Simple poll on Palestine

[Epsilon Delta]

That's like asking if the Jutland Peninsula has the right to exist. The gunny asked in his thread of the NATION of Israel had the right to exist.

Yeah, well, exactly. Does the NATION of Palestine has a right to exist? DOES the Jutland pensinsula, in fact, have a right to exist? It IS afterall, governed by a separate entity that does not claim possesion of the rest of Somalia. Did Slovakia or the Czech republic have "right" to exist in 1950? 1970? 1992? Or was it just in 1993 that they gained the "right" to exist? What constitutes this "right to exist" and who gives it?

The fact is there are a particular group of people who claim to be "Israelis", who claim to live in a place called "Israel." If this is the requirement for a "right to exist", if there IS, in FACT, a group that identifies itself as PALESTINIAN, who claim to live in a place they themselves call "PALESTINE", why does one hold less a right to exist than the other?

The Jutland Peninsula is the part of Europe that is occupied by Denmark and to a smaller extent, Germany and has nothing to do with Somalia.
I can say that Czechoslovakia had the right to exist in all three of those years listed. She should have been free to set up her own government after World War II. I don't know the history of the two nations, so I don't know if they should have broken apart or not.
Speaking of World War II, should Austria have been forced to separate from Germany after the war was over?
Should Imperial Germany have been forced to give up the Danzig corridor after World War I?

Absolutely, totally, and completely correct. I was totally mistaken, I thought for a second you were talking about Puntland, one of the regions of Somalia, not the Jutland in Europe. = S. You got me there; I gotta admit, I'm kinda drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Apologies for the confusion. (Unlike other members on this board, and I'm not talking about you Elvis, I can actually admit I'm wrong when I am.)

But even then, the question makes even less sense. "Should the Jutland Peninsula have a right to exist"?? Well, most of the Jutland peninsula is Denmark, which is a universally recognized country- it doesn't need any 'right' to exist- it DOES exist. I don't really know who granted Denmark the "right to exist". I must say, I barely understand what you mean with that, in this case.

And exactly as you say, though "Czechoslovakia" DID exist in those three years, the point is that a couple of years after the Soviet regime fell, they simple split in two, into the Czech Republic and into Slovakia. But you are right that Czechoslovakia did not have the the freedom to choose its own style of government due to Soviet imperialism and brutality, as demonstrated in the Prague Spring in '68. It was not allowed to follow it's own path. It did not have that freedom. And neither did it's two subsequent constituent republics (the Czech and Slovak ones) during that time. You do view that as unfair, that a strong imperial system dominated and enslaved a smaller, weaker nation that should've been allowed it's own path, but you deny that freedom to another land that faces a very similar problem. Why, Elvis? Is it because the Soviet Union was "Bad" but Israel is "Good"? My point of view is that even if it had been GANDHI, as good a guy as he was, obstructing freedom would still be wrong. But that is why I brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion - both parts agreed they wanted to Seperate from the soviet union, and subsequently from each other. What would you have thought if the USSR had allowed Czechoslovakia to separate from the Eastern Bloc, but the conditions had been that it had to rescind any land where Russians lived, that it would have no army, no control of its borders, no right to sign treaties with foreign powers? Do you think that could be accurately described as "being free" to set up their own government and path? Because let me tell you that those are the exact same conditions that Israel is imposing on Palestine today. I also brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion because there are some sort of parallels in that they both wanted to separate, much like Israel and Palestine today, but the big difference is that neither necessarily domainated the other (though the Czechs had the upper hand through most of the relationship); but when did either get into a debate wether they had a "right" to exist? Nobody claimed that either country had no "right" to exist. Here where two peoples who wanted their own state; and it was through their own want and need of a state that they separated and were internationally recognized and thus became different nations. This is the same thing that is being denied to Palestine simply because their occupiers overwhelmingly overpower them in each and every indicator of wealth and power.

Sure, I admit, many Palestinians have in the past, and today still continue to deny that Israel has a "right" to exist. I believe this is wrong simply because it's so foolish; Israel EXISTS. It isn't about its "right" to exist; it simply DOES, as it has for over 60 years now. But you guys on the other side have to at least try to understand this position by putting yourselves in their shoes: This would not have flown ANYWHERE. In NO region where hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been shipped to would they have been welcomed with open arms. If they had been given a country in US territory, we would've seen the same thing; if they had been given a country in Latin America, it would've been the same thing, in China, the same, in India, the same; no indigenous population would've accepted this anywhere. That is the simple truth of the matter. It is also understanable why Jews and others wanted a single country for themsleves: a massive attempt to erase them from the earth had just taken place all over Europe. So both sides had grievances from the very beginning through no fault of their own, and both have to understand that. That is why it is so important that BOTH are allowed to have their own states to decide their own affairs, obviously in a democratic fashion (Israel shouldn't be a "Jewish State" like Palestine shouldn't be a "Muslim state" or any other religion-specific state at all), but still their own states within secure and recognized boundaries.

