How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
September 12th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocky71
1.The transplanted Jews must be sent back to their original abodes. The exiled Palestinians must be brought back to their hearth and home. And a modern State of Palestine established.

2. In the event the Jews cannot get back to their original countries, land must be purchased in Texas, Australia or elsewhere to settle them. I am mentioning Texas and Australia because these have been mentioned in the media.

3. Another solution would be to break up Israel and distribute parts to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. An exodus of Jews will occur. They should be settled in Texas, Australia,etc.
I think you have failed to understand the complexities of what you have said in an ideal world Britain/France would have honoured their promises after WW1 and created Palestine, in an ideal world both Israeli's and Arabs would be able to coexist in the same country without resorting to the idiocy (and lets be perfectly honest for the last few centuries prior to the 1900s they did live relatively happily together) we have now but this is far from an ideal world.

The simple reality is that transplanting millions of people is a ludicrous idea that will NEVER come about, its like saying if we built a bridge across the Atlantic the price of airfares would fall, the only answer to this problem is to:
A) Somehow wait until both parties have reached the 15th Century and have relegated religion to the background.
B) Create 2 working states within the area with a view that somewhere down the track there will be reintergration and they can both call the area home.
September 12th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
No,... The "commandos" were committing an illegal act, and believe it or not, that is not a mitigating circumstance. Just the same as you have the right to use lethal force in defending your home if attacked by an armed intruder but he has no "right" to shoot you in defence because he is the aggressor.

I dunno what world you live in, but I know of no place (not even gun happy USA) where criminals have the "right" to kill people to facilitate a crime. That's why the death rows in most of your prisons are so well stocked and the population is growing.

In any case, I wouldn't quote the UN if I were you, as they also said that any invasion of Iraq would be illegal, yet the US went ahead. The simple fact is, that the UN does not make, or it seems even wish to understand or abide by International law. Remember it was the UN who originally made the decision to give Palestine to the Jewish people, this was also a decision without precedent or any just reason which has bought us to where we are today.

According to some people, everyone have the "right" to do what they want when they want; unfortunately the word "right" don't actually have anything to do with ethics these days and can be defined in anyway a person sees fit. It does not however mean that whoever defines that "right" is the correct method of thinking. You have the right to do anything, but it don't mean you won't have consequences for enacting upon those said rights.

When I said that, I was literally wondering what nations would state that. Is it a U.N related country? The U.N isn't always bright in certain situations, but they generally try to do what is right. The reason I believe the U.N even declared going into Iraq was illegal was so they didn't have to participate. It was politics they were using, even though Iraq was clearly legal, it only stopped on a ceasefire. I think the U.S should withdraw somewhat from the U.N so that U.S won't be so relied on when it comes to world wide issues.
September 12th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
According to some people, everyone have the "right" to do what they want when they want; unfortunately the word "right" don't actually have anything to do with ethics these days and can be defined in anyway a person sees fit. It does not however mean that whoever defines that "right" is the correct method of thinking.
You wriggle and squirm, and just dig yourself deeper into the sh!t, don't you. Is it that you have no idea of the subject, or just that the truth doesn't suit your views? I strongly suspect the latter.

I was talking about "Rights" as defined by Law. In particular, the right to self defence.
--
Boots
September 13th, 2011  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Even David ben Gurion admitted that Palestine was stolen from it's legitimate owners, and therefore the whole idea is built upon illegal premise. Quote:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them?" ---etc. Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion
They know it and so do we, so it is merely a matter of time,...
That is what nation building is all about.... it is part of history and human nature. We are a predatory, violent, territorial species. We fight amongst ourselves for three reasons.

1. Resources
2. Mating
3. Territory

We were like that when we were a bunch of apes bashing rocks and sticks over each others' heads while we lived in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The UK stole land and resources from the native peoples in the Americas. The Americans later stole it from the UK and the natives people. The Spanish did the same. So on and so forth. Australians stole their lands from the native peoples.

It isn't nice, it isn't fair, it isn't just. But it is human nature and once people understand that and stop trying to be all "gentle" and "kind" will we as a species be better off.

The issue between Israel and the Arabs will not end until one side kills the other. And when that's done there will be further division within who ever survives and they will kill each other, and so on, and so forth.

Social Darwinism isn't a cute idea.... it's pretty much the rule of human society. The strong survive and the weak perish. The strong survive in life, in business, in mating, and in war. The weak die off or are enslaved in one form or another. Once again.... it's not pretty or nice but it's fact.

