Jew fellas because I only see Islamic sectarian violence filling the void if the Jews are removed from the picture.

You're the real Jew menace.

[EscoLehGo]

Let's say that the Jew menace of Israel is finally wiped off the map or conquered or enslaved or whatever it is radicals want to do, what then? Will a new era peace fall upon the region? What's the end game with these anti Jew fellas because I only see Islamic sectarian violence filling the void if the Jews are removed from the picture.

You're the real Jew menace.

This is news to me, please explain further.

[Typhus]

Let's say that the Jew menace of Israel is finally wiped off the map or conquered or enslaved or whatever it is radicals want to do, what then? Will a new era peace fall upon the region? What's the end game with these anti Jew fellas because I only see Islamic sectarian violence filling the void if the Jews are removed from the picture.

In that unlikely event, I predict that currently unpopular regimes would have a new lease of life. It would certainly win the people over, if they were to finally subjugate the hated Israelites and 'liberate' the Palestinians.

However, killing the Jewish Bogeyman does not change the Pandora's Box that the digital age has unleashed. Israel or no Israel, the people will still eventually turn on the tyrannical governments they've been forced to accept for eons.

 

Not to mention that Islamists will have lost a major recruiting tool, so they will need fresh battles to fight.

 

In general, the end result of Israel's destruction would lead to three possible outcomes:

 

1. An end to the Pan-Arab sentiment fostered by Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinians, resulting in far more insular and nationalistic regimes being formed.

 

2. A greater chance of civil unrest, due to the removal of their most reliable scapegoat.

 

3. Islamist terrorist groups turning on previously affiliated regimes to try and destabilise them and seize power.

[Creed Bratton]

On the bright side, if Americans choose to participate, we might get another awesome HBO miniseries about it at some point. Because honestly, the only good thing war can bring is some good TV.

 

We are such a stupid species.

[leaflinks]

Religion has everything to do with it.

 

During the empire era when the Zionist PM of the UK Churchill helped with the creation of Israel, two British Army generals were killed as a result in the late 40's.

 

But Crude oil has an also much bigger role too, Iran is the last Middle Eastern country to be so defiant towards America. Since early 2005 Iran has been on the US's target list.

 

The Israel lobby in America is just so influencial.

 

I believe the US constitution states, The Judicial branch - section 3 -

 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open court.

 

The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work corruption of blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the person attained."

 

[Oakshaft]

Im just going to jump in here and say that there is big talk from Iran about "swift retaliation" after we closed our embassy there.

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Iran+ret...2246/story.html

 

 

Iran accused Canada on Saturday of "hostile behaviour" under Israeli and British influence after Ottawa cut diplomatic relations, and it raised the prospect of swift retaliation.

Canada said on Friday that it was closing its embassy in Tehran and gave Iranian diplomats five days to leave the country, branding the Islamic Republic as the "most significant threat to global peace and security".

 

Ottawa cited Iran's disputed nuclear work, which Western states see as a disguised effort to develop atomic bombs, its hostility toward Israel and alleged military aid to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is battling a popular uprising.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the Canadian move was a

"continuation of anti-Iranian policies" by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which has long had poor relations with Tehran.

 

"The current government of Canada under the leadership of Mr Stephen Harper is known for extreme policies in the domain of foreign policy," Mehr news agency quoted Mehmanparast as saying.

 

"The hostile behaviour of the current racist government in Canada in reality follows the policies dictated by the Zionists (Israel) and the British."

 

The Jewish state is Iran's arch-enemy, while Britain expelled Iranian diplomats late last year after radical Iranian protesters sacked its embassy in Tehran.

 

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, who heads Iran's influential parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, said there could be an "immediate and decisive" response to Canada's action, Fars news agency reported.

[sivispacem]

Utter bilge

I've debated this with you before, haven't I? Alleging that Churchill was a Zionist really is grasping at straws.

The influence of AIPAC in the US is drastically overstated. Don't take Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" for canon, as it only look at what the US does for Israel, and in reality it's a mutually beneficial relationship.

The "war for oil" argument is illogical too.

