Slashdot Mirror
Google Formally Puts Palestine On Virtual Map
hypnosec writes "Google has indirectly walked right into one of the Middle East's most obstinate conflicts by labeling Palestine as an independent nation — wiping off the term 'Palestinian Territories' and replacing it with 'Palestine' in its localized search page. Google's move is more or less in line with the UN's October decision to name Palestine as a non-member observer state. The status given to Palestine will allow the state to join UN debates as well as global bodies such as the International Criminal Court, in theory at least. Up until May 1, anyone visiting http://www.google.ps were shown the phrase Palestinian Territories. This change is definitely not a huge one but, it has attracted criticism from politicians in Israel."
While it's an amusing thought, Google actually consulted the UN and is rolling out the change across all of their products. (mumble mumble rtfa)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Good. It's about time.
EOM
After much deliberation, they thought "Palestine Beta" would cause yet more controversy.
the rothschild family and the queen of england are just trying to use their proxies (including google) to spark conflict in the middle east to trigger world war 3, collapse the US dollar and invoke the new world order... in preparation for the nazis to return from the dark side of the moon with their army of rock spiders
Google typically defers to self-identification, even where names or status are disputed. For example, google.mk is taglined "Google Macedonia", not "Google FYROM".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Only that the UN is in a better position to recognize a nation than pretty much any other entity.
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
An organization that wants any other group wiped from the face of Earth deserves just that.
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government? Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
I'm pretty sure Google has more power than many small nations and the UN.
Annex?
Don't you mean occupy? Or are you admitting that Israel is taking land by force?
I have no problem with Israel occupying Palestinian territories from which rockets are fired. They can do for as long as it takes for the attacks to stop as far as I am concerned. But its not their land to settle.
The Sinai was returned to Egypt as a condition of a peace treaty. And the Golan Heights will be returned to Syria based on the same.
Have gnu, will travel.
I was so pleased when the UN finally told the US and Israel what they thought of the nice little Ghetto Israel had created for the Palestinians to slowly be eradicated in.
Frankly, I agree with Sir Gerald Kaufman of the UK in his views that Israel is no better than certain German Fascists in their treatment of the Palestinians.
“The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians,” Sir Gerald Kaufman, a veteran MP of the governing Labour Party and a long-time critic of Israel, said Thursday in parliament.
And before some butt-hurt heeb starts pulling out his "you disagree with Israel, you therefor are an anti-semite" card...
Sir Gerald Kaufman is himself a Jew.
I hope that someday more land can be given to Palestine and both sides can learn to live in peace -- but considering this dispute seems driven by ultra-conservative religious wing-nuts on all sides, I don't think that will happen without total annihilation of the region.
It is about time! And with respect to any Israelis or Jews who might be offended by Google's actions today. I have just one thing to say to you: fuck you.
Google is responding to the reality of the situation on the ground today. The Palestinians people lived in a place called in English Palestine by everyone else including the Jews until 1948 when Israel was created. While it is true that they and other Arab neighbors did cause some problems by deciding not to bow to the reality of the political situation then and agree with the two-state solution created by the UN back then and to fight the Jews who through the UN legally stole half of Palestine from the Palestinians the fact of the matter is that there is a nation that is bottled up within the borders of the current state of Israel that do not want to be a part of Israel and would like some of the land back that the Israelis stole from them in 1967 not so fair and square.
Israel as it currently exists as a Jewish state is doomed because of the unsustainable situation it is in. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now. The nation is quickly losing the moral capital the Holocaust granted it by tacitly creating ghettos for the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, regularly depriving these people of commerce, jobs, food, water, and electricity, and then expecting that the people they victimize will simply put up with it. Google's actions today are just another nail in the coffin of the Jewish state.
Ok, ok, I'm getting off my soap box now.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Individuals launching rockets is not the same as Israel as a whole committing those crimes. Also I don't remember the Palestinians using white phosphorus on civilians, do you?
What, give both parties nukes and let them hash it out once and for all?
Since Israel's only claim to legitimacy is the U.N.'s declaration, I suppose this means no legitimate state occupies that land?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The UN is saving its energy for the vi/emacs dispute.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's an overgeneralization. Iran's nuclear program doesn't become good just because it annoys Israel.
As an Israeli, all I can say is:
* It's about time.
* Don't worry about the yelling from certain Israeli politicians. They look just as dumb to most Israelis as they do to the rest of the world.
