IDF vs Hamas naval commando

[janon]

British colonial rule lasted 300 years but Indians never accepted it. Should the Palestinians give up just because the colonialists are strong?

The difference is that the British were ruling us, and we ourselves were not allowed in the govt structure. In the middle east, Israel is only ruling Israel and those who live in it. If the displaced Palestinians want to get their land back, that is not going o happen - Israel is just too damned strong. If the British had displaced a part of India and settled there and made a new country for themselves, I don't think Indians could have done anything about it at that time.

The point is that the analogy of colonial Britain does not hold. It is not a matter of one country ruling another. It's about one country having displaced a people and settled there - which is bad, but a different thing. The analogy I gave to the native Americans and Australians is more valid. Do you see them continuing to fight the non-natives anymore? Should native Americans start firing rockets from their reservations at American cities today, or should they accept the past and move on?

 

[Developereo]

The difference is that the British were ruling us, and we ourselves were not allowed in the govt structure. In the middle east, Israel is only ruling Israel and those who live in it. If the displaced Palestinians want to get their land back, that is not going o happen - Israel is just too damned strong. If the British had displaced a part of India and settled there and made a new country for themselves, I don't think Indians could have done anything about it at that time.

The point is that the analogy of colonial Britain does not hold. It is not a matter of one country ruling another. It's about one country having displaced a people and settled there - which is bad, but a different thing. The analogy I gave to the native Americans and Australians is more valid. Do you see them continuing to fight the non-natives anymore? Should native Americans start firing rockets from their reservations at American cities today, or should they accept the past and move on?

The analogy of colonial Britain is entirely valid.

Palestine was under colonial British rule and the colonial Brits imported hundreds of thousand of Jews, in line with the Balfour Declaration, to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Palestinians had no say in the matter.

That's why I gave the analogy if the British rulers of India (comparable to Palestine) had allowed large numbers of racist Jews to settle in an area of their choosing, to create an "Israel" in India, and ethnically cleanse the Indian locals from that chosen area.

 

[janon]

The analogy of colonial Britain is entirely valid.

Palestine was under colonial British rule and the colonial Brits imported hundreds of thousand of Jews, in line with the Balfour Declaration, to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The Palestinians had no say in the matter.

That's why I gave the analogy if the British rulers of India (comparable to Palestine) had allowed large numbers of racist Jews to settle in an area of their choosing, to create an "Israel" in India, and ethnically cleanse the Indian locals from that chosen area.

You are still avoiding the comparison to the similarly displaced and ethnically cleansed native populations across the world. Should native Americans fire rockets into the USA? Should people living on the outskirts of Mexico do that, because their ancestors were thrown out due to USA'a westward expansionism? If they did, how would the US respond?

 

[Developereo]

You are still avoiding the comparison to the similarly displaced and ethnically cleansed native populations across the world. Should native Americans fire rockets into the USA? Should people living on the outskirts of Mexico do that, because their ancestors were thrown out due to USA'a westward expansionism? If they did, how would the US respond?

I am not avoiding it. I have answered it at length in other threads.

If you go back in time, then every country was settled through invasion. However, at the end of the colonial era, around early-mid 20th century, the Western colonial powers returned the land to their indigenous peoples. This was the Wilsonian doctrine of empowering indigenous peoples.

The ONLY exception to the rule of indigenous empowerment post European colonial era is Israel. Hence, Israel is a remnant of the European colonial era.

 

[Audio]

Guys, just admit it.

We support Israel because it makes Developeon mad.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I am not avoiding it. I have answered it at length in other threads.

If you go back in time, then every country was settled through invasion. However, at the end of the colonial era, around early-mid 20th century, the Western colonial powers returned the land to their indigenous peoples. This was the Wilsonian doctrine of empowering indigenous peoples.

The ONLY exception to the rule of indigenous empowerment post European colonial era is Israel. Hence, Israel is a remnant of the European colonial era.