[A J]

I wish I knew more about Israel, and why Jewish people and Muslim people don't get along. From what I grasp, after World War 2, the Jewish people were given Israel and forced the Palestines out, since they moved them out, they have wanted to go back in. Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

 

Sorry it's not really on topic with regards to a 'zionist invasion in Iran'.

[3niX]

Well...

 

 

Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

AFAIK technically it wasnt really their land, it was part of the British Empire. And they decided that the jewish people deserved/needed the land more.

 

Its a rather confiusing matter of affairs.

[sivispacem]

 

Well...

 

 

Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

AFAIK technically it wasnt really their land, it was part of the British Empire. And they decided that the jewish people deserved/needed the land more.

 

Its a rather confiusing matter of affairs.

Indeed. Palestine has never been a state; the British mandate that controlled the territory in the aftermath of the Second World War was entitled to do whatever was pleased with it, really.

[El Zilcho]

Well...

 

 

Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

AFAIK technically it wasnt really their land, it was part of the British Empire. And they decided that the jewish people deserved/needed the land more.

 

Its a rather confiusing matter of affairs.

Indeed. Palestine has never been a state; the British mandate that controlled the territory in the aftermath of the Second World War was entitled to do whatever was pleased with it, really.

Nevertheless the handling of the situation was atrocious and the Middle East has paid for that in the decades since.

[Creed Bratton]

Is there any actual evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Or is this the same exact tactics that was used to justify war in Iraq?

Edited September 9, 2012 by GTAvanja

[sivispacem]

Is there any actual evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Or is this the same exact tactics that was used to justify war in Iraq?

They're enriching uranium beyond the point required for civil nuclear power, up to about 40% HEU (High-enriched Uranium, which is Uranium content above 20%) currently. 90-95% HEU is required for nuclear weapons, generally. They've also got plutonium reprocessing facilities and experimental, non-power-generation heavy water reactors which can breed plutonium. In short, their nuclear programme is at a point where they are still some years (probably) off producing enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, but there are no other necessary reasons to enrich above about 20% unless they're either building weapons or powering nuclear submarines (small reactors in submarines use much higher enrichment levels for more power generation in a smaller physical space).

[Creed Bratton]

Is there any actual evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Or is this the same exact tactics that was used to justify war in Iraq?

They're enriching uranium beyond the point required for civil nuclear power, up to about 40% HEU (High-enriched Uranium, which is Uranium content above 20%) currently. 90-95% HEU is required for nuclear weapons, generally. They've also got plutonium reprocessing facilities and experimental, non-power-generation heavy water reactors which can breed plutonium. In short, their nuclear programme is at a point where they are still some years (probably) off producing enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, but there are no other necessary reasons to enrich above about 20% unless they're either building weapons or powering nuclear submarines (small reactors in submarines use much higher enrichment levels for more power generation in a smaller physical space).

And do you think preemptive attack is the best idea?

[Typhus]

Is there any actual evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons? Or is this the same exact tactics that was used to justify war in Iraq?

They're enriching uranium beyond the point required for civil nuclear power, up to about 40% HEU (High-enriched Uranium, which is Uranium content above 20%) currently. 90-95% HEU is required for nuclear weapons, generally. They've also got plutonium reprocessing facilities and experimental, non-power-generation heavy water reactors which can breed plutonium. In short, their nuclear programme is at a point where they are still some years (probably) off producing enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, but there are no other necessary reasons to enrich above about 20% unless they're either building weapons or powering nuclear submarines (small reactors in submarines use much higher enrichment levels for more power generation in a smaller physical space).

And do you think preemptive attack is the best idea?

I maintain the fermenting a revolution against the theocratic government is the best way to go. You solve the Iran problem whilst avoiding turning an already unpopular government into a rallying point by invading them.

[Johnny_Cash1983]

 

Well...

 

 

Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

AFAIK technically it wasnt really their land, it was part of the British Empire. And they decided that the jewish people deserved/needed the land more.

 

Its a rather confiusing matter of affairs.

Indeed. Palestine has never been a state; the British mandate that controlled the territory in the aftermath of the Second World War was entitled to do whatever was pleased with it, really.