DNA has shown that Israelis and Palestinians are the same people. Either they both have an ancestral claim to the land or neither one does.
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
So I guess neither of us like the analogy.
That their holy book says all infidels must convert or die doesn't give them any moral high ground.
That Israel ignores all the parts of their holy book demanding just treatment of foreigners (leaving only the parts about conquest and oppression and exclusion) nicely levels the moral playing field.
If they don't like what you've done, you've probably done the right thing.
The only problem with that theory is that most Israelis can't wait to revoke Israeli-Arabs citizenships, voting rights and social security benefits on the grounds of dual nationality or as supporters \ members of an enemy state.
What people don't realize is that Israel is still essentially a socialist state. While not quite the kibbutz some folks imagine it to be, it's still impossible to live here on a median income without the tax breaks and heavy subsidies citizens are provided with. And, since almost everything (especially utilities like water and electricity) is government owned or managed, the median wages have adjusted to just barely cover housing and food. e.g. Most folks don't even handle their pension plan since the law forces the employers to manage that for the employees along with filing their income taxes.
That's right, in Israel, unless your self employed, you don't file your income tax yourself. Your boss does it for you.
Right now, 30% of Israeli universities students are Palestinians who receive the usual 50% student subsidies. Then, there's child support, free health care, almost free medication, almost free education from ages 3-18... That's 20% of the population suddenly finding themselves one day without the means to support their families, possibly themselves and without any meaningful savings since they never made enough money in the first place.
But hey, since us Israelis don't like it, it's probably a good idea...
Nice try, but unconvincing. Israel is just as complicit in the situation as Palestine is.
And why would the Palestinians need Israel approval when Israel didn't need to ask permission to the Palestinians to exist?
The whole "negotiated solution" is propaganda for Israel to keep the Palestinians stateless forever, and continue the colonization. The longer they wait, the larger their state will be.
Two counterpoints:
#1: Poor people are usually religiously backward. Israel has kept Palestine poor. If Palestinians were free to trade, and grew wealthier, they might become a bit more progressive.
#2: Even if Palestinians are backward hicks, that doesn't justify Israel's treatment of them. A Palestinian state may not be an ideal solution, if it has a high chance of turning into a theocracy, but is there any other way of preventing Israel from further mistreating them?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" - Mark Twain
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government?
No, that would be Hamas. Their charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
There seems to be some defect in your understanding of genocide as the number of Palestinian Arabs has long been increasing. You also don't give credit where credit is due. The brother Arabs of the Palestinian Arabs told them to leave their homes and villages while they slaughtered the Jews in 1948. It didn't turn out that way, and now the other Arabs treat the Palestinian Arabs like scum.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Huh? Where'd that come from? I'm perfectly fine with China not trampling in to directly help North Korea wage hostilities against the South; I'm happy with South Korea being able to defend its border against aggression. Likewise, I'd be fine with Israel not receiving massive support from its sugar daddy to unilaterally steamroll over Palestine; I'd be fine with Palestine having a bit more firepower to fight back wherever Israel pushes its borders to steal more land/resources.
Israel did not arise from a UN mandate, they won statehood by fighting a war of independence.
The Zionist movement declared itself to be an independent nation, that declaration triggered the 1948 war with neighboring states, Israel won. About a year after the war the UN had no real choice other than to recognize them as a state, (they had a functioning government and well defined borders). Before Israel's declaration of independence the league of nations (UN) had planned to partition the territories, the Zionists symbolically made their independence claim on the day the partition was due to come into force.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Riiiight.
Lets just ignore the fact that their claims to legitimacy pre-date the existence of the UN: The Legal Case for Israel
But why let facts and history get in the way?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Hard to tell exactly what China's politburo will do (ever since Mao died, no one's been answering calls on my special red telephone line to Beijing), but I'm not so sure they'd really want NK expanding like that either. China doesn't want US military bases nestled right up against their border (so they're alright with maintaining NK as a big buffer region), but they aren't exactly thrilled about having a big mass of desperate starving poor people about to spill over the border either (China's not particularly short on population right now). Doubling the size of NK (while wiping out anything of value in South Korea) wouldn't particularly benefit China. In fact, if the US were to break off close relations with South Korea (let them develop as an independent non-aligned state, rather than a neo-colonial puppet for Western interests), I wouldn't be surprised if China hastened along the demise of NK, and let South Korea take over as a friendly ally/trading partner.