And furthermore I'm sorry, but I don't know what your following 2 questions have in terms of relevance to this arguement, so I would invite you to expand on that. I know that Austrians were fairly content with being absorbed into Germany; and that Germany was no pleased to cede Danzig after WWI but they had no choice. But how is it relevant to Israel/Palestine?

 

[DiveCon]

your right, it was Rabin
:doh:

 

[elvis]

Yeah, well, exactly. Does the NATION of Palestine has a right to exist? DOES the Jutland pensinsula, in fact, have a right to exist? It IS afterall, governed by a separate entity that does not claim possesion of the rest of Somalia. Did Slovakia or the Czech republic have "right" to exist in 1950? 1970? 1992? Or was it just in 1993 that they gained the "right" to exist? What constitutes this "right to exist" and who gives it?

The fact is there are a particular group of people who claim to be "Israelis", who claim to live in a place called "Israel." If this is the requirement for a "right to exist", if there IS, in FACT, a group that identifies itself as PALESTINIAN, who claim to live in a place they themselves call "PALESTINE", why does one hold less a right to exist than the other?

The Jutland Peninsula is the part of Europe that is occupied by Denmark and to a smaller extent, Germany and has nothing to do with Somalia.
I can say that Czechoslovakia had the right to exist in all three of those years listed. She should have been free to set up her own government after World War II. I don't know the history of the two nations, so I don't know if they should have broken apart or not.
Speaking of World War II, should Austria have been forced to separate from Germany after the war was over?
Should Imperial Germany have been forced to give up the Danzig corridor after World War I?

Absolutely, totally, and completely correct. I was totally mistaken, I thought for a second you were talking about Puntland, one of the regions of Somalia, not the Jutland in Europe. = S. You got me there; I gotta admit, I'm kinda drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Apologies for the confusion. (Unlike other members on this board, and I'm not talking about you Elvis, I can actually admit I'm wrong when I am.)

But even then, the question makes even less sense. "Should the Jutland Peninsula have a right to exist"?? Well, most of the Jutland peninsula is Denmark, which is a universally recognized country- it doesn't need any 'right' to exist- it DOES exist. I don't really know who granted Denmark the "right to exist". I must say, I barely understand what you mean with that, in this case.

And exactly as you say, though "Czechoslovakia" DID exist in those three years, the point is that a couple of years after the Soviet regime fell, they simple split in two, into the Czech Republic and into Slovakia. But you are right that Czechoslovakia did not have the the freedom to choose its own style of government due to Soviet imperialism and brutality, as demonstrated in the Prague Spring in '68. It was not allowed to follow it's own path. It did not have that freedom. And neither did it's two subsequent constituent republics (the Czech and Slovak ones) during that time. You do view that as unfair, that a strong imperial system dominated and enslaved a smaller, weaker nation that should've been allowed it's own path, but you deny that freedom to another land that faces a very similar problem. Why, Elvis? Is it because the Soviet Union was "Bad" but Israel is "Good"? My point of view is that even if it had been GANDHI, as good a guy as he was, obstructing freedom would still be wrong. But that is why I brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion - both parts agreed they wanted to Seperate from the soviet union, and subsequently from each other. What would you have thought if the USSR had allowed Czechoslovakia to separate from the Eastern Bloc, but the conditions had been that it had to rescind any land where Russians lived, that it would have no army, no control of its borders, no right to sign treaties with foreign powers? Do you think that could be accurately described as "being free" to set up their own government and path? Because let me tell you that those are the exact same conditions that Israel is imposing on Palestine today. I also brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion because there are some sort of parallels in that they both wanted to separate, much like Israel and Palestine today, but the big difference is that neither necessarily domainated the other (though the Czechs had the upper hand through most of the relationship); but when did either get into a debate wether they had a "right" to exist? Nobody claimed that either country had no "right" to exist. Here where two peoples who wanted their own state; and it was through their own want and need of a state that they separated and were internationally recognized and thus became different nations. This is the same thing that is being denied to Palestine simply because their occupiers overwhelmingly overpower them in each and every indicator of wealth and power.

Sure, I admit, many Palestinians have in the past, and today still continue to deny that Israel has a "right" to exist. I believe this is wrong simply because it's so foolish; Israel EXISTS. It isn't about its "right" to exist; it simply DOES, as it has for over 60 years now. But you guys on the other side have to at least try to understand this position by putting yourselves in their shoes: This would not have flown ANYWHERE. In NO region where hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been shipped to would they have been welcomed with open arms. If they had been given a country in US territory, we would've seen the same thing; if they had been given a country in Latin America, it would've been the same thing, in China, the same, in India, the same; no indigenous population would've accepted this anywhere. That is the simple truth of the matter. It is also understanable why Jews and others wanted a single country for themsleves: a massive attempt to erase them from the earth had just taken place all over Europe. So both sides had grievances from the very beginning through no fault of their own, and both have to understand that. That is why it is so important that BOTH are allowed to have their own states to decide their own affairs, obviously in a democratic fashion (Israel shouldn't be a "Jewish State" like Palestine shouldn't be a "Muslim state" or any other religion-specific state at all), but still their own states within secure and recognized boundaries.