The Israelis will not bow down and give up what they hold. Neither will the Arabs stop fighting them. If all the land is given to the Arabs and the Israelis leave.... nothing will change. The Arabs will not to wipe out the Jews and the Arabs will fight amongst themselves.
September 13th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
I was speaking about self believed rights. Everyone have a right defend themselves whether they are the victim or the criminals. It is sad to see the victim lose his/her rights though.

I don't see how I deepened into "*Sh!t". We were speaking of different version of rights (you of law and me of what individuals might believe is right), technically were both correct. I have plenty of idea on it, I am just looking at it in a different view than you. Yes though, that is my personal view on the rights people have. They can do whatever they want as its their right to live the way they want, but if they harm the rights of others, then they should face consequences.
September 13th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
I was speaking about self believed rights. Everyone have a right defend themselves whether they are the victim or the criminals.
Unfortunately you are wrong. Please quote one legitimate source for this piece of amazing logic.

No,... people committing crimes have no "rights" either morally nor in law to "protect" themselves. You are talking of "perceived" rights, which are only beliefs, not actual "Rights", Rights are written into, and supported by Common Law, beliefs are not. Beliefs are purely subjective matter.

If what you said was true, most criminals who murdered someone in the commission of a crime would walk free as they would only have to say that they believed that they could be harmed by their target. It just doesn't happen.

Similarly if you are the victim of a crime and kill someone who has you in fear of your life generally it never even goes to court.

For a look at how this works, watch this video. Where the surviving robber is charged with his accomplices death even though the accomplice was shot by the store clerk.
Robber Charged with Death of Accomplice
September 13th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
I think people are being a bit pedantic here, the reality is that even if Israel believed it was in the wrong it is still the responsibility of its government to defend its citizens so if Palestinians are going to fire rockets into Israel they are going to retaliate (I am not going to talk about the level of retaliation that is a different argument).

As far as the the attack on the Turkish ship goes I don't disagree with you however it is unrealistic to think that Israel would apologise even if they knew they had gone overboard as it would put the blockade in an untenable position, an apology is an admission of wrong doing so all Turkey was ever going to get is the standard diplomatic claptrap (ie. We regret the loss of life).
September 13th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
That is what nation building is all about.... it is part of history and human nature. We are a predatory, violent, territorial species. We fight amongst ourselves for three reasons.

1. Resources
2. Mating
3. Territory

We were like that when we were a bunch of apes bashing rocks and sticks over each others' heads while we lived in Sub-Saharan Africa.
I thought that the idea of becoming civilised was that we had advanced from this type of behavior? The fact that some people have not is what is causing the problem so it's hardly logical to blame those who have. The act of colonisation by force of arms has been unacceptable for over 100 years, whereas Israel only started in 1947 when virtually all other colonising countries had begun to return their colonies to their owners.

Quote:
The UK stole land and resources from the native peoples in the Americas. The Americans later stole it from the UK and the natives people. The Spanish did the same. So on and so forth. Australians stole their lands from the native peoples.
As I pointed out, these things were done in a time when it was considered to be acceptable, but unfortunately (for persons such as yourself) those times are 100 years gone. Try shooting an American Indian today and see if the reaction is not different to what it was in the 1850s. It was made a Capital offence to shoot Aboriginals in Australia in 1832 and the first 8 men were hung in 1838, but only because they were on the run in unexplored country for five years. (Myall Creek Massacre)

I'm afraid that if your reasoning is still based on practices that went out of date 100-150 years ago, you are going to end up in trouble, and that is what is happening here.

I dunno how many times I have written it here, but in Australia, we have recognised the principles of Terra Nullius and admitted that the land is owned by our aboriginal people. Every aboriginal man, woman and child is paid "rent" for our use of that country, over and above all other payments, free services and privileges. Also the Aboriginals have admitted, that if it were not the British, it would certainly have been the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish or more recently the Indonesians, (maybe all of them), as a result of which they desire no change of the colonising country.

With regard to this matter, you are so far off track that your argument is almost meaningless.
September 13th, 2011  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I thought that the idea of becoming civilised was that we had advanced from this type of behavior? The fact that some people have not is what is causing the problem so it's hardly logical to blame those who have. The act of colonisation by force of arms has been unacceptable for over 100 years, whereas Israel only started in 1947 when virtually all other colonising countries had begun to return their colonies to their owners.