Rule of thumb for Zionists - if it's critical of Israel in anyway, call it racist.
Yup, having cruel, warmongering neighbors who like to murder children and indiscriminately level the shanty-infested `cities' tend to make people a bit resentful. That applies to both sides of this conflict.
Also, do you keep this kopipe in a text file to post quickly? Also, are you in that JIDF program where they pay people to shitpost on websites with pro-Israel propoganda? I'm not accusing you, It's just the feeling that I'm getting.
Rule of thumb for "anti-Zionists" - Watch them - too few can stop themselves from crossing the line into either effective or outright anti-Semitism.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Today, a sizable section of the European left has been reluctant to take a clear stand when anti-Zionism spills over into anti-Semitism. Beginning in the 1990s, many on the European left began to view the growing Muslim minorities in their countries as a new proletariat and the Palestinian cause as a recruiting mechanism. The issue of Palestine was particularly seductive for the children of immigrants, marooned between identities.
Capitalism was depicted as undermining a perfect Islamic society while cultural imperialism corrupted Islam. The tactic has a distinguished revolutionary pedigree. Indeed, the cry, “Long live Soviet power, long live the Shariah,” was heard in Central Asia during the 1920s after Lenin tried to cultivate Muslim nationalists in the Soviet East once his attempt to spread revolution to Europe had failed. But the question remains: why do today’s European socialists identify with Islamists whose worldview is light-years removed from their own? . . . more
The view of the Times is too timid - anti-Semitism is becoming a disease of the left.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Did you miss the news that it took the Israeli Supreme Court to (finally) protect female Jews from being harassed or arrested at the Western Wall by the Ultra Orthodox? How about opinion surveys of Americans on how it's acceptable to drone bomb the shit out of other countries?
Beam, motes. And if you want to bitch about the problems of fundamentalist islam, start with the nearest mirror, as it's usually:
1) In response to western imperialism. Yeah, you're pissed about the 911 attacks that killed 3,000. They're kinda pissed about American sanctions that killed 500,000 children in Iraq. And your overthrowing their secular democracy in Iran to be replaced by a brutal dictatorship from the Shah.
2) Financed by client states like Saudi Arabia. You know, where the hijackers were from, but was never on our blow-shit-up list. Huh.
3) Financed and supported by the CIA. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, rebels in Libya and now Syria, and MEK in Iraq. Then there was that triffle of "buying" the services of young boys in Afghanistan to be raped by tribal warlords.
Bullshit. The entirety of Israel is built on land stolen from the native population. First in 1948, when a bunch of immigrants from Europe decided they had a greater claim than those who had lived there for thousands of years. And then in 1967, when they started a war of territory expansion yet claimed to be the victims.
ALL of the occupied territories ALL of the settlements and ALL of East Jerusalem are illegal.
There's blame on all sides. The Palestinians and Israelis both act like a bunch of violent monsters. I don't even really care that Israel is matching their butchery. That is, after all, how wars are won, and I'm not directly effected. It's not something that I like my government to be apart of, and I especially hate it when Israel tries to present itself the beacon of morality in the region, and pretend that they are any more dignified than the Muslims. The entire region is full of greedy, hateful thugs and I wish they would both stop spilling blood over a meaningless desert and go away.
Obvious context was Israeli policies and aggression towards the native population. That Israel has some great schools and water management policies doesn't have much to do with their practice of Apartheid.
Jews have been living continuously in the region of Palestine for over 3000 years (the Arabs came later, and invaded around 1400 years ago).
Not going to take sides here, since both sides are reprehensible, and deserve very little sympathy at this point. I take that back, the normal people in both Israel and Palestine deserve it, the bellicose asshats in their governments and outspoken religious authorities deserve none whatsoever. That said; your statement is a bit wonky. Yes, modern Arabs, and later Muslims, were there later than Jews, but this is a bit false, since the root ethnicities and cultures that spawned both were there longer than either. Further "we were there first" is about as idiotic as one can get. Should the Native American tribes be allowed to partition American cities, restrict their ability to food and medicine, and generally treat them all like terrorists, criminals, and subhumans by default? They were here first, after all. Actually Siberians and the Japanese should be allowed to, since their genetic stock is more closely related to the original settlers of North America than most people here now.
