Why all Israelis are cowards

[A.P. Richelieu]

By "civilized nations" he means countries who hold the biggest guns at this point in time. The current world order -- or at any time in history -- is always a reflection of "might is right".

Israel exists today because it is a colonial entity created by the colonial powers by force of their superior firepower. The legitimization of that colonization through the UN is just sugar coating.

If, in the future, someone else has overwhelmingly advanced technology, they can rewrite borders and establish a new world order of "civilized nations", relegating all who resist such imposition as unreasonable savages.

As always, when you strip away the niceties, it all boils down to might is right.

Yes, the current way of things is that the permanent members of the Security Council cannot easily be critizized,
due to their veto. Noone forces any country to participate in the U.N., and therefore you need to abide by the rules
if you join.
On the other hand, permanent members cannot enforce a resolution, unless they get a majority in the Security Council. Might may not be right unless you convince others.
If a new major power appear, then they can get veto power. Only happened with China, but India may end up there as well. Germany should perhaps be there as well.

Israel exists, because a lot of individuals acted on the idea to move to the their historic roots.
Similar movements occur today, with Africans trying to enter E.U., and refugees from the Iraq wars,
and now Syria wars try to escape their current plight.
Noone of the refugees has even a shared responsibility as a group for this.
Once in Europe, and with citizenship, they have the same theoretical rights as native Europeans,
(Although a lot of practical obstacles remain, and a minority wants to throw them out).

An immigrant can only act on the current laws and rules of the territory where they want to enter.
If they are accepted, by the current rulrt, then they are there legally.

If the current ruler, does not accept the immigrant, then a certain percentage will try to
enter the country anyway. Eventually a civilized nation will have to accept them into the society.

If not, you end up with the Kosovo or Burma situation, where excessive violence
is used, and civilized nations will in best case force their governments to intervene.

In Israel, the Arabs had zero control over their destiny, beeing ruled first by Turkey, and then by
the British. Immigrants are of course easier appreciated if they relieve the native population from
menial jobs and at low wages. Jews moving to Israel were different. They were backed
by strong financial resources, allowing them to make attractive deals with local landowners,
which decided to cash in, instead of leasing out the land to local farmers as was the custom.

This is all perfectly legal, but this of course ruined the life of many a Palestinian farmer,
who eventually tried to extract revenge on the new landowners, and lost.
The situation, that immigrants are have more resource than the natives, is quite unique.
You have Russian Oligarchs in London, but not so many.
There are no laws that handles this situation, maybe with the exception of Palestine territories
Nowadays, where people may be killed for selling land to Israelis.
Is this law fair? Don't think so, but if it is abolished, then an organized policy may
of course trash the palestinians both as individuals and as a group.

Israel was created, not by the firepower of the west, but by organized determination of the Jews,
which overpowered a rural community, not in control over their own destiny.
Britain initially were OK, with Jews immigrating, then tried to stop it,
but a certain percentage of the local Brits, supported the immigration anyway.
The deteriorating situation, with the Stern gang etc. made the British leave.

I invite anyone to come up with a different solution than division of the country.

And before Hazzy replies:
Suggesting that all African immigrants in E.U. leave, is the racist point of view.

The Israelis in Israel entered first legally, then illegally under the a British Mandate.
Then the force deciding on legality left, and the previous illegal immigrants were accepted into society,
by the legally created Israeli government, and thus legalized.
When deciding on legality, you have to look at the situation of each individual, and not as a group.
The collective decisions of a large group of Jews hurted Palestinians, even if each individual Jew
acted within legal limits. (Not forgetting terrorist activities, which aleays is outside the law).
This is how it works in any other country, and only racists disagree.

Sir,

If it was not for Hitler---india / pakistan would still be colonies.

No, If it wasn't for Roosevelt (and the Indians, most noteable Gandhi), India/Pakistan
would still be colonies.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I am not saying that Israelis are cowards. Such generalizations are ridiculous from the outset.

My comment was about the establishment of Israel as a modern state, going all the way back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when Britain declared that land to be a future "Jewish state". By any measure, that was a blatant colonial imposition by Britain onto the (mostly non-Jewish) people living there. Modern Jewish migration (from the West) started in the late 1800s and, even by 1917, the Jewish population was around 5% or so. The demographic flooding of Jews onto that land was carried out under the auspices of Western colonial powers and the US, with contemptuous disregard for the people living there at the time.