And furthermore I'm sorry, but I don't know what your following 2 questions have in terms of relevance to this arguement, so I would invite you to expand on that. I know that Austrians were fairly content with being absorbed into Germany; and that Germany was no pleased to cede Danzig after WWI but they had no choice. But how is it relevant to Israel/Palestine?

No problem regarding the first paragraph.
Let's take the other paragraphs one at a time, if you don't mind. My point regarding the peninsula is that "Palestine" is recognized as the area where the "nation of Israel" is located. Maybe a better analogy would be to say "Do the British Isles have the right to exist?"

 

[DiveCon]

The Jutland Peninsula is the part of Europe that is occupied by Denmark and to a smaller extent, Germany and has nothing to do with Somalia.
I can say that Czechoslovakia had the right to exist in all three of those years listed. She should have been free to set up her own government after World War II. I don't know the history of the two nations, so I don't know if they should have broken apart or not.
Speaking of World War II, should Austria have been forced to separate from Germany after the war was over?
Should Imperial Germany have been forced to give up the Danzig corridor after World War I?

Absolutely, totally, and completely correct. I was totally mistaken, I thought for a second you were talking about Puntland, one of the regions of Somalia, not the Jutland in Europe. = S. You got me there; I gotta admit, I'm kinda drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Apologies for the confusion. (Unlike other members on this board, and I'm not talking about you Elvis, I can actually admit I'm wrong when I am.)

But even then, the question makes even less sense. "Should the Jutland Peninsula have a right to exist"?? Well, most of the Jutland peninsula is Denmark, which is a universally recognized country- it doesn't need any 'right' to exist- it DOES exist. I don't really know who granted Denmark the "right to exist". I must say, I barely understand what you mean with that, in this case.

And exactly as you say, though "Czechoslovakia" DID exist in those three years, the point is that a couple of years after the Soviet regime fell, they simple split in two, into the Czech Republic and into Slovakia. But you are right that Czechoslovakia did not have the the freedom to choose its own style of government due to Soviet imperialism and brutality, as demonstrated in the Prague Spring in '68. It was not allowed to follow it's own path. It did not have that freedom. And neither did it's two subsequent constituent republics (the Czech and Slovak ones) during that time. You do view that as unfair, that a strong imperial system dominated and enslaved a smaller, weaker nation that should've been allowed it's own path, but you deny that freedom to another land that faces a very similar problem. Why, Elvis? Is it because the Soviet Union was "Bad" but Israel is "Good"? My point of view is that even if it had been GANDHI, as good a guy as he was, obstructing freedom would still be wrong. But that is why I brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion - both parts agreed they wanted to Seperate from the soviet union, and subsequently from each other. What would you have thought if the USSR had allowed Czechoslovakia to separate from the Eastern Bloc, but the conditions had been that it had to rescind any land where Russians lived, that it would have no army, no control of its borders, no right to sign treaties with foreign powers? Do you think that could be accurately described as "being free" to set up their own government and path? Because let me tell you that those are the exact same conditions that Israel is imposing on Palestine today. I also brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion because there are some sort of parallels in that they both wanted to separate, much like Israel and Palestine today, but the big difference is that neither necessarily domainated the other (though the Czechs had the upper hand through most of the relationship); but when did either get into a debate wether they had a "right" to exist? Nobody claimed that either country had no "right" to exist. Here where two peoples who wanted their own state; and it was through their own want and need of a state that they separated and were internationally recognized and thus became different nations. This is the same thing that is being denied to Palestine simply because their occupiers overwhelmingly overpower them in each and every indicator of wealth and power.

Sure, I admit, many Palestinians have in the past, and today still continue to deny that Israel has a "right" to exist. I believe this is wrong simply because it's so foolish; Israel EXISTS. It isn't about its "right" to exist; it simply DOES, as it has for over 60 years now. But you guys on the other side have to at least try to understand this position by putting yourselves in their shoes: This would not have flown ANYWHERE. In NO region where hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been shipped to would they have been welcomed with open arms. If they had been given a country in US territory, we would've seen the same thing; if they had been given a country in Latin America, it would've been the same thing, in China, the same, in India, the same; no indigenous population would've accepted this anywhere. That is the simple truth of the matter. It is also understanable why Jews and others wanted a single country for themsleves: a massive attempt to erase them from the earth had just taken place all over Europe. So both sides had grievances from the very beginning through no fault of their own, and both have to understand that. That is why it is so important that BOTH are allowed to have their own states to decide their own affairs, obviously in a democratic fashion (Israel shouldn't be a "Jewish State" like Palestine shouldn't be a "Muslim state" or any other religion-specific state at all), but still their own states within secure and recognized boundaries.