No. Both people have to coexist, whether they like it or not. If they can't, I don't care, someone should come in and FORCE them to. And anyone who supports the hostilities of either faction should have as serious sanctions as someone supporting any other terrorist aggressor state, since they really don't hold a moral high ground on any issue anymore. They both are bad guys. No excuse changes this fact. Picking sides is nonsensical, its like arguing over who was less evil, Stalin or Mao.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Officially declared "we annex this territory"? Probably not since '73. But settlements, seizing water sources, tearing down olive orchards, building apartheid walls, changing the real situation on the ground: daily. I'm less concerned by "official" territorial boundaries (imaginary lines on a map), than the physical reality "on the ground." Imaginary lines on a map can be re-drawn at any time, and don't hurt anyone; but when people are expelled from their homes, lose access to vital resources, and are replaced by new "innocent civilian" settlers, the real harm is done (and far harder to justly reverse).
You mean, the "wait out the clock" game that has been the Zionist goal since they first started to steal land from Palestinians in the 30's. Which is also rich, coming from the nation still pursuing Nazi war criminals and stolen assets from the 30's. If human beings lived 500 years Israel would still be hunting those people and assets down in the year 2400 A.D. But land stolen in an aggressive war of choice in 1967? 46 years is toooo loooong ago to worry about!
You know that's an irrelevant comparison, right? The is no equivalence for Israel, where a nation is carved out of existing land and people for the benefit of an immigrant population. There was no U.N. recognizing American statehood in the 1600's at the expense of Native Americans.
Ah, the "continuous presence" canard. Problem: at 1900, Jews made up less than 10% of the population of Palestine. The "declaration of independence" was a land grab from a bunch of European immigrants no better than Manifest Destiny.
Second problem: if the surrounding Arab nations were to militarily "wipe Israel off the map", you'd have to be okay with that, because of a "continuing Palestinian presence" in the area.
It's built on land stolen from the native population by a bunch of immigrants.
Will you? Jews were less than 10% of the area population in 1900. When Zionists "declared independence" they were only 31% of the population, the vast majority just off the boat or first-generation. When they started the 1967 war and illegally seized the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, they settled the stolen land with....more immigrants.
History and facts have a well known anti-Zionist bias.
Am I supposed to believe that these poll results distinguish Palestine or Muslims from the rest of humanity negatively somehow?
Let me tell you, being transgendered, from over here all the Abrahamaic religions look pretty much the same and pretty much all equally morally bankrupt. Those survey results don't look much different from what I'd expect one would obtain by interviewing local Christians around here. Including things you've identified to attempt to make Islam look regressive by way of being misogynist. Christians around here believe the same things, although they have different clothing than hajibs they believe superstitious things about.
Misogyny runs rampant in Abrahamaic religions. Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam just have different ways of expressing it. At least the one thing all three can agree on is that, drawing from the ancient Greek myth, that it must be a woman who's responsible for all the evils of the world.
Guess what. Most of the world, at different times, has been ruled by different people. What do you think the native inhabitants of this continent [The Americas] might think about their Christian conquerors? At least, the ones that are left to speak.
I'm going to get modded flamebait for this, but I honestly believe it, and I've got the karma to burn. Israel couldn't have done better to take plays out of feminism's playbook. They're always history's perpetual victims. They're always morally perfect. It's all completely bullshit. It's a passive-aggressive appeal to white, male, and German guilt.
Israel has no right to exist. Yes, what happened during the holocaust was terrible, but the answer to evil isn't more evil.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
I call BS on your entire post. You say:
Right now, 30% of Israeli universities students are Palestinians
Here's the actual data from the government of Israel:
Among 251,800 students in 2010/11 at academic institutions, 11% (27,400) were Arabs, constituting 13.6% of the students in bachelor's programs at universities and 7.7% of the university students studying for a master's degree.
Another example:
What people don't realize is that Israel is still essentially a socialist state.
Israel left behind its socialists beginnings long ago, around the time of Bibi's first term in 1996.
Third one:
And, since almost everything (especially utilities like water and electricity) is government owned or managed,
Let me FTFY:
Outside of utilities like water and electricity as well as airports which are publicly owned like in many other countries, Israel is very much a free market economy with a large number of private enterprises including a healthy number of technological startups I might add.
Fourth one:
Most folks don't even handle their pension plan since the law forces the employers to manage that for the employees along with filing their income taxes.
Gosh that sounds eerily like the bastion of Marxism, the ol' USA, where GM along with all other big companies manages (or at least used to manage before many of them went bankrupt) its employee retirement funds.
