For the record - I think the map is a disgusting propaganda piece.Why do you think that? A similar map appears on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine) under the heading "Evolution of Mandate Palestine and modern Palestinian Territories".
I was trying to avoid a historical discussion of sorts, because, frankly, it leads to nothing.I agree, we need to deal with the situation as it is now. Questioning Israels legitimacy or "right to exist" at this stage is pointless. That's not to say such a discussion couldn't be had though.
You can go through all the articles concerning the history of the land, yet find no real answer for whose land it is.It's clear whose land it is now. Israels land belongs to Israel. How that came to be is a matter of historical record and people will draw their own conclusions about whose land it "really" is.
In my opinion Resolution 181 was the fairest effort to try and bring peace to the region, but then the arabs sorrounding it started a war of aggression and lost.I think the fairest solution would have been one democratic state. But that would never have worked because the Zionists wanted a Jewish state with a law of return for all Jews. Can you understand the reaction of the Arab world? A traditionally Arab region had just been de facto gifted to the (largely immigrant) Jewish minority by the West. Do you accept that at this time the Jews made up a minority in terms of population and land ownership (30% and 6% respectively)?
I'm just saying that it is wrong to post the map without ANY contextI think he did give some context:
3- Palestine was 3/4 muslims and christians and 1/4 jewish in 1948This lines up with the argument I outlined above; Palestine was traditionally and by majority Arab (his point 3). The people living there, as a whole, should have had the right to decide what became of the area after Britain said "fuck this" and left it up to the UN - for example a single democratic state (point number 4). The Jewish minority were unfairly given over 50% of the land and continued to expand (points 5 and 6). You seem to imply that itis dishonest to post this without the context, but like I already asked: how does the context of the Jordan/Egypt occupations, the Corpus Separandum etc qualitatively affect the argument?
4- The first rule of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights made by UNO is people's self determination. A right that was not applied in Palestine.
5- http://www.artistes-contre-le-mur.org/palesti...z_2011.jpg
6- Palestinians had nothing to do with what happened to the jews in europe they had no reason to suffer for western countries.
Context is critical here. The map without context implies some sort of conquest by israel to capture the land...What dos the map with context imply? If I look at this map I think "Gee that sure looks unfair to the Palestinians" what is the context that makes me wrong?
...whereas in reality most if not all land gains followed wars that were started by palestine.The implication being that Israel is justified in occupying land obtained through war, contrary to international law? This doesn't help the Israeli case, but even if you disagreed it doesn't address the apparent unfairness in the creation of Israel in the first place, or the settlements and land grabs in the West Bank
Do we really want to do the who is right and who is wrong thing?Not really, but that's the point people are making I think when they post that map (which I didn't).
What was 'their' land? I don't get it?Mandatory Palestine, which was majority Arab before the Zionist immigration in the 20th century and the creation of Israel.
but what are we talking about here?This is what I'm talking about: the article you posted doesn't address the real point being made when people post that map (regardless of whether or not that point right or wrong).
St.Thomas Aquinas:
“The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.”
Among its findings it reported that 75% of Israeli Jews don't approve of Arabs and Jews sharing apartment buildings; that over half of Jews wouldn't want to have an Arab boss and that marrying an Arab amounts to "national treason"; and that 55% of the sample thought Arabs should be kept separate from Jews in entertainment sites. Half wanted the Israeli government to encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. About 40% believed Arab citizens should have their voting rights removed.
A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5% of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Israeli Arabs should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel. 56% believe Arabs should not be eligible to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.
An October 2010 poll by the Dahaf polling agency found that 36% of Israeli Jews favor eliminating voting rights for non-Jews.[19] In recent polling (2003–2009) between 42% and 56% of Israelis agreed that "Israeli Arabs suffer from discrimination as opposed to Jewish citizens;" 80% of Israeli Arabs agreed with that statement in 2009.
Although Hamas does in fact put their rockets into schools and hospitals.Is this confirmed? From what I read, there were no rockets or munitions in any of the active UN hospitals.
