World War II was unnecessary

fuck

Colorsblending9 wrote:

It is clear what the Nazis did was genocide. It was mass mudered. They murdered over 10 million innocent civilians, many who were German citizens. And included in this gross figure was 6 million Jews. It was a clear, concice, organizd method of mass extermination. Part of Hitler's plan was to eradicate the Earth of Jews.

Jews wanted a homeland. They were given a portion of the 'transjordan/palestine' land that was previously controlled by the British Empire and the Ottoman empire before them. Yes people were displaced, (whether forced out, forced because of weaker conditions, or chose to leave). However, the goal of the Jews was to gain a homeland, a place to live as Jews. Their goal was never to exterminate arabs or muslims from the region. Israel's goal has always been to secure and live in a safe and democratic country for Jews. (repeated history since the exile of the Jews shows why Jews/Israelis want a homeland).

So if Buddhists wanted a homeland, they could decide to just take over a country that isn't theirs, treat the people horribly (killing many of them, taking their homes, destroying villages) and it wouldn't be a problem?? sure, the Jews took it from the British, but that was after the Palestinians called for independence several times, all of which were shot down by the British and the Zionist movement which had other plans for the land.

Yes there has been wars between the Israelis and surrounding Arab nations. But never genocide or mass extermination. In fact, it was the surrounding Arab nations who called for the complete destruction of Israel.

So far no genocide, mass extermination, deliberate attempt to murder an entire race of people.

Actually there have been many cases of genocide that Israelis have been responsible for. One such case is the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Now more recently, in a time of suicide bombers and security fences, we are seeing both sides losing, mostly the innocent people and children who with or near Hamas militants.

Palestinians have been murdered since well before 1994, when the first suicide bomb happened. And many, if not most, people who die aren't "with" or "near militants."

Everyone agrees the situation now is hard, its unfortunate, and Israel has made some wrong decisions. Then again, I don't know what coutnry could possibly make all the right decisions if they were in the same scenario as Israel.

This is just laughable.

If Israel was like the Nazis, there wouldn't be 20 percent Arabs living in Israel as citizens. Yeah, just like in other societies, a minority might not be living in as good conditions as the rest of the country, but they aren't being Murdered!

So because the minority is living in terrible conditions where racism clearly exists, you defend it by saying "atleast they aren't being murdered"??

If Israel was like the Nazis, they would attack every Arab country they could.

Obviously, as I've stated many times, Israel is not 100% like the Nazis, but there ARE similarities. And those include genocide, creating areas VERY similar to the ghettos, if not worse, and destruction of villages, displacing people, etc.

It's clear Israel wants to maintain statehood and maintain the security of its citizens.

And it'll do that at any cost.

Now, of course there are many aspects of what Israel is doing you can criticize or call flat out wrong. However, comparing Israel to the Nazis is laughable and ridiculous. The two are simply fundamentally different.

There are many comparable elements to the treatment of Jews in WWII to those of the Palestinians now. Denying that is laughable.

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

What does the Arab League not accepting Israel have to do with the illegal occupation and the deaths of innocent Palestinians?

Don't be so naive.
It means that Israel have not tried to wipe Palestinian people off the face of the earth entirely. If Israel wanted to do this, itd have been done by now, they have the resources.

It means that while most dont accept Israels illegal occupation of Palestinian land, there are many nations who dont accept Israel as a nation whatsoever. They need to protect themselves too. Theyre a tiny nation surrounded in all directions by Arab nations.

_outlaw wrote:

Firstly: comparing 800 years to 60 years is pretty ridiculous. Other than that though, where have I said that peace deals shouldn't happen? That they were a bad idea?? I said in order for peace to happen, Israel must FIRST withdraw from the occupied territories. THEN, Hamas will respond with initiating peace and ending violence, while they have talks. Israel must initiate this process by withdrawing first though, and stopping their illegal occupation, isolation of Gaza, killing, etc...

The point was that both (1) 800 years in the past, or (2) 60 years in the past is still THE PAST. Backwards thinking on things like this prevents progress. Both sides are guilty of crimes. Qualifying more blame on one party is pretty useless for the purposes of creating a peaceful environment.

I never said you said peace deals were a bad idea.

I said your idea of how they come about has pretty much never occurred in the real world.

The Irish comparison was regarding similar issues, one side wanting the other to disarm (or withdraw from violence) before the other. There were many deals struck, and the only one that has worked consistently was the one drawn up by both sides, and that came into effect for both sides at the same time. You obviously, didnt get that point either

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

And it'll do that at any cost.


There are many comparable elements to the treatment of Jews in WWII to those of the Palestinians now. Denying that is laughable.

Although im preaching about forgiving and forgetting, can you really expect Jewish people to just give in to Arab concessions?? (when most of the Arab League want the Israeli state destroyed), considering that millions and millions of Jews were massacred just 60 years ago?

The Jews are a race who've laid down their own law, which they had to do to seeing as a specific and mass-scale effort was launched to kill them all.

Its understandable if they over-react to threats against them. Dealing with that is one of the parts of the whole problem

fuck

JordyWordy wrote:

Don't be so naive.
It means that Israel have not tried to wipe Palestinian people off the face of the earth entirely. If Israel wanted to do this, itd have been done by now, they have the resources.