Yeah, I don't like the Likud Charter either:
Part of the problem is Israel got Palestinian government classified as terrorists, so we never hear there side. Only Israels extreme version of their side.
You sir, disgust me, really. What Israel is doing is *actions* not words, and it results in a huge number of deaths each year.
Disgusting murderers.
News at 11.
Ah, I see you're spamming the "legal case for Israel" propaganda. Problem is, reality has a well-known anti-Zionist bias, and Israel has zero legal justification for it's formation or land grabs.
First, it was formed by a bunch of immigrants stealing land from the people already living there. Jews were a tiny minority - less than 10% of the population - in 1900. The Zionists "declaring independence" in 1948 were almost entirely just off the boat or first generation immigrants.
So, it's no different from Manifest Destiny: a sense of entitlement to other people's land.
That's always been slight-of-hand. Israel wants land, and peace gets in the way of their land-grabbing.
And rightly so. The British Mandate of Palestine was going to give 56% of the land to 31% of the population, almost all of whom were immigrants. It's like if the minority Cuban immigrant population of Florida up and laid claim to most of the state - think the rest of the population might reject such a proposal?
When did Zionists negotiate with Palestinians on the formation of Israel?
Another poster already called you out for that nonsense, but such hypocrisy deserves to be highlighted again.
Ah, the "continuing presence" propaganda. Again. So if the surrounding Arab nations were to militarily wipe Israel off the map - something you guys have been yelling about for decades - to form an independent Palestinian state, you'd be just fine with it it, right? Because Palestinians have had a "continuing presence" in the area? Like most Zionist propaganda, this talking point doesn't stand up to two seconds of scrutiny.
Did the fact that sub-Saharan African countries were majority-black mean Apartheid was okay? Two seconds of scrutiny...
You mean the international law that has always held that ALL the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem have always been illegal and should be returned to the Palestinians? That international law?
Feel free to do just that at any time.
Good point. Let us not forget that Nicaragua invaded Costa Rica and planted a flag a mile or two over the border a few years ago because of an error on Google Maps. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/google-maps-error-blamed-for-nicaraguan-invasion/
And the Likud charter lays claim to the occupied territories and denies any Palestinian state. Funny how the Zionist apologists never talk about that. Or the inconvenient fact that Hamas was created by Israel to undermine Fatah.
There seems to be some willful obtuseness in your comment, as you're swapping out the elimination of a country with the elimination of a people.
Depends, do you have any sense of proportion? How about when it's Israel violating the cease fire and then killing hundreds of Palestinians a la Cast Lead? How about the fact that even the IDF admits that the rockets are a psychological and not a military threat? Or the fact that an Israeli is more likely to be killed in a car accident with a bus - not car accidents overall but car accidents with buses - than by a Palestinian?
And who created Hamas again? And the Likud Charter, again?
Who Are the Real Nazis?
By the racist Jonah Goldberg? More like Who Are the Real Shitbags.
Rule of thumb for "anti-Zionists" - Watch them - too few can stop themselves from crossing the line into either effective or outright anti-Semitism.
If it were anti-semitic it would be against Arabs as well.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Its still absurd to compare NKorea to basically anyone except North Korea, or historical regimes.
Isnt Israel a democracy that DOESNT stick its people in prison camps?
Well, it doesnt stick "its" people in prison camp, only the people in the country that are undesirable.
It is horribly ironic and sad that some of the views held by the most extreme israeli political players mirror so many of the fascists ideas of nazi germany...
This land is mine
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sorry asshat but the rules are in our times. Not some bullshit date thousands of years because it favours your personal desires today. Pretty blow that religious bullshit out of your ass before ever contemplating using it to kill people or justify theft of their property. It has always been bullshit and will always be bullshit. Whether it was missionaries to the Americas, Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the crusades, the Mughals in India etc. etc. etc. It has always been exactly the same bullshit, a handful of psychopaths at the top hiding behind religion to feed their own personal ego and lusts whilst driving on the ignorant religious masses to fight and die for them.
Palestinian people legally owned most of the land in Israel. A bunch of Palestinian jews together with illegal immigrants initiated a terrorist war to steal those properties and expended the Israeli state from their. The US propped it up because the surrounding Arabic states where leaning towards the Soviet Union. You could bet if the US politicians at the time had known what a huge corrupt pain in the ass the Israeli government and the Mosad would become they would never have done so.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
What prison camps are these? Maybe read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_prisoners_in_Israel
and compare it to what Nazi Germany did. Tip, trying people in a court and sending them to prison for a week isnt the same thing.