As I pointed out, these things were done in a time when it was considered to be acceptable, but unfortunately (for persons such as yourself) those times are 100 years gone. Try shooting an American Indian today and see if the reaction is not different to what it was in the 1850s. It was made a Capital offence to shoot Aboriginals in Australia in 1832 and the first 8 men were hung in 1838, but only because they were on the run in unexplored country for five years. (Myall Creek Massacre)

I'm afraid that if your reasoning is still based on practices that went out of date 100-150 years ago, you are going to end up in trouble, and that is what is happening here.

I dunno how many times I have written it here, but in Australia, we have recognised the principles of Terra Nullius and admitted that the land is owned by our aboriginal people. Every aboriginal man, woman and child is paid "rent" for our use of that country, over and above all other payments, free services and privileges. Also the Aboriginals have admitted, that if it were not the British, it would certainly have been the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish or more recently the Indonesians, (maybe all of them), as a result of which they desire no change of the colonising country.

With regard to this matter, you are so far off track that your argument is almost meaningless.
Colonizing is still an ongoing event. Except it is through different means. The People's Republic of China have colonized Tibet in the 1950s and are start to do it to Africa through financial means. The main Euripean powers and North American powers have stopped because they have adopted the thought of "We have to be friendly and gentle to other lesser peoples". Which in my opinion is right and wrong. We should not go after smaller countires and peoples and make them our own for personal gain but we should also not allow others to rise up to a level that would be a danger to us. I'm pragmatic and a realist. There are certain groups of people that would love nothing more then wiping me and mine out for some reason or another and I will not allow them to do so.

We as a people should not brutally kill and conquer. I would love nothing more then peace but 2 million years of Human evolutionary nature will not be replaced by 100 years of social manners. We are a violent species and other parts of the world have shown and continue to prove that. The tribal conflicts in Africa, the civil wars in the middle east, the repression of human rights in Asia, the drug wars and gang wars in the Americas, and rioting and degradation of society in Europe.

We will always fight amongst ourselves. We did it when we all lived in tiny little caves and flung poo to being super powers and flinging nuclear weapons. I bet you in the next 1,000 years we'll still be doing it. If we get off this dirt ball and colonize the galaxy I bet you that folks will still be saying that we don't have enough room, that one group is ruling another group unjustly, that one group wants to conquer another group, their beliefs are wrong and ours are right, etc...

We have too many people of too many backgrounds with too many different social and cultural norms. We will always have violence and difference of opinions unless everyone is of the same culture, social background, religion, and political mindset. And that wonderful socialist utopia will only happen if those that want it wipe out those that are against it.

Peace will never happen and peace will only come through extreme levels of violence that would make even the Third Reich or the Soviet Union blush in the manner of extermination used to achieved said peace .
September 13th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Unfortunately you are wrong. Please quote one legitimate source for this piece of amazing logic.

No,... people committing crimes have no "rights" either morally nor in law to "protect" themselves. You are talking of "perceived" rights, which are only beliefs, not actual "Rights", Rights are written into, and supported by Common Law, beliefs are not. Beliefs are purely subjective matter.

If what you said was true, most criminals who murdered someone in the commission of a crime would walk free as they would only have to say that they believed that they could be harmed by their target. It just doesn't happen.

Similarly if you are the victim of a crime and kill someone who has you in fear of your life generally it never even goes to court.

For a look at how this works, watch this video. Where the surviving robber is charged with his accomplices death even though the accomplice was shot by the store clerk.
Robber Charged with Death of Accomplice

You didn't say anything that makes what I said wrong. I was specifically talking about self-perceived rights as you stated. I didn't say these rights were the right ways of thinking. The rights in law is just to set a standard imo. It is to make sure people do not harm the rights of others or take advantage of their rights. Anyone can say which one is flawed though. Rights through law is no different than self-perceived except the law is out for the general safety of the public while self-perceived is for one's own benefit.

Sorry, but that video is kind of stupid. He should be charged with attempted murder, not murder itself. If his accomplice agreed to rob that store, then it was his own decision and knew the risk of dying. The other one should not be responsible for what happened to him unless they were to find some type of proof showing that the second robber did the task reluctantly. Of course, we might disagree in that, I am guessing that was in a different country. I don't see U.S law putting the blame for one guy's action on another. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, unless under serious pressure, in which cases they will fail to think straight.
 


Similar Topics
Don't fault Israel for Palestinians' intransigence
25 Israeli soldiers speak on Israeli war crimes in Gaza
Israelis torn over handling Gaza hostage crisis
Palestinians complain about Israeli withdrawal
Israeli Soldiers Kill 3 Palestinian Gunmen