I feel like I always say the same fucking thing and everyone here ignores it. Do you want me to write it in bold so that you can understand? Maybe in capital letters?
I already said that the Nazis worked on a MUCH MORE MASSIVE SCALE but that the Israelis are still guilty of doing MANY SIMILAR THINGS LIKE GENOCIDE, CREATING GHETTOS, DEMOLISHING VILLAGES, DISPLACING PEOPLE, etc etc etc

The point was that both (1) 800 years in the past, or (2) 60 years in the past is still THE PAST.

uh... only one is EIGHT HUNDRED years ago, and the other is sixty years ago. Meaning there are still MANY people alive from when Israel either kicked out or scared out 1 MILLION people from Palestine. Of course there is still bitterness, and there are tons of people still alive today who have lost homes, families, etc. If you expect these people to simply forget then you're not living in reality.

Backwards thinking on things like this prevents progress. Both sides are guilty of crimes. Qualifying more blame on one party is pretty useless for the purposes of creating a peaceful environment.

No one is thinking backwards or anything. I have one solution to it, which is the international consensus. I'm not thinking about the past, I'm thinking right now about the CURRENT SITUATION. Israel is guilty of illegally occupying land, CURRENTLY. People are living under occupation, losing lives, and barely surviving on the minimal resources Israel allows them to have.

yet for some reason, people ignore this and say "but they both are guilty of crimes." Well, guess what? Whether you think it's wrong or not to compare, Israel is the one who is occupying the other. And it makes zero sense to drop your weapons and come to talks with someone who still refuses to WITHDRAW from the occupied territories.

I never said you said peace deals were a bad idea.

I said your idea of how they come about has pretty much never occurred in the real world.

The Irish comparison was regarding similar issues, one side wanting the other to disarm (or withdraw from violence) before the other. There were many deals struck, and the only one that has worked consistently was the one drawn up by both sides, and that came into effect for both sides at the same time. You obviously, didnt get that point either

you're drawing a vague comparison here. you are not even mentioning how these two groups came to "striking deals" in the first place. Israel refuses to talk to Hamas and Hamas refuses to talk to Israel. If Hamas were to want to talk to Israel, Israel has many demands such as renouncing violence, and recognizing the "right to exist". Do you think it is logical to recognize that the person who is still occupying your land has the right to exist? Not just that, but Israel wouldn't even guarantee peace after that. It's just "talks" from there.

on the other hand, all Hamas asks is Israel withdraws to the '67 borders and they will have a ceasefire while they discuss peace and more solutions, which is not only reasonable, but actually REALISTIC.

if you'd like to elaborate on your comparison to Ireland's conflict, i'd be happy to listen.

edit: oh and if you have a better solution to this current conflict (more specific than "both sides lay down weapons") I'd be happy to hear that too.

FiveB247x

Albeit, terrible treatment, policies and actions by Israel towards Palestine, this is no where in the realm of a genocide. Genocide is the systematic, govenmerntal practice of killing a group of people. Israel does not do this... however some of their practices and actions lead to some Palestinian suffering and death. It is no where near the same level of comparison. To try and compare such things is truly outlandish and only done so for shock and awe in order to envoke a specific type of response - bias aimed towards a specific opinion in the matter.

fuck

JordyWordy wrote:

Although im preaching about forgiving and forgetting, can you really expect Jewish people to just give in to Arab concessions?? (when most of the Arab League want the Israeli state destroyed), considering that millions and millions of Jews were massacred just 60 years ago?

The Jews are a race who've laid down their own law, which they had to do to seeing as a specific and mass-scale effort was launched to kill them all.

Its understandable if they over-react to threats against them. Dealing with that is one of the parts of the whole problem

It's understandable?? They're "reacting" to threats now? Because the threats came out of nowhere right? not from israeli aggression?

The Arab concession is one that is recognized internationally, by all nations - excluding the US and Israel, which does not exclude "death and destruction to Israel" as so many people claim.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Albeit, terrible treatment, policies and actions by Israel towards Palestine, this is no where in the realm of a genocide. Genocide is the systematic, govenmerntal practice of killing a group of people. Israel does not do this... however some of their practices and actions lead to some Palestinian suffering and death. It is no where near the same level of comparison. To try and compare such things is truly outlandish and only done so for shock and awe in order to envoke a specific type of response - bias aimed towards a specific opinion in the matter.

Look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre which Israel is responsible for. It is one example of genocide.

FiveB247x

Please post where Israeli government policy states they aim to kill every Palestinian. Please post where Israel's death camps are and in which what method they use to kill each Palestinian as is stating in their government collaboration to whipe out a race of people.

You can't post such things because they don't exist. The above are specifics on what Genocide involves and entails. Israel has none of them and nothing even remotely like them.

Also, a massacre is not a genocide. Look up the definitions of each in a dictionary for clarification.

_outlaw wrote:

Look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre which Israel is responsible for. It is one example of genocide.

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

It's understandable?? They're "reacting" to threats now? Because the threats came out of nowhere right? not from israeli aggression?