And furthermore I'm sorry, but I don't know what your following 2 questions have in terms of relevance to this arguement, so I would invite you to expand on that. I know that Austrians were fairly content with being absorbed into Germany; and that Germany was no pleased to cede Danzig after WWI but they had no choice. But how is it relevant to Israel/Palestine?

No problem regarding the first paragraph.
Let's take the other paragraphs one at a time, if you don't mind. My point regarding the peninsula is that "Palestine" is recognized as the area where the "nation of Israel" is located. Maybe a better analogy would be to say "Do the British Isles have the right to exist?"

a better analogy would be "Does Central America have the right to exist as a sepperate nation?"

 

[elvis]

Absolutely, totally, and completely correct. I was totally mistaken, I thought for a second you were talking about Puntland, one of the regions of Somalia, not the Jutland in Europe. = S. You got me there; I gotta admit, I'm kinda drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Apologies for the confusion. (Unlike other members on this board, and I'm not talking about you Elvis, I can actually admit I'm wrong when I am.)

But even then, the question makes even less sense. "Should the Jutland Peninsula have a right to exist"?? Well, most of the Jutland peninsula is Denmark, which is a universally recognized country- it doesn't need any 'right' to exist- it DOES exist. I don't really know who granted Denmark the "right to exist". I must say, I barely understand what you mean with that, in this case.

And exactly as you say, though "Czechoslovakia" DID exist in those three years, the point is that a couple of years after the Soviet regime fell, they simple split in two, into the Czech Republic and into Slovakia. But you are right that Czechoslovakia did not have the the freedom to choose its own style of government due to Soviet imperialism and brutality, as demonstrated in the Prague Spring in '68. It was not allowed to follow it's own path. It did not have that freedom. And neither did it's two subsequent constituent republics (the Czech and Slovak ones) during that time. You do view that as unfair, that a strong imperial system dominated and enslaved a smaller, weaker nation that should've been allowed it's own path, but you deny that freedom to another land that faces a very similar problem. Why, Elvis? Is it because the Soviet Union was "Bad" but Israel is "Good"? My point of view is that even if it had been GANDHI, as good a guy as he was, obstructing freedom would still be wrong. But that is why I brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion - both parts agreed they wanted to Seperate from the soviet union, and subsequently from each other. What would you have thought if the USSR had allowed Czechoslovakia to separate from the Eastern Bloc, but the conditions had been that it had to rescind any land where Russians lived, that it would have no army, no control of its borders, no right to sign treaties with foreign powers? Do you think that could be accurately described as "being free" to set up their own government and path? Because let me tell you that those are the exact same conditions that Israel is imposing on Palestine today. I also brought the Czech Republic and Slovakia into the discussion because there are some sort of parallels in that they both wanted to separate, much like Israel and Palestine today, but the big difference is that neither necessarily domainated the other (though the Czechs had the upper hand through most of the relationship); but when did either get into a debate wether they had a "right" to exist? Nobody claimed that either country had no "right" to exist. Here where two peoples who wanted their own state; and it was through their own want and need of a state that they separated and were internationally recognized and thus became different nations. This is the same thing that is being denied to Palestine simply because their occupiers overwhelmingly overpower them in each and every indicator of wealth and power.

Sure, I admit, many Palestinians have in the past, and today still continue to deny that Israel has a "right" to exist. I believe this is wrong simply because it's so foolish; Israel EXISTS. It isn't about its "right" to exist; it simply DOES, as it has for over 60 years now. But you guys on the other side have to at least try to understand this position by putting yourselves in their shoes: This would not have flown ANYWHERE. In NO region where hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been shipped to would they have been welcomed with open arms. If they had been given a country in US territory, we would've seen the same thing; if they had been given a country in Latin America, it would've been the same thing, in China, the same, in India, the same; no indigenous population would've accepted this anywhere. That is the simple truth of the matter. It is also understanable why Jews and others wanted a single country for themsleves: a massive attempt to erase them from the earth had just taken place all over Europe. So both sides had grievances from the very beginning through no fault of their own, and both have to understand that. That is why it is so important that BOTH are allowed to have their own states to decide their own affairs, obviously in a democratic fashion (Israel shouldn't be a "Jewish State" like Palestine shouldn't be a "Muslim state" or any other religion-specific state at all), but still their own states within secure and recognized boundaries.

And furthermore I'm sorry, but I don't know what your following 2 questions have in terms of relevance to this arguement, so I would invite you to expand on that. I know that Austrians were fairly content with being absorbed into Germany; and that Germany was no pleased to cede Danzig after WWI but they had no choice. But how is it relevant to Israel/Palestine?

No problem regarding the first paragraph.
Let's take the other paragraphs one at a time, if you don't mind. My point regarding the peninsula is that "Palestine" is recognized as the area where the "nation of Israel" is located. Maybe a better analogy would be to say "Do the British Isles have the right to exist?"

a better analogy would be "Does Central America have the right to exist as a sepperate nation?"