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

I don't see the logic in that. When the Jews came and took Palestine troubles started in middle east.

[Greenline]

 

Well...

 

 

Who the heck decided it was right for the Jewish people to be given another people's lands?? Any explanation appreciated.

AFAIK technically it wasnt really their land, it was part of the British Empire. And they decided that the jewish people deserved/needed the land more.

 

Its a rather confiusing matter of affairs.

Indeed. Palestine has never been a state; the British mandate that controlled the territory in the aftermath of the Second World War was entitled to do whatever was pleased with it, really.

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

I don't see the logic in that. When the Jews came and took Palestine troubles started in middle east.

I'm just going to ignore the fact that comparing the rulership of a country to a house is kinda... Off.

 

The thing is, the house was never theirs, it always belonged to the British and they have the right to give it to the Jews. Also, the Jewish people have been in Israel for a bit over 3000 years, which is long before Islam even existed, so it's not really their home in that way either.

 

Not even the name, Palestine, has any ties to Islam (or Arabs).

 

The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs, and the lands of Judea, have almost only benefited from the Jewish settlement in the region. I suggest you check what Mark Twain said about his visit to Palestine on the Mid-1800s.

 

It's like wanting the house (which was in a bad condition) back after it's been renovated, but crying about why it's not just being given to you.

 

Here's a report about Palestine from 1913:

 

The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts . . . ​no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached [the Jewish village of] Yabna [Yavne]. . . . Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen. . . . The ploughs used were of wood. . . . The yields were very poor. . . . The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist. . . . The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert. . . . The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Greenline

[sivispacem]

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

You aren't comparing like with like. It's closer to living in a rented house, and the owner deciding to give it to someone else. Also, it's not as if the Israeli government has forcibly evicted Palestinians from their land, for instance- they're still welcome to live there, though exactly how welcome depends on who you ask. I believe in Palestinian self-determination but I also accept that as a British mandate, the ultimate authority rested with the United Kingdom and then with the United Nations to decide the fate of the land. Now, it's possible to debate for quite literally the rest of time whether events such as the King David Hotel bombing, the actual text enshrining Palestine as a home for the Jewish peoples was written and signed by the League of Nations in 1922- more than 20 years before Israeli independence. If your interested, you can read the entire text here. It sheds a rather different light on later history if you have the knowledge that plans to turn Palestine (which at the time was part of the Ottoman empire) into a Jewish homeland actually existed in the early years of the First World War.

 

Conflict in the Middle East pre-dates the foundation of Israel by several thousand years. Even modern conflict significantly pre-dates it.

[El Zilcho]

The thing is, the house was never theirs, it always belonged to the British and they have the right to give it to the Jews. Also, the Jewish people have been in Israel for a bit over 3000 years, which is long before Islam even existed, so it's not really their home in that way either.

 

Not even the name, Palestine, has any ties to Islam (or Arabs).

 

The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs, and the lands of Judea, have almost only benefited from the Jewish settlement in the region. I suggest you check what Mark Twain said about his visit to Palestine on the Mid-1800s.

 

It's like wanting the house back after it's been renovated, but crying about why it's not just being given to you.

I wasn't aware Palestine was snugly nestled between Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

 

It hasn't always been British by a long shot, nor does anyone have the right to claim ultimate supremacy over the battle ground that Palestine has been for some many centuries. As controversial and disjointed either sides claims can be, yours most certainly are laughable. Whether Palestine is Islamic or not is irrelevant - we are discussing the Palestinian oppression at the hands of Israel, it's consistent sharp practice and denial of self determination for Palestinian people, and the outwardly hypocritical way it looks when backed by super powers such as the US (allowing for this situation to unfold with little challenge).

 

No one is claiming wholesale expulsion of Jews from the vicinity (unless you're a dimwitted extremist or acting in a reactionary manner) nor a new Palestinian dominionship. But measures should be taken to address the disparity and frankly despicable conduct by Israel against the people of Palestine, so that both can move on and avoid more unnecessary tit for tat.