Except it was mass-immigration, not an invasion, much like that of people moving to Europe nowadays,
sometimes with the help of organised smugglers.
People in Europe against mass-immigration are mostly fighting it at the election booth.
The few examples where people have taken up arms, they are caught and convicted as criminals.
When Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948, Arabs fled out of current Israel (reason debated)
and Jews fled Arab countries, much like how India was divided, although in a less brutal way.
Also much less refugees.

 

[Developereo]

Except it was mass-immigration, not an invasion, much like that of people moving to Europe nowadays,
sometimes with the help of organised smugglers.
People in Europe against mass-immigration are mostly fighting it at the election booth.
The few examples where people have taken up arms, they are caught and convicted as criminals.
When Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948, Arabs fled out of current Israel (reason debated)
and Jews fled Arab countries, much like how India was divided, although in a less brutal way.
Also much less refugees.

Wrong analogy.

The immigration in Europe is allowed by the elected democratic governments. (We are not debating illegal migration here).

The migration to Palestine was not sanctioned by the local Palestinians. It was imposed on them by a colonial ruler: Britain.

 

[bronxbull]

India and Israel: a friendship deepened by prejudice | Kapil Komireddi | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Indians love anyone who kills Muslims.

The Israelis are efficient at killing -- but so were the Nazis. I guess the Israelis learned well.

Israelis occupy the holy land,whatever you guys might bark,the land of israel is what everyone wants,not makkah/madina,without oil nobody ll go there to live.

 

[gubbi]

But many Indians are entirely anti-Islamic.

Again, a very misleading understanding of India. Cant blame you, you have been brought on a staple diet of misinformed justification of the TNT!
Indians dont hate Muslims. They arent anti-Islamic. We have the second or third largest Muslim population in the world. And the most peaceful to boast too!! There aint any other country with such a sizeable Muslim population in the world that shows such tolerance and peace! Why, look at your own nation, where sectarian rife dominates everyday life!
India has had Muslim rule for atleast 500 years, out of which the majority were by the Mughals. It was the initial Muslim invaders which forced some people into converting to Islam - your people being among the first to succumb, no one before that tried any conversions.
So, your statement is factually very wrong, and stems from your own hatred of other religions. Period.

Once again, the historical facts are not hostage to the political correctness that hampers your understanding of the situation.

The Palestinian Arabs did not invade Jewish lands, evict the Jews for their religion, and demand an Arabic State.

The Zionist Jews did invade Palestine, evict Arabs for their religion, and demanded a Jewish State.

Call it whatever you will, but Palestinian Mandate, had a sizable Jewish population, even before the Fathers of Zion demanded a separate Jewish state. The Palestinian Mandate was carved into various countries, including the present day Jordan, which co-incidentally contains the largest Palestinian population. Hell, your "saviour of Islam", Gen. Zia-ul-haq, made his 'bones' by helping the Jordanian kingdom in their massacre of Palestinian PLO - the very people who were fighting Israel for an independent state! I dont hear any cries condemning that brutality! And now you all shed crocodile tears for the Palestinians? Bigotry!

The religious angle is entirely the result of the Zionist Jews exhibiting racial and religious bigotry, regardless of your reluctance to criticize a criminal just because he happens to be Jewish.

BS. The demand for a Jewish state was known by all the Arab nations way before even the British started thinking of leaving Palestine. The Arabs did nothing to help the Palestinians. The Muslim world did nothing to help the Palestinians. Instead of blaming the British and the French for the mess, it would do some good to know the dirty politics being played by some of the Arab Sheikhs and Kings during the time. Greediness knows no bounds. And you blame all the religious bigotry on the Jewish people? And then when the Jews declared independence, the Arabs invaded the lands. A very bad decision indeed! The rest is history.

So, throwing out statements based entirely on your narrow, misguided religious point of view is very shameful, to say the least.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Wrong analogy.

The immigration in Europe is allowed by the elected democratic governments. (We are not debating illegal migration here).

The migration to Palestine was not sanctioned by the local Palestinians. It was imposed on them by a colonial ruler: Britain.