I get that Israel does some shady stuff, but its really important on an issue as touchy as this to try to be objective, and refrain from hyperbole. Neither side has been great about this, both sides have considerable grievances, but neither side is as bad as WW2 Germany or current North Korea.
Perspective, rationality, guys.
They are called property titles. Did they exist abso-fucking-lutely and there is not place on this planet that anyone can say they own their own home and prevent someone from simply moving in and taking over with out some form of property. So ESAD with your pathetic lies and propaganda and somehow trying to twist religious or nationalistic 'ownership' as taking precedence of straight up normal recognised personal property ownership. In point of fact the cheating Israeli government passed laws to seize unoccupied legally titled houses (they had to pass laws because yes there were legal records of title of ownership) those properties being unoccupied because they were driven from their homes and the country and forbidden from returning. Really you lying deceiving propagandist why else where those racist and prejudiced laws passed about seizure of unoccupied properties unless there was an outstanding recording title of ownership.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You know, I honestly don't care Jew from Gentile, and 'right' and 'wrong' obviously don't mean crap. The guy with the biggest gun wins, and everybody else is a bunch of ankle biters.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think he was referring to the camps outside of Israel, and incidents like this.
Having said that, you are of course right that a comparison to nazi Germany is a great exaggeration. This does not make the behaviour any less reprehensible however.
Or the inconvenient fact that Hamas was created by Israel to undermine Fatah.
I think you'll find the truly inconvenient fact to be that your claim is wrong, a misreading of the facts. The facts are more subtle, and it is more a study in the law of unintended consequences. And please don't bother throwing this back at me from the article below since it will show you apparently either didn't read the article, comprehend the article, or both: ""Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. " That sentence from the article is more hyperbole than fact.
This is more informative:
How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and '80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
"When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake," says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early '90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. "But at the time nobody thought about the possible results."
Israeli officials who served in Gaza disagree on how much their own actions may have contributed to the rise of Hamas. They blame the group's recent ascent on outsiders, primarily Iran. This view is shared by the Israeli government. "Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons," Mr. Olmert said last Saturday. Hamas has denied receiving military assistance from Iran.
Arieh Spitzen, the former head of the Israeli military's Department of Palestinian Affairs, says that even if Israel had tried to stop the Islamists sooner, he doubts it could have done much to curb political Islam, a movement that was spreading across the Muslim world. He says attempts to stop it are akin to trying to change the internal rhythms of nature: "It is like saying: 'I will kill all the mosquitoes.' But then you get even worse insects that will kill you...You break the balance. You kill Hamas you might get al Qaeda."
--------
And the Likud charter lays claim to the occupied territories and denies any Palestinian state. Funny how the Zionist apologists never talk about that.
I take it then that you must be truly baffled by the fact that successive Likud Prime Ministers have ceded territory to the Palestinians, including withdrawing from Gaza? How is that possible if the charter is as you say? Perhaps there are subtleties to Israeli politics unaccounted for by the claims you post? Will you be including notice of the Likud concessions of territory in future posts about the Likud charter?
Likud
The third Likud premier was Benjamin Netanyahu, elected in May 1996, . . .
In 1998, Netanyahu reluctantly agreed to cede territory in the Wye River Memorandum. . . .
. . . early elections for Prime Minister were called for March 2001. Surprisingly, Netanyahu declined to be the Likud candidate for Prime Minister, meaning that the fourth Likud premier would be Ariel Sharon. Sharon, unlike past Likud leaders, had been raised in a Labour Zionist environment and had long been seen as something of a maverick. In the face of the Second Intifada, Sharon pursued a varied set of policies, many of which were controversial even within the Likud. T
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I hadnt heard of that, thanks for posting.
My general point was that in discussions on Israel it seems like people take one side and dont want to admit that their side has done a lot to cause the problem. They will defend Israel, and ignore the questionable tactic of collective punishment or the ways in which Israel seems to try to provoke attacks. Or they will defend Palestine on the idea that we can ignore that Israel has been around for 70 years now, and we cant just pretend that the people there dont belong; and that any past injustices warrant any action whatsoever against civilian populatons; and that Israel somehow shouldnt be concerned over the repeated calls for its discussion.