I almost used that.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

there IS no "nation of Palestine"

Says who? Says YOU? You probably don't even know what "nation" means, dude. Once again, I'll have to educate you in elementary matters: According to the New Oxford American Dictionary:

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.

.

So, using that definition, Hitler had every right annex Austria, the Sudatenland, and the areas of Poland which Germany gave up per the Treaty of Versailles. Why shouldn't all Germans live as one? You agree?

Well, I have to admit that that is a tricky one. One the one hand, Austrians, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER in history class, were happy about being absorbed into Germany, so that is one thing. And nobody really complained in the outside. I would say that that might have been legit had it followed a very strongly internationally-scrutinized electoral process; certainly illegal by decree however. Suedeten Germans are a slightly different issue because they lived within the borders of a different state which was Czechoslovakia; so annexing that would be against international law (which, I'm sure you and others here will disagree, but I believe is a chrystal-clear parallel with what Israel is doing in the occupied territories with the settlers.)

But we have to remember that neither of these issues had anything to do with WWII. I mean, obviously they formed the backdrop, but the real issue had nothing even to do with the Holocaust itself: The real issue was the illegal invasion and annexation and brutal genocide of Poland, in which the pretext was naked imperial colonization built on the back of brutal illegal conquest; it had next to nothing to do with joining together lands inhabited by Germans, but simply with siezing others' land for German expansion, which was absolutely, completely, unquestionably illegal even in those times and even moreso today. THAT is what made Hitler an international criminal and sparked WWII and turned him into a monster in the eyes of the internaitonal community (even though not only the Jewish but also Romanian, Homosexual, Slav, etc. Holocaust(s) could have already established he was nothing short of a bloodthirsty demon). THIS is the supreme international crime that begun the war, and that is important and very relevant to this current discussion, because likewise, Israel gained control of Palestinian lands through war, through conquest, in 1967 and has indeed been putting its settlers in Palestinian lands NOT UNLIKE Germany did to Poland in the early 1940s (which I am, again, trying to view this not as a "Israelis are not evil like Germans becasue they are not gassing people", I am merely looking at other actions- war, conquest, colonization, I am not saying that Israelis = Nazis, just merely that some actions are similar, not inspired by or anything of the sort obviously, and CERTAINLY not at all exclusive to these two cases but really very frequent in human history).

 

[Epsilon Delta]

No problem regarding the first paragraph.
Let's take the other paragraphs one at a time, if you don't mind. My point regarding the peninsula is that "Palestine" is recognized as the area where the "nation of Israel" is located. Maybe a better analogy would be to say "Do the British Isles have the right to exist?"

Well, see, I do think in this case that you are slightly off, simply because the area known as "Palestine" or the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" are not in fact where the "nation of Israel" is located; they neighbor Israel. As Iv'e said before, Israel, under internationally recognized parameters, is a country of a bit over 20,000 sq. kilometers in West Asia, bordered in the west by the Mediterranean Sea, on the north by lebanon, on the southeast by Egypt, and by the occupied palestinian territories to the east (WB) and southwest (Gaza). Those are the internationally recognized borders of Israel. The occupied palestinian territories are a non-sovereign entity of roughlyl 5,000 sq. kilometers under the administration of the Israel military.

On the second question, well, I mean, the british isles are a geographic region that houses the countries of the United Kingdom and of Ireland, which are internationally recognized and also don't need a "right" to exist- they just DO exist. A better question would be- before 1918, did Ireland have a "right to exist"?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

a better analogy would be "Does Central America have the right to exist as a sepperate nation?"

Well, I mean, I also don't really see the relevance. Central America used to exist as a country, the United Provinces of Central America, but the 5 countries never really managed to get their shit together and split into separate countries. Central America again, is a geographical region which does in fact exist (it doesn't need a "right" to exist); and again, nobody granted any of the 5 countries, including my own, any "right" to exist. They just do. Kinda like the Czech republic and slovakia.

 

[elvis]

Says who? Says YOU? You probably don't even know what "nation" means, dude. Once again, I'll have to educate you in elementary matters: According to the New Oxford American Dictionary:

.

So, using that definition, Hitler had every right annex Austria, the Sudatenland, and the areas of Poland which Germany gave up per the Treaty of Versailles. Why shouldn't all Germans live as one? You agree?

Well, I have to admit that that is a tricky one. One the one hand, Austrians, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER in history class, were happy about being absorbed into Germany, so that is one thing. And nobody really complained in the outside. I would say that that might have been legit had it followed a very strongly internationally-scrutinized electoral process; certainly illegal by decree however. Suedeten Germans are a slightly different issue because they lived within the borders of a different state which was Czechoslovakia; so annexing that would be against international law (which, I'm sure you and others here will disagree, but I believe is a chrystal-clear parallel with what Israel is doing in the occupied territories with the settlers.)