Almost all of the current countries of the Middle East were formed by the diktat of Western colonial powers, and Israel is no exception. Your own country's borders were, in part, decided as a result of colonial power negotiations. In addition, Jordan, for example, was created without the consent of the indigenous people living there at the time, so does that mean it is also illegitimate? In fact, various estimates put the Palestinian population at 50-60% of the Jordanian population, which would further strain the justification for Jordan's existence as anything other than the nation of Palestine.

In short, doubt standards don't hold up.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Arabs are coward but they are good to blow themselves.

 

[dexter]

Size doesnt matter

 

[Developereo]

Almost all of the current countries of the Middle East were formed by the diktat of Western colonial powers, and Israel is no exception. Your own country's borders were, in part, decided as a result of colonial power negotiations. In addition, Jordan, for example, was created without the consent of the indigenous people living there at the time, so does that mean it is also illegitimate? In fact, various estimates put the Palestinian population at 50-60% of the Jordanian population, which would further strain the justification for Jordan's existence as anything other than the nation of Palestine.

In short, doubt standards don't hold up.

Every single country which was formed after colonialism was given to the people actually living on the land.

The ONLY exception on the planet is Israel which was given to people who were later shipped in.

Israel was created, not by the firepower of the west, but by organized determination of the Jews,

To sum up a reply to your post, all the "determination" in the world comes to nought when faced with superior firepower.

Whether you accept it or not, the fact is that legitimacy is ALWAYS bought at the barrel of a gun. This was true in prehistoric times, and it is true now. The UNSC is proof of that since the only thing that really matters is veto power, which is reserved for a handful of countries. Everything else is salad dressing for public consumption.

Israel exists because Britain and the US were convinced by Zionist lobbying to reserve that piece of land for migrating Jews. As for "original" claims, they are worthless. We can examine the history of ancient Canaan and dispel that myth any time, or we can go back all the way to prehistoric Africa and acknowledge that every group of humans are conquerors on their land.

 

[Falcon29]

I invite anyone to come up with a different solution than division of the country.

And before Hazzy replies:
.

Why'd you mention me? Solution to what exactly? What solution do you propose to end this decades long occupation? Let me make it clear once again. I'm asking for a solution.

I'm not asking for your rhetoric or personal views. If someone chose you to propose an immediate solution to this conflict with maps, borders and initial steps. Present to us a solution that doesn't place the onus on the occupied victims.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Every single country which was formed after colonialism was given to the people actually living on the land.

The ONLY exception on the planet is Israel which was given to people who were later shipped in.

The only exception? How about the countries that comprise North America and South America? Australia? And what of Jordan, which I specifically mentioned, literally given as a consolation prize to the Hashemites for them to rule over?

At least make this interesting.

 

[Developereo]

The only exception? How about the countries that comprise North America and South America? Australia? And what of Jordan, which I specifically mentioned, literally given as a consolation prize to the Hashemites for them to rule over?

At least make this interesting.

The Americas and Australia were formed before/during colonialism and are a direct confirmation of my claim that might is right. Before the 20th century, it was accepted that national boundaries are formed through conquest. No one even questioned the concept of might is right The discussion here is about countries which were formed by the colonial powers at the end of the colonial era in early 20th century. The claim was that the world had entered a new era, when indigenous peoples would be given their land back, and changing borders through force would not be accepted..

All other countries, including Jordan, were given to people who were actually living there. The ruling elite may have been negotiated in behind-the-scenes horse trading, but no other country, except Israel, was formed by shipping in the future residents.

 

[Developereo]

Israel was created, not by the firepower of the west, but by organized determination of the Jews,

You are right about the determination of Jews.

And do you not find it interesting that they focused their determination and lobbying, not on Brazil or Argentina, but on Britain and the US -- two countries which were military giants and victors at the time?

The Zionists knew that superior firepower was their ticket to legitimization.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The Americas and Australia were formed before/during colonialism and are a direct confirmation of my claim that might is right. Before the 20th century, it was accepted that national boundaries are formed through conquest. No one even questioned the concept of might is right The discussion here is about countries which were formed by the colonial powers at the end of the colonial era in early 20th century. The claim was that the world had entered a new era, when indigenous peoples would be given their land back, and changing borders through force would not be accepted..