Since The Ottoman Empire signed treaties after WW1 giving away control over the Middle East
to England and France.
The league of Nation gave the control over the Mandate to Britain, after they had
published the Balfour declaration, there is no legal problem.

 

[Killswitch]

Talk about one sided...

 

[Developereo]

Since The Ottoman Empire signed treaties after WW1 giving away control over the Middle East
to England and France.
The league of Nation gave the control over the Mandate to Britain, after they had
published the Balfour declaration, there is no legal problem.

Palestine was the spoils of war won by the winning side, Britain, from the losing side, Ottomans.

The people of Palestine were not in charge of their land, in either case, and were under subjugation.

The fact remains that Israel is the creation of a colonial power over the wishes of the indigenous peoples.

Again, a very misleading understanding of India. Cant blame you, you have been brought on a staple diet of misinformed justification of the TNT!

Just blabbering 'religious hatred' to hide your own ignorance of history and facts will not wash.

I quoted an Israeli poll of Indians. The results of the poll are backed up by comments on the internet by Indians, which are largely anti-Muslim. They are backed up by the election of Modi, who remains unapologetic about the Gujarat massacre.

As for your 'history' of Palestine, it is so laughably wrong and ignorant, I won't waste any time. I have provided facts and figures before to show the real history of Palestine, including the population of Jews and the timing of the British Mandate, as documented by the BBC, direct interviews, and western historians.

You, of course, can continue to live in your fantasy world of denial and believe whatever version of history suits you.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Palestine was the spoils of war won by the winning side, Britain, from the losing side, Ottomans.

The people of Palestine were not in charge of their land, in either case, and were under subjugation.

The fact remains that Israel is the creation of a colonial power over the wishes of the indigenous peoples.

Israel is created by the United Nations, thus legal.
The British allowed Jews to immigrate into the area, which was a continuation of the policy
of the Ottoman Empire. There is no doubt that the British had the right to make the decision.
All you can claim is that some Arabs that got evicted after their leased land
was sold to Jews got a rough deal.

Show any local or International Law that was broken by the Ottomans or the British
or any Jew immigrant (until the British put a brake on immigration)

It doesn't get much more legal than that.

You do not know the wishes of the indigenous people. No vote.

You know that *some* Arabs didn't like it and started to attack the immigrants,
thus creating this situation.

 

[LordTyrannus]

Very spectacular

Islamic Jihad heroes VS terrorists

Wishfull thinking. Just because Hamas gets some simple and easy to intercept rockets and sends some men on israeli beaches?

They are dead now and you call their senseless death spectacular???

Pure stupidity.

 

[Developereo]

Israel is created by the United Nations, thus legal.
The British allowed Jews to immigrate into the area, which was a continuation of the policy
of the Ottoman Empire. There is no doubt that the British had the right to make the decision.
All you can claim is that some Arabs that got evicted after their leased land
was sold to Jews got a rough deal.

Show any local or International Law that was broken by the Ottomans or the British
or any Jew immigrant (until the British put a brake on immigration)

It doesn't get much more legal than that.

You do not know the wishes of the indigenous people. No vote.

You know that *some* Arabs didn't like it and started to attack the immigrants,
thus creating this situation.

The "legality" of the Ottomans and British was the legality of the colonialist.

I never said Israel was illegal. It is patently legalized by the UN. But the legality is the legality by force of guns. Whatever colonial Britain did in India was also "legal" because the Brits wrote the laws.

Similarly, the UN is the legal charade around the military power of the major powers when it was formed. If, tomorrow, country X discovers a superweapon which is invincible to current technology, that country can form its own UNSC and pass all the laws it wishes.

The fact that the locals didn't want the Jewish migration is evident to anyone who cares to open the newspaper for the last seventy plus years.

If a bunch of Muslims invaded a land, kicked out most non-Muslims, and declared an Islamic State, you would be shouting about Islamic fanaticism.

When a bunch of Jews do the same, you don't have the intellectual honesty to condemn it.

THAT shows your inherent bias.