But we have to remember that neither of these issues had anything to do with WWII. I mean, obviously they formed the backdrop, but the real issue had nothing even to do with the Holocaust itself: The real issue was the illegal invasion and annexation and brutal genocide of Poland, in which the pretext was naked imperial colonization built on the back of brutal illegal conquest; it had next to nothing to do with joining together lands inhabited by Germans, but simply with siezing others' land for German expansion, which was absolutely, completely, unquestionably illegal even in those times and even moreso today. THAT is what made Hitler an international criminal and sparked WWII and turned him into a monster in the eyes of the internaitonal community (even though not only the Jewish but also Romanian, Homosexual, Slav, etc. Holocaust(s) could have already established he was nothing short of a bloodthirsty demon). THIS is the supreme international crime that begun the war, and that is important and very relevant to this current discussion, because likewise, Israel gained control of Palestinian lands through war, through conquest, in 1967 and has indeed been putting its settlers in Palestinian lands NOT UNLIKE Germany did to Poland in the early 1940s (which I am, again, trying to view this not as a "Israelis are not evil like Germans becasue they are not gassing people", I am merely looking at other actions- war, conquest, colonization, I am not saying that Israelis = Nazis, just merely that some actions are similar, not inspired by or anything of the sort obviously, and CERTAINLY not at all exclusive to these two cases but really very frequent in human history).

I believe the Munich meeting which Chamberlain set up conceded those areas to hitler (i think it was implied that he wasn't supposed to have annexed the land) with the idea that Hitler wouldn't go any farther. When Hitler took the "Slovakia", Chamberlain made the war guarantee to Poland.
I thought Sharon destroyed the settlements in the West Bank.

 

[DiveCon]

a better analogy would be "Does Central America have the right to exist as a sepperate nation?"

Well, I mean, I also don't really see the relevance. Central America used to exist as a country, the United Provinces of Central America, but the 5 countries never really managed to get their shit together and split into separate countries. Central America again, is a geographical region which does in fact exist (it doesn't need a "right" to exist); and again, nobody granted any of the 5 countries, including my own, any "right" to exist. They just do. Kinda like the Czech republic and slovakia.

dang, thats one i never knew

Federal Republic of Central America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

too bad it didnt work out
it sounded like it had a good foundation

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I believe the Munich meeting which Chamberlain set up conceded those areas to hitler (i think it was implied that he wasn't supposed to have annexed the land) with the idea that Hitler wouldn't go any farther. When Hitler took the "Slovakia", Chamberlain made the war guarantee to Poland.
I thought Sharon destroyed the settlements in the West Bank.

Yeah, the Czechslovakia thing was pretty fucked up and they should've pretty much acted right there and then, because that was already blatantly illegal and not really TOO different from what would later happen to Poland. They just did it more step-by-step (we're only getting our germans!!, then they tooko the rest of the Czech republic, and then they turned Slovakia into a satellite. by the time they had given up the suedetenland, the Czechs were fucked. And it sucks, because from what I've read they had a fairly good army that could've really been helpful had the war broken out then. But maybe I'm wrong.

And absolutely not on the second point; the settlements in Gaza were dismantled in 2005, but c'mon. I mean, has anyone ever checked out just how big Gaza is? The fact that they even THOUGHT of putting settlements there is just insane. It's criminal. Other than the Gaza settlements, settling in the west bank has continued unabated since 1967, scoring high growth rates throughout even the past few years, and you can even look that up on the Jerusalem Post (67% growht in 2008, if I'm not mistaken). Hundreds of thousands of Israelis live on the occupied territories with more coming in every day, today even. I mean, seriously... you couldn't really say that's justified, right?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

dang, thats one i never knew

Federal Republic of Central America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

too bad it didnt work out
it sounded like it had a good foundation

Yeah, every now and again the idea comes back up, but it always failed. This is gonna sound really shitty, but it's basically what most costa ricans say:

Until the other 4 get their shit together, we're having none-of-it.

It's kinda sad though; economies of scale and what not. But we've just got too much to lose. A wide-ranging social insurance network, relatively high schooling and health standards, NO army. Hell, just look at those dumbasses in Honduras right now. It's just too different. I'd be all for the idea if they would at least get rid of their armies. But hey, we're plodding slowly along, like everyone else.

 

[DiveCon]

dang, thats one i never knew

Federal Republic of Central America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

too bad it didnt work out
it sounded like it had a good foundation

Yeah, every now and again the idea comes back up, but it always failed. This is gonna sound really shitty, but it's basically what most costa ricans say:

Until the other 4 get their shit together, we're having none-of-it.

It's kinda sad though; economies of scale and what not. But we've just got too much to lose. A wide-ranging social insurance network, relatively high schooling and health standards, NO army. Hell, just look at those dumbasses in Honduras right now. It's just too different. I'd be all for the idea if they would at least get rid of their armies. But hey, we're plodding slowly along, like everyone else.

well, you can add Panama to that now also
LOL
but if you dont watch out, Chavez might decide he wants you all

 

[elvis]

I believe the Munich meeting which Chamberlain set up conceded those areas to hitler (i think it was implied that he wasn't supposed to have annexed the land) with the idea that Hitler wouldn't go any farther. When Hitler took the "Slovakia", Chamberlain made the war guarantee to Poland.
I thought Sharon destroyed the settlements in the West Bank.