[Greenline]

 

The thing is, the house was never theirs, it always belonged to the British and they have the right to give it to the Jews. Also, the Jewish people have been in Israel for a bit over 3000 years, which is long before Islam even existed, so it's not really their home in that way either.

 

Not even the name, Palestine, has any ties to Islam (or Arabs).

 

The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs, and the lands of Judea, have almost only benefited from the Jewish settlement in the region. I suggest you check what Mark Twain said about his visit to Palestine on the Mid-1800s.

 

It's like wanting the house back after it's been renovated, but crying about why it's not just being given to you.

I wasn't aware Palestine was snugly nestled between Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.

 

It hasn't always been British by a long shot, nor does anyone have the right to claim ultimate supremacy over the battle ground that Palestine has been for some many centuries. As controversial and disjointed either sides claims can be, yours most certainly are laughable. Whether Palestine is Islamic or not is irrelevant - we are discussing the Palestinian oppression at the hands of Israel, it's consistent sharp practice and denial of self determination for Palestinian people, and the outwardly hypocritical way it looks when backed by super powers such as the US (allowing for this situation to unfold with little challenge).

 

No one is claiming wholesale expulsion of Jews from the vicinity (unless you're a dimwitted extremist or acting in a reactionary manner) nor a new Palestinian dominionship. But measures should be taken to address the disparity and frankly despicable conduct by Israel against the people of Palestine, so that both can move on and avoid more unnecessary tit for tat.

I think you're getting my point wrong, I never stated my opinion on the British Mandate, I was addressing Johnny_Cash, who said that the 'house' (being Israel, and as sivispacem and I have said 'house' being an inaccurate comparison) belonged to the Muslims or Palestinian Arabs and it was just taken away from them by a group that was not entitled to that land (or house) at all. Whereas they were entitled to the land.

 

The Muslims or (Levantine) Arabs never spoke out against the Mandate (French or British), the whole concept of 'Pan-Arab Nationalism' really started to rise up in the post WWI era and became increasingly important during the Yom Kippur war.

 

So no, I was not talking about the British Mandate. And if I was, my opinion would be the same. If you want to view the lands of Israel from a historical perspective, you'd see that Islam played a minor role in the Jewish levant, most major cities which were 'Islamized' were of Jewish origin: Akko (Aqre), Jerusalem (Urshalim) being good examples. Ergo, saying that Palestine is a truly Muslim land is incorrect.

 

Oh, and regarding your statement about the 'measures' that should be taken: They have been, but the Palestinians did not accept them.

 

 

[Johnny_Cash1983]

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

You aren't comparing like with like. It's closer to living in a rented house, and the owner deciding to give it to someone else. Also, it's not as if the Israeli government has forcibly evicted Palestinians from their land, for instance- they're still welcome to live there, though exactly how welcome depends on who you ask. I believe in Palestinian self-determination but I also accept that as a British mandate, the ultimate authority rested with the United Kingdom and then with the United Nations to decide the fate of the land. Now, it's possible to debate for quite literally the rest of time whether events such as the King David Hotel bombing, the actual text enshrining Palestine as a home for the Jewish peoples was written and signed by the League of Nations in 1922- more than 20 years before Israeli independence. If your interested, you can read the entire text here. It sheds a rather different light on later history if you have the knowledge that plans to turn Palestine (which at the time was part of the Ottoman empire) into a Jewish homeland actually existed in the early years of the First World War.

 

Conflict in the Middle East pre-dates the foundation of Israel by several thousand years. Even modern conflict significantly pre-dates it.

Palestine was not England property they conquer it when countries powerfull where taking over the world.

And you think Jews welcome Palestinians then go there see for your self.

When i went there for the first time in 5 years they had me stay 3 hours because they think i got something illegal in my bag which not just me but maybe like 30 more people.

[El Zilcho]

 

I think you're getting my point wrong, I never stated my opinion on the British Mandate, I was addressing Johnny_Cash, who said that the 'house' (being Israel, and as sivispacem and I have said 'house' being an inaccurate comparison) belonged to the Muslims or Palestinian Arabs and it was just taken away from them by a group that was not entitled to that land (or house) at all. Whereas they were entitled to the land.