All other countries, including Jordan, were given to people who were actually living there. The ruling elite may have been negotiated in behind-the-scenes horse trading, but no other country, except Israel, was formed by shipping in the future residents.

It's convenient for you to now introduce these parameters to the discussion, but unfortunately, you're still wrong. The UNSCOP partition of the Mandate provided for a "Jewish State" that had a majority Jewish population, or as you put it, "given to the people who were actually living there." That the Arabs rejected this plan and started a war over it isn't the fault of the colonial powers or the UN, it's the fault of the Arabs. The current status and geography of Israel is, of course, irrelevant to your argument, since Arab actions nullified any decisions of the colonial powers or the UN.

Jordan was given to the Hashemites, who are from the Hejaz, not Jordan, i.e., they were "shipped in," to use your parlance. Jordan was not given to the indigenous Jordanians.

 

[Developereo]

It's convenient for you to now introduce these parameters to the discussion, but unfortunately, you're still wrong. The UNSCOP partition of the Mandate provided for a "Jewish State" that had a majority Jewish population, or as you put it, "given to the people who were actually living there." That the Arabs rejected this plan and started a war over it isn't the fault of the colonial powers or the UN, it's the fault of the Arabs. The current status and geography of Israel is, of course, irrelevant to your argument, since Arab actions nullified any decisions of the colonial powers or the UN.

Jordan was given to the Hashemites, who are from the Hejaz, not Jordan, i.e., they were "shipped in," to use your parlance. Jordan was not given to the indigenous Jordanians.

It is YOU who is avoiding facts and jumping all over the place. I always claimed that all legitimacy is gained at the barrel of the gun. You brought in the Americas, without realizing that you were supporting my argument. Your example of the Middle East also falls flat, since the facts don't support you.

Answer me this: what was the Jewish population of Palestine in 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration?

How on earth can you claim that giving the land to 3-5% of the population -- which was itself mostly very recent migrants in the previous 20 odd years with the explicit goal of colonizing the land -- can be equated to "giving the land to people who were living there?" The 95-97% of the residents, who were non-Jewish, were summarily dismissed by the colonial Brits.

Your example of Jordan is also flawed. The ruling tribe may have been shipped in, but the vast majority of Jordan's residents were already living there.

 

[SALMAN F]

Their advanced army technology can only kill civilians

 

[Falcon29]

It's convenient for you to now introduce these parameters to the discussion, but unfortunately, you're still wrong. The UNSCOP partition of the Mandate provided for a "Jewish State" that had a majority Jewish population, or as you put it, "given to the people who were actually living there." That the Arabs rejected this plan and started a war over it isn't the fault of the colonial powers or the UN, it's the fault of the Arabs. The current status and geography of Israel is, of course, irrelevant to your argument, since Arab actions nullified any decisions of the colonial powers or the UN.

Jordan was given to the Hashemites, who are from the Hejaz, not Jordan, i.e., they were "shipped in," to use your parlance. Jordan was not given to the indigenous Jordanians.

Nice try, it goes back to the Balfour declaration. The British consensus a year after that recorded the Jewish people as minority.

It is YOU who is avoiding facts and jumping all over the place. I always claimed that all legitimacy is gained at the barrel of the gun. You brought in the Americas, without realizing that you were supporting my argument. Your example of the Middle East also falls flat, since the facts don't support you.

Answer me this: what was the Jewish population of Palestine in 1917, at the time of the Balfour Declaration?

How on earth can you claim that giving the land to 3-5% of the population -- which was itself mostly very recent migrants in the previous 20 odd years with the explicit goal of colonizing the land -- can be equated to "giving the land to people who were living there?"

Your example of Jordan is also flawed. The ruling tribe may have been shipped in, but the vast majority of Jordan's residents were already living there.

We posted the same thing almost at the same time. How convenient of him to disregard past declarations and developments over those few decades.

 

[rmi5]

Their advanced army technology can only kill civilians

Their arms, proved to be very efficient in killing Hizballat terrorists

 

[jammersat]

Their arms, proved to be very efficient in killing Hizballat terrorists

i think the 2006 war was a draw , nonetheless , it was fought between a terrorist group , khizballat , like you say , and the state of israel , so basically hizballah managed to do the same as egypt in 1973 although it was 2006 and still lebanon is much tinier than israel