Yeah, the Czechslovakia thing was pretty fucked up and they should've pretty much acted right there and then, because that was already blatantly illegal and not really TOO different from what would later happen to Poland. They just did it more step-by-step (we're only getting our germans!!, then they tooko the rest of the Czech republic, and then they turned Slovakia into a satellite. by the time they had given up the suedetenland, the Czechs were fucked. And it sucks, because from what I've read they had a fairly good army that could've really been helpful had the war broken out then. But maybe I'm wrong.

And absolutely not on the second point; the settlements in Gaza were dismantled in 2005, but c'mon. I mean, has anyone ever checked out just how big Gaza is? The fact that they even THOUGHT of putting settlements there is just insane. It's criminal. Other than the Gaza settlements, settling in the west bank has continued unabated since 1967, scoring high growth rates throughout even the past few years, and you can even look that up on the Jerusalem Post (67% growht in 2008, if I'm not mistaken). Hundreds of thousands of Israelis live on the occupied territories with more coming in every day, today even. I mean, seriously... you couldn't really say that's justified, right?

Israel offered the PLO 96 percent of Judea and Samaria (the overwhelming majority of settlers would occupy the remaining four percent) and 100 percent of Gaza. Arafat rejected it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Says who? Says YOU? You probably don't even know what "nation" means, dude. Once again, I'll have to educate you in elementary matters: According to the New Oxford American Dictionary:

.

So, using that definition, Hitler had every right annex Austria, the Sudatenland, and the areas of Poland which Germany gave up per the Treaty of Versailles. Why shouldn't all Germans live as one? You agree?

Well, I have to admit that that is a tricky one. One the one hand, Austrians, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER in history class, were happy about being absorbed into Germany, so that is one thing. And nobody really complained in the outside. I would say that that might have been legit had it followed a very strongly internationally-scrutinized electoral process; certainly illegal by decree however. Suedeten Germans are a slightly different issue because they lived within the borders of a different state which was Czechoslovakia; so annexing that would be against international law (which, I'm sure you and others here will disagree, but I believe is a chrystal-clear parallel with what Israel is doing in the occupied territories with the settlers.)

But we have to remember that neither of these issues had anything to do with WWII. I mean, obviously they formed the backdrop, but the real issue had nothing even to do with the Holocaust itself: The real issue was the illegal invasion and annexation and brutal genocide of Poland, in which the pretext was naked imperial colonization built on the back of brutal illegal conquest; it had next to nothing to do with joining together lands inhabited by Germans, but simply with siezing others' land for German expansion, which was absolutely, completely, unquestionably illegal even in those times and even moreso today. THAT is what made Hitler an international criminal and sparked WWII and turned him into a monster in the eyes of the internaitonal community (even though not only the Jewish but also Romanian, Homosexual, Slav, etc. Holocaust(s) could have already established he was nothing short of a bloodthirsty demon). THIS is the supreme international crime that begun the war, and that is important and very relevant to this current discussion, because likewise, Israel gained control of Palestinian lands through war, through conquest, in 1967 and has indeed been putting its settlers in Palestinian lands NOT UNLIKE Germany did to Poland in the early 1940s (which I am, again, trying to view this not as a "Israelis are not evil like Germans becasue they are not gassing people", I am merely looking at other actions- war, conquest, colonization, I am not saying that Israelis = Nazis, just merely that some actions are similar, not inspired by or anything of the sort obviously, and CERTAINLY not at all exclusive to these two cases but really very frequent in human history).

Absolute HOGWASH. Israel was attacked and in defense of self captured land from the aggressor. Through OUT history conquest has been an acceptable method of gaining land. But Israel gave it back and allows a bunch of murdering terrorists to live on their border and even tries to help them establish a Nation.

Germany did not gain Poland because of a defensive action, they set out to provoke an excuse for war and then conquered Poland. The only reason Germany did not get to keep Poland is because they eventually LOST the war.

This is why most sane people have trouble with you dumb shits. You make ignorant claims devoid of fact and reality. You keep trying to claim Israel is like Nazi Germany, when you haven't got a leg to stand on, not to mention any facts.

Lets do this again slowly for those unable to comprehend.

Israel chose to accept an INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT to establish a Jewish Nation. The Arabs ALSO had an agreement that allowed them to establish a Nation, LARGER then Israel that cut Israel into sections of non continuous land.

Rather then establish that Country the Arabs were bullied and threatened and mislead by the Arab Idiot in Jerusalem and 5 neighboring Arab Countries. They were ordered at gun point out of their land by ARABS not JEWS. The Jews BEGGED them to stay. To help establish an Arab/Jewish State. The 5 Countries of Arabs had no intention of creating a 6th Country. The plan was to divide up the area amongst the 5 Nations once they murdered all the JEWS.