 

The Muslims or (Levantine) Arabs never spoke out against the Mandate (French or British), the whole concept of 'Pan-Arab Nationalism' really started to rise up in the post WWI era and became increasingly important during the Yom Kippur war.

 

So no, I was not talking about the British Mandate. And if I was, my opinion would be the same. If you want to view the lands of Israel from a historical perspective, you'd see that Islam played a minor role in the Jewish levant, most major cities which were 'Islamized' were of Jewish origin: Akko (Aqre), Jerusalem (Urshalim) being good examples. Ergo, saying that Palestine is a truly Muslim land is incorrect.

But we aren't discussing cultural influence, significance or strength of presence. We're talking about the basic right of self determination being denied by Israel. It's key strategic position keeps it's acts untouchable by the international community. While the nature of our world makes this sort of action and situation inevitable, it doesn't mean we should tolerate it as correct or attempt to justify it. We aren't talking about historical perspectives either, because then we can argue all day about it belonging to Byzantine before them, the Jews, and Canaans before them.

 

What we do know is that in the present the Palestinians are under the thumb of the Israelis, with little chance to free themselves. Religion, while a volatile variable, has nothing to do with giving the people their freedom. At least at it's base level it doesn't.

[Greenline]

 

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

You aren't comparing like with like. It's closer to living in a rented house, and the owner deciding to give it to someone else. Also, it's not as if the Israeli government has forcibly evicted Palestinians from their land, for instance- they're still welcome to live there, though exactly how welcome depends on who you ask. I believe in Palestinian self-determination but I also accept that as a British mandate, the ultimate authority rested with the United Kingdom and then with the United Nations to decide the fate of the land. Now, it's possible to debate for quite literally the rest of time whether events such as the King David Hotel bombing, the actual text enshrining Palestine as a home for the Jewish peoples was written and signed by the League of Nations in 1922- more than 20 years before Israeli independence. If your interested, you can read the entire text here. It sheds a rather different light on later history if you have the knowledge that plans to turn Palestine (which at the time was part of the Ottoman empire) into a Jewish homeland actually existed in the early years of the First World War.

 

Conflict in the Middle East pre-dates the foundation of Israel by several thousand years. Even modern conflict significantly pre-dates it.

Palestine was not England property they conquer it when countries powerfull where taking over the world.

And you think Jews welcome Palestinians then go there see for your self.

When i went there for the first time in 5 years they had me stay 3 hours because they think i got something illegal in my bag which not just me but maybe like 30 more people.

Erm... Yeah, that's what Ben Gurion Airport and El Al are known for, if it weren't for the strict rules and monitoring of passengers, El Al and Ben Gurion would've been craters by now.

 

Oh, and, they were watching you waaaay before you were confronted to open your bag, even at the parking area (that's where they have people employed who check if the passengers seem nervous), you just couldn't tell.

 

 

I think you're getting my point wrong, I never stated my opinion on the British Mandate, I was addressing Johnny_Cash, who said that the 'house' (being Israel, and as sivispacem and I have said 'house' being an inaccurate comparison) belonged to the Muslims or Palestinian Arabs and it was just taken away from them by a group that was not entitled to that land (or house) at all. Whereas they were entitled to the land.

 

The Muslims or (Levantine) Arabs never spoke out against the Mandate (French or British), the whole concept of 'Pan-Arab Nationalism' really started to rise up in the post WWI era and became increasingly important during the Yom Kippur war.

 

So no, I was not talking about the British Mandate. And if I was, my opinion would be the same. If you want to view the lands of Israel from a historical perspective, you'd see that Islam played a minor role in the Jewish levant, most major cities which were 'Islamized' were of Jewish origin: Akko (Aqre), Jerusalem (Urshalim) being good examples. Ergo, saying that Palestine is a truly Muslim land is incorrect.

But we aren't discussing cultural influence, significance or strength of presence. We're talking about the basic right of self determination being denied by Israel. It's key strategic position keeps it's acts untouchable by the international community. While the nature of our world makes this sort of action and situation inevitable, it doesn't mean we should tolerate it as correct or attempt to justify it. We aren't talking about historical perspectives either, because then we can argue all day about it belonging to Byzantine before them, the Jews, and Canaans before them.

