The answer to the question has been freely and clearly given. He isn't questioning, he's just frothing for commercial purpises.
Israel-Hamas war - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
- Status
No they wouldn't. They'd be set socially as they are now - it's not like religious ideas of morality are particularly defined by the religions that claim them anyway. You only have to look at the differences in morality between different adherents of a religion over space or time to see that.
Apparently, the US then used their own power to influence the UN vote on the partition...
What I'm saying is that people attempting to lay the blame on the Arabs by stating they rejected the UN Plan of 1947 are a little disingenious... They rejected a plan which passed in a corrupt vote. I'm sure anyone, in similar circumstances, would reject the outcome on this basis.
For the Jewish people this comes down to one promise that they make
’The jewish people will never be victimised again’
They are the ‘chosen’ victims of history and always have been, they are now in a position to fight back and they will do that to their last breath.
’The jewish people will never be victimised again’
They are the ‘chosen’ victims of history and always have been, they are now in a position to fight back and they will do that to their last breath.
Israel doesn't *really* want to go after Hamas, no. All the Israeli civilians Hamas chased down and killed just make for a good "excuse" to kill random Palistinans in an area that Isreal unilaterally pulled out of and continued supplying with water and electricity since 2005.
Just an "excuse".
Sure.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,671
Can we stop with the posting of GB news frothing? Haven't they got anything better to say about what's going on, other than editorial decisions at the BBC?
Do you know anything about life in Gaza ? Israel may have pulled out, but they control every aspect. It's essentially an open prison.
Israel has been illegally occupying areas under international law. They are not 'good guys' by any means.
Israel is coming for Hamas.
And we shouldn't forget that a good part of the reason for Israel being established following the mandate for Palestine was because of the persecution the Jews faced in the thousand of so years in Europe since the Romans booted them out of their original home, modern day israel.
At any point in history up until say 150 years ago, the whole situation would be a heck of a lot simpler. Israel would have trounced all of Gaza and the West Bank years ago and the population would have assimilated or left. But conflicts are very different now. For good reason.
....and let's say they eliminate them. They'd then allow the palestinians to democratically elect a new authority in Gaza, who would have full control of the area, with no intervention from Israel ?
Look at the post history of his in this thread and you'll notice a trend.
Egypt share a border with Gaza
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,561
- Location
- Falling...
The Palestinians have also been victims as long as them. It's not a 1 sided thing at all.
All the rockets launched out of Gaza lay the lie to the "Israel controls everything in Gaza" narrative.When you finally run out of crap to talk about
Hamas had enough control to prepare for these attacks. If the next government imports necessities instead of rockets, the Palistinians might have a better experience.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,359
- Location
- Finally, Swindon
I thought it was closed border
Why is that. The simple fact is Gaza could have free and open trade with Egypt. Utilities, manufacturing, goods being bought and sold between the two places. Perhaps if Hamas concentrated on that, who knows, after 20 years of relative peace and stability, relationships might normalise in the area.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,477
You're kidding, right? The 1947 partition plan was incredibly generous. It would have taken away ~40% of the Jews' land and given it to the Arabs; more than sufficient for a viable state. As a bonus, the Arabs would have received all the immediate territory around Old Jerusalem, allowing them to control access to the city.
The Arabs rejected this because they wanted even more, then they tried to take it all by force, and Israel kicked the **** out of them. Sucks to suck!
We don't have to assume it, polls and studies have shown that support for Hamas in Gaza has maintained a solid majority for years. A poll taken 2 years ago showed 53% support for Hamas, and 14% for Fatah. That was across both territories, Gaza and the West Bank.
According to the Peel Commison who advised the partision, this is untrue: On the other hand, (1) the Jews would acquire a new right of sovereignty in the Jewish Area; (2) that Area, as we have defined it, would be larger than the existing area of Jewish land and settlement
They also carved up the land so the Jews would get all of the profitable farm land. For the Arabs, the plan envisaged giving Zionists the best land, with 82% of Palestine's principal export, citrus fruit, consigned to Jewish control. Does this sound generous?
The complained it violated the UN principles of national self determination as the Arabs were the majority in the region at the time. They stated a lack of independent Palestine was a betrayal of the word given by Britain
Also while Israel accepted the plan and the Arabs rejected it Israel always planned to take the rest of Palestine's territory:
The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants. The Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion persuaded the Zionist Congress to lend provisional approval to the Peel recommendations as a basis for further negotiations.In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole". The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be "redeemed . . in its entirety," was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann
- Status