Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
so a group of people with no govt. other than the one run by the brits is started and it's shocking that everyone gets mad? the only reason they got so pissed was because it was the jews who were setting up the new govt.
|
Yes, you must be right. The only reason at all that the people who were about to be dispossessed of their land got pissed is because the people doing the dispossessing were Jews.
Assuredly, that they were Jews played a big part in the problem - but show me any group of people that would happily accept being ruled by some new foreign invader.
Quote:
|
well, you're right, the land was the inhabitants who possessed it. and if it weren't that there was still a lot of colonial type thinking going on, maybe isreal would never have been created.
|
I don't even know what you're trying to say right there. The greatest mistake of post-WWII international policy decisions was to blatantly and swiftly decide that the Jews would receive THAT chunk of land. There is simply no justification for it (unless you accept the God-ordained Hebrew ownership of the land - which is not exactly exempalary international politiking).
Why not a chunk of America or the Soviet Union? Both countries had the largest land ownership. Why decide that the people of Palestine simply don't count?
Quote:
|
now when you consider that when isreal was created, they didn't just kick every non-jew out. many of the arab inhabitants became isreali citzens. so why did some become citizens and some not? i don't know, i'm sure they all had reasons?
|
I can't speak for every Arab that stayed, but assuredly there were groups of Arabs in areas of Palestine that refused to fight for their land for any number of reasons. However, the vast majority were forced out. And not suprisingly, the Arabs that live in Israel today are, in many ways, treated as second-class citizens.
Quote:
|
and for those who left, why didn't any of the other arab countries take them in?
|
Why should anyone be required to go somewhere else? It was their land, they specifically refused to accept the U.N. decision to simply give their land to someone else. If Canada decided to invade Washington State, would you be claiming it was OK and the current residents of Washington State should be absorbed into one of the other states? I highly doubt it.
Quote:
|
the places that have been taken in war, as far as i'm concerned, are isreals now. in no other time in history has a country won a war been told to give land gained in said war back, especially a defensive war.
|
Well, first of all - there is nothing defensive about Israel's position in any of the wars they have been involved in - unless you discount the initial land-grab of 1948. Everything since then has been based on that - in effect, it has been one long war with hot and cool periods. If Israel TRULY intended for peace, they would not be holding onto land they have subsequently taken. The only possible claim to peaceful endeavors would be if Israel had 1948 borders - and they were then insisting that the Palestinians should agree to the U.N. decisions. Since Israel is not doing that, they are not attempting peace.
Quote:
|
think isreal should treat the palestinains better, but it seems to me that everytime things quiet down, they're the owns who start things back up with a suicide bombing. so i have very little sympathy for them left.
|
This is short-sighted thinking. The Palestinians, in the numerous and distinct groups to which they have been divided by Israel's aggressive tactics, have exceptionally limited methods of retaliation for Israel's aggressive land grabbing tactics. Additionally, and as I have already stated, it is a mockery of truth to claim that Israel is attempting peace and the Palestinians keep throwing up road blocks to that peace by "starting a new war" or "attacking without provocation" - it is not an attempt at peace when your enemy takes your land and offers you half of it back.
Quote:
|
i think isreal does need nukes.
|
Israel doesn't need nukes because none of their enemies have nukes and any aggression against Israel by bordering nations can be handled by the U.S. Threats to Israel are conventional weapons - not nuclear weapons. It's certainly a strong position for Israel to have nukes - but they do not need them to protect themselves. For example, I own a gun to protect myself and my house. I could obtain a bazooka and it would protect me even more - but assuredly, I do not
need to have one.