 

What we do know is that in the present the Palestinians are under the thumb of the Israelis, with little chance to free themselves. Religion, while a volatile variable, has nothing to do with giving the people their freedom. At least at it's base level it doesn't.

Free themselves from what? Development at the hand of a relatively friendly government (in relation to the hostile environment it is in?).

 

The Palestinians have been given many chances to 'free' themselves, conventions and attempts by the UN to give them certain portions of land (which they refused). But, stubbornness will not get them far in this situation, and they've proven to be very stubborn when given simple solutions to the 'Zionist oppression'.

 

Oh, and regarding your history comment: Yes, but at the core, Israel (Judea) is a Jewish land. And denying that is - in your own words- laughable.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Greenline

[Johnny_Cash1983]

So if you got house which is yours and you lived your whole life in it, then someone stole it its theirs?

You aren't comparing like with like. It's closer to living in a rented house, and the owner deciding to give it to someone else. Also, it's not as if the Israeli government has forcibly evicted Palestinians from their land, for instance- they're still welcome to live there, though exactly how welcome depends on who you ask. I believe in Palestinian self-determination but I also accept that as a British mandate, the ultimate authority rested with the United Kingdom and then with the United Nations to decide the fate of the land. Now, it's possible to debate for quite literally the rest of time whether events such as the King David Hotel bombing, the actual text enshrining Palestine as a home for the Jewish peoples was written and signed by the League of Nations in 1922- more than 20 years before Israeli independence. If your interested, you can read the entire text here. It sheds a rather different light on later history if you have the knowledge that plans to turn Palestine (which at the time was part of the Ottoman empire) into a Jewish homeland actually existed in the early years of the First World War.

 

Conflict in the Middle East pre-dates the foundation of Israel by several thousand years. Even modern conflict significantly pre-dates it.

Palestine was not England property they conquer it when countries powerfull where taking over the world.

And you think Jews welcome Palestinians then go there see for your self.

When i went there for the first time in 5 years they had me stay 3 hours because they think i got something illegal in my bag which not just me but maybe like 30 more people.

Erm... Yeah, that's what Ben Gurion Airport and El Al are known for, if it weren't for the strict rules and monitoring of passengers, El Al and Ben Gurion would've been craters by now.

 

Oh, and, they were watching you waaaay before you were confronted to open your bag, even at the parking area (that's where they have people employed who check if the passengers seem nervous), you just couldn't tell.

Can't you read they did the same to 30 or so people.

And if you are a Palestinian you can't use israeli airport.

[El Zilcho]

 

Free themselves from what? Development at the hand of a relatively friendly government (in relation to the hostile environment it is in?).

 

The Palestinians have been given many chances to 'free' themselves, conventions and attempts by the UN to give them certain portions of land (which they refused). But, stubbornness  will not get them far in this situation, and they've proven to be very stubborn when given simple solutions to the 'Zionist oppression'.

 

Oh, and regarding your history comment: Yes, but at the core, Israel (Judea) is a Jewish land. And denying that is - in your own words- laughable.

Your explanation sounds quite a lot like Imperialist calls for the 'development of Africa' or justification of subjugation as 'progress'. I very truly do hate to be sensational, and there is not much similarity here at all, but the analogy illustrates a rough point. Nevertheless, the smug assumption that Palestinians would benefit massively from the development of their lands by intruders is agonising to read as a serious argument. Palestinians are being developed how exactly? With lands of theirs being seized, disruption and civilian casualties being caused by the conflict, and constant bombings? By being walled in? These are partly by-products of violent protest and terrorism; but part of the situation caused by Israel.

 

I'd be stubborn too if my country was being offered half concessions in order to appear to be being treated fairly. Once more, you insist on dragging history back into it, despite my dismissal of it as trivial. Constantinople is a traditionally Christian city, perhaps we should expel all Turks and rename it from Istanbul? If you read carefully I stated I don't want resettlement of anyone, just a much fairer deal for the Palestinians, which is generally considered to be denied.