Well, if the did care about the people, they would stop shooting Israel for one.And what about the blockade of Gaza? Should they just accept Israel controlling their borders, air, coast, imports/exports? Again this is framing the situation as Israel being the victim. Should the people of Gaza just roll over and give up their right to self-determination?
it explicitly states the need to call for Djihad and destroy the state of Israel and establish an islamic (i.e. kill all infidels) state in the land of 'palestine'.That's indefensible, but I have to ask how relevant it is. Everyone knows Israel isn't going anywhere, including the Palestinians.
they could possibly join with Fatah (or not)They did exactly that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Fatah%E2%80..._Agreement
The agreement was welcomed by the EU. Michael Mann, the foreign policy spokesperson, said "the EU has consistently called for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas".[4]Given this fact, I think your next statement is a huge over simpliication:
Following the agreement, the Israeli government announced that it would halt peace talks with the Palestinians,[4] but Abbas said the deal did not contradict their commitment to peace with Israel on the basis of a two-state solution.[5] However, Abbas assured reporters that any unity government would recognize Israel, be non-violent, and bound to previous PLO agreements.
What they do in reality: Fire rockets.They stopped firing rockets for something like 18 months until this recent conflict. I don't think they woke up one day and just decided to rocket the shit out of Israel for no particular reason.
As for the rockets out of civilian areas: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.609125Its obvious they are firing rockets from urban, civilian areas. That's guerilla warfare; what are they supposed to do? Fight head to head like gentlemen and get blown to bits? I'm more concerned about them storing weapons in active civilian buildings.
During the 2008-2009 Gaza War known as Operation Cast Lead, Israeli military forces were accused of continuing to use civilians as human shields by Amnesty International and former Israeli soldiers (see Breaking the Silence).[27] According to testimonies, Israeli forces used unarmed Palestinians including children to protect military positions, walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives.[27][28] Amnesty International claimed that the Israeli military used human shields during the Gaza War of 2008-2009, stating that it found cases in which "Israeli troops forced Palestinians to stay in one room of their home while turning the rest of the house into a base and sniper position, effectively using the families, both adults and children, as human shields and putting them at risk.[29] The UN Human Rights Council also accused Israel of using human shields during 2008-2009 Gaza Conflict.[30][31]
...From Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-con...2014-07-25
According to Amnesty International [41] and the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict [42] Palestinians do not use Palestinians as human shields.
Amnesty International states that it "does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks"[41] An Amnesty International report in 2009 "found no evidence Palestinian fighters directed civilians to shield military objectives from attacks, forced them to stay in buildings used by militants, or prevented them from leaving commandeered buildings".[43]
The UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict "did not find any evidence of civilians being forced to remain in their houses by Palestinian armed groups". The Mission "asked numerous witnesses in Gaza why they had stayed in their homes in spite of the shelling, bombing and Israeli ground invasion" respondents stated they "did not think they would be at risk as long as they remained indoors or because they had no safe place to go". [44]
Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply.
An Israeli military official responded to these allegations: "The IDF operated in accordance with the rules of war and did the utmost to minimise harm to civilians uninvolved in combat. The IDF's use of weapons conforms to international law." An Israeli embassy spokesperson considers these allegations suspect because of Hamas pressure, adding: "Anyone who understands the realities of Gaza will know that these people are not free to speak the truth. Those that wish to speak out cannot for fear of beatings, torture or execution at the hands of Hamas."[33]
At least I think, it can be demonstrated that either side have done their fair share of crimes and that assignments of guilt for the conflict should be done very carefully.This is basically my point. But there is something weird going on when people characterize the issue purely as Islamic terrorists lobbing rockets at Israel just because they hate the Jews, which I feel has been done in this very thread. There's a particularly (some would say deliberately) manipulative use of language being used to frame everything. It's a convoluted situation and Israel is perpetrator as well as victim.
However I wonder why you quoted your source rather selectively:Well I don't think it's surprising they deny it. This isn't really a point I feel like arguing though, I just have a problem with Israels part in this continually getting whitewashed.
And then of course there is the EU condemning the Hamas' call for human shields and their indiscriminately fire: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_dat...144098.pdfYep, that's why I said "at least as guilty" (without explicitly stating how guilty Hamas is, which is a separate argument).
![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