The Arab concession is one that is recognized internationally, by all nations - excluding the US and Israel, which does not exclude "death and destruction to Israel" as so many people claim.

Listen, im not going into anymore debate over points like peace deals etc.
if you think Israeli occupation and Northern conflict have no parallels, then all i can do is suggest that you research the northern Irish conflict more.

you dont seem to get my points when i refer to it, and i can only assume thats because youre not overly familiar with it, and the escalation of the problems from the 1960s on. If people in Ireland can forgive within their own lifetimes, then i think peoples of both Palestine and Israel should to. That was my exact point.

Ive already told you im pro-Palestine, so why are you shoving all this anti-Israel shit into your responses?

I responded to your use of the term GENOCIDE, which i think you need to look up in a Dictionary.
Israels actions are criminal, overly forceful, murderous, and cruel.
But theyre not Genocide.

Yep, Nazis were awful too. But the comparisons stop at Genocide because Israel arent trying to exterminate Palestine.
That was my point. If you find fault with that im not gona bother responding to you.

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

Look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre which Israel is responsible for. It is one example of genocide.

No. It is an example of a massacre.

Nazis, Rwanda - those are Genocides

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

Please post where Israeli government policy states they aim to kill every Palestinian. Please post where Israel's death camps are and in which what method they use to kill each Palestinian as is stating in their government collaboration to whipe out a race of people.

You can't post such things because they don't exist.

so because it's not written in their constitution, it doesn't happen? nice logic there.

The above are specifics on what Genocide involves and entails. Israel has none of them and nothing even remotely like them.

Israel has participated in and been responsible for cases of genocide. you can ignore it all you want, but it's the truth.

Also, a massacre is not a genocide. Look up the definitions of each in a dictionary for clarification.

did you even look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre, or is that your only argument? it was a genocide. just because it isn't called "the Sabra and Shatila genocide" does not mean anything... :rolleyes:

JordyWordy

_outlaw wrote:

did you even look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre, or is that your only argument? it was a genocide. just because it isn't called "the Sabra and Shatila genocide" does not mean anything... :rolleyes:

Was it only Israelis who carried those killings out then? was it only the people in the camps or was it a large-scale effort to wipe out Palestinians?

Just because something isnt Genocide, doesnt mean its not awful.

Sabra & Shatila were clearly the specific murders of Palestinians. But thats not the same as a Palestinian Genocide. its too small scale.

FiveB247x

You may deem to call it whatever you please, but in reality it is not a genocide and no where near the realm of one.

genocide – the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


massacre –
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
–verb (used with object) 4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.

bigdvs

if you had 10 to 20 sabras a month, a la rawanda, then you are on the road to genocide.

hope that clarifies for ya.

meme

_outlaw wrote:

So if Buddhists wanted a homeland, they could decide to just take over a country that isn't theirs, treat the people horribly (killing many of them, taking their homes, destroying villages) and it wouldn't be a problem?? sure, the Jews took it from the British, but that was after the Palestinians called for independence several times, all of which were shot down by the British and the Zionist movement which had other plans for the land.

I am pro-Palestine too, but you are just making an ass of yourself if you ignore the historical claim the people of Israel had on that specific land. I mean seriously, I hope you are not involved in politics or anything.

fuck

On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the [Sabra and Shatila] massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r123.htm

Thanks for playing.

fuck

meme wrote:

I am pro-Palestine too, but you are just making an ass of yourself if you ignore the historical claim the people of Israel had on that specific land. I mean seriously, I hope you are not involved in politics or anything.

So because jews lived there 2000 years ago, they have the right to "claim" the land for themselves, displace over a million people, destroy villages, kill thousands, etc??



I don't really care about this whole historical claim thing anyway. I want peace as much as the next person, but the only difference is that I recognize it can't come until Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.

FiveB247x

an act of genocide in one instance is far from characterising the entire conflict in such a manner. it's misleading a fact (this one designation) in order to prove some bs point.

ps... meme, funny comment.

_outlaw wrote:

On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the massacre and declared it to be an act of genocide. Paragraph 2, which "resolved that the massacre was an act of genocide", was adopted by ninety-eight votes to nineteen, with twenty-three abstentions: All Western democracies abstained from voting.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r123.htm

Thanks for playing.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

an act of genocide in one instance is far from characterising the entire conflict in such a manner. it's misleading a fact (this one designation) in order to prove some bs point.

so you're first argument is it wasn't genocide, and now your argument is that just cause it's 1 case doesn't make it actually a genocide? do you not realize that was 1 example?

ok, I see where this is headed. thanks.

FiveB247x

If you characterize the Israel/Palestine conflict as genocide is nothing but biased, bogus garbage. There are different degress of things in life. Albeit, this is bad, its certainly no-where near the level you claim it to be. And the only reason you do so, is because you try and push some biased opinion. You're rational is like that of a person who calls someone an alchoholic, when they just got drunk one night. Gimme a break man.

_outlaw wrote:

so you're first argument is it wasn't genocide, and now your argument is that just cause it's 1 case doesn't make it actually a genocide? do you not realize that was 1 example?

ok, I see where this is headed. thanks.