Further from 1948 to present not a single Arab Country has offered these supposed refuges permanent rights to settle. In fact they have forceful expelled them from all BUT Lebanon and the supposed occupied territories. Why? Because the Arab Nations wanted a murderous group of terrorists to sic on Israel. And were forced one by one to forcefully expel them when they got uppity and tried to become permanent members of said Country.

ONLY Israel has EVER offered them a nation. Only Israel has ever tried to help them create a Nation. Israel feeds and cloths these terrorist camps, they allow its people to work inside Israel with access to Israeli hospitals and facilities. All while these ungrateful murdering thugs attack and kill Israelis DAILY.

Israel has pulled out of these supposed occupied territories only to be accused of abandoning their duty to "safe Guard" them. They left at the insistence of the Arabs in those areas.

Dumb shits like you are why we still have a problem over there.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Israel offered the PLO 96 percent of Judea and Samaria (the overwhelming majority of settlers would occupy the remaining four percent) and 100 percent of Gaza. Arafat rejected it.

Yeah, that is the usual talking point, but that is a severely misleading factoid if you don't know the context of the 2nd camp david accords. Beginning with the fact that, first of all, the Israelis offered to give Palestine actually 73% of the West Bank, which would grow to about 91% over a period of 10 to 25 years. But EVEN this 90-something figure does not even include East Jerusalem or the dead sea, which is squarely in the West Bank. Israel reserved itself the right to a superhighway and a corridor surrounding it from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea. Israel in exchange would give 1% of its land in the mostly useless Negev desert. So what was the resulting deal? A Palestinian "Capital" in East Jerusalem cut off from the rest of the WB, and a West Bank divided in 3 cantons, a northern one, a southern one, and a smaller one in Jericho. A country virtually shattered into 5 pieces.

But this is not all. The usual story is exclaiming just "all of the great sacrifices" by Israel, when the fact is totally different. Israel retained full right over the Palestine's airspace; it reserved itself the right to deploy troops in Palestine, and a demilitarized Palestinian "state". What is most astounding is that Palestine has actually acceeded to many of these demands, including the imposition of a demilitarized state.

But what about Taba? People just love to talk about Palestinian 'rejectionism' over the camp david accord; but what about Israeli rejectionism just one year later at Taba, which has historically been recognized, by both sides, as THE closest point to a real and final agreement on the problem? Despite the fact that they were very similar to Camp David, Israel had agreed to give 97% of the West Bank, and many of the other issues had been resolved. Both parties issues a joint statement:

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv...eli-Palestinian Joint Statement - 27-Jan-2001

What happened? Sharon shelved the process immediately after assuming office.

EDIT: I'll get to the stupid troglodyte above soon.

 

[Shogun]

well.. aren't YOu just a jooo hating antisemite! Don't worry.. GHOOK will be in here shortly to insist that you've called for the death of all jews before too long.

 

[elvis]

well.. aren't YOu just a jooo hating antisemite! Don't worry.. GHOOK will be in here shortly to insist that you've called for the death of all jews before too long.

He should already know that the democratically-elected leader of the PLO is part of Hamas, which wishes to do just that.

 

[Shogun]

well.. aren't YOu just a jooo hating antisemite! Don't worry.. GHOOK will be in here shortly to insist that you've called for the death of all jews before too long.

He should already know that the democratically-elected leader of the PLO is part of Hamas, which wishes to do just that.

Exterminate all jews or REMOVE THE ROADBLOCK OF ZIONISM TO ETHNIC EQUALITY? next thing you know you'll be in here quoting misinterpretations.. That is, if you don't leap to calling someone a jooo hating antisemite first.

By all means, Elvis.. Extend ethnic equality in Israel on par with what Ghook enjoys here in the Us.. Lord fucking knows that the reduction of radicalized palis would suck the wind out of your WE WANT IT ALL sails and remove your easy excuse to cast lead some population control..

 

[elvis]

well.. aren't YOu just a jooo hating antisemite! Don't worry.. GHOOK will be in here shortly to insist that you've called for the death of all jews before too long.

He should already know that the democratically-elected leader of the PLO is part of Hamas, which wishes to do just that.

Exterminate all jews or REMOVE THE ROADBLOCK OF ZIONISM TO ETHNIC EQUALITY? next thing you know you'll be in here quoting misinterpretations.. That is, if you don't leap to calling someone a jooo hating antisemite first.

By all means, Elvis.. Extend ethnic equality in Israel on par with what Ghook enjoys here in the Us.. Lord fucking knows that the reduction of radicalized palis would suck the wind out of your WE WANT IT ALL sails and remove your easy excuse to cast lead some population control..

equality is NOT what Hamas wants. Look at ANY map in ANY school in Gaza or West Bank. The maps do not even RECOGNIZE that Israel exists. What does that tell you? and you can bet they don't teach racial equality in Palestinian schools, but rather anti-semitism.