If you cant recognize the flaws of your own "side" in a discussion, theres a strong chance you have the blinders on and are living in an echo chamber.
Actually the legal basis for Israel goes back to the League of Nations in 1922 and the British Mandate. One of the first videos I posted in my original post explains the legal case, FYI. I suggest you check it out. Then we have the UN Resolution After that we have many wars (all the surrounding nations thought they could eliminate Israel through genocide). It is the wars that have shaped the current boundaries. Ignoring what boundary should be where (which, should be settled by negotiation without precondition, as was originally planned and the Israelis continue to say) it all comes down to a simple question: does Israel have a right to exist? given the continuous history of Jews in the area for 3000 years, the fact that Jews arrived in the late 19th Century and legally purchased land and the fact that the international community have repeatedly acknowledged the case for Israel where it is, then the answer to the question is pretty much *yes*. After that it is all details. The answer the Arabs give is *no*, despite the fact the Arabs did not own the territory - the former clearly recognized owners were the Ottoman Empire (for several hundred years) followed by the British under a League of Nations mandate (who then prepared the basis for the state of Israel).
This is a fallacious statement. There are "genocidal" Jews in Israel, and peace-loving Arabs in Palestine. Sadly on both sides the genocidal factions get the most press and power. The settler and hardline Zionists are just as bad, really, as the extremists among the Arabs.
More moral equivalence, and I'm afraid this is false. Yes, I fully agree that the hardline religious right in Israel is dangerous. It turns out so does the Israel Government, who cracks down on them (when they can, given they are a democracy so need to amass sufficient votes to get the laws passed to do this).
The point that it appears you have missed (as do many others) is not what individual people choose to do (there are crazies in all societies) but what are the relative positions of the respective Governments. The Israeli Government is not genocidal - think about it, if they wanted to eliminate and ethically cleans the non-Israeli Arabs (don't forget over 1 million Israelis are Arab) they could have easily done so (given the many wars and their overwhelming military power). The Israel Government takes great care not to harm Palestinian citizens (look at "Operation Pillar of Cloud", it is clear the Israelis care more about Palestinian citizens than Hamas does. Consider that the Israelis calling off strikes if Palestinian citizens are near; calling Palestinian citizens to warn them to leave buildings etc; treating Palestinian citizens in Israeli hospitals; even if this means rockets may continue to be launched at Israeli citizens!. Meanwhile Hamas targets Israeli citizens with indiscriminate rocket fire (12000 so far) which is a clear war crime, and Hamas builds bunkers to protect its men and rockets but refuses to let Palestinian citizens to shelter there (using armed force to keep them out) and instead prefers the Palestinian citizens be "involuntarily matyred" as human shields - as they can then use this for propaganda purposes (when they aren't busy displaying babies killed by their own misfired rockets [falsely blaming it on Israelis], or copying photos of dead Syrians and claiming the Israelis killed Palestinians etc. please Google "Pallywood" to see the lies the Palestinians use).
That would be picking sides...
I understand you are afraid that by picking sides you would enable equally bad people to carry out bad actions. However, as I've tried to point out (and I recommend you watch the links in my first post, please :) ) there is one side that has a stated goal (in Arabic) of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the other side does not want to be killed by genocide and "swept into the sea" as the Arabs state repeatedly. Here is a good quote that sums the situation up, "If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace tomorrow; if the Israelis laid down their arms there would be no more Israel". See how the situation is not equivalent? In this case it not only moral to pick the Israeli side, it is immoral not too - ignoring repeated attempts and a stated Palestinian policy of genocide should not be ignored. Therefore, one is forced to pick sides.
No, the aggressors on both sides should be stuck down, both Arab and Jew, allowing the normal folk who just want to raise their families live peaceably. The Arabs shouldn't get a pass, any more than the more hateful bits of the Zionist movement. Occupy Isreal/Palestine, then throw anyone who breaks the peace, Jew or Arab, on a desert island, naked, and let them sort it out like men, without letting innocents suffer.
Please read the history then. You will find that the Arabs started all the wars. In 1967 the Arabs were preparing another war (already had shelling in the Sinai and a naval blockade of Israel) when the Israelis per-emptively struck (if they hadn't then they'd been gone, and the Arabs would have been able to carry out their *stated goal* of genocide).
Yes, both sides want to kill each other, that's the problem in a nutshell.
---
I am favorably biased towards Israel and with Israels wanting preconditions to peace. All the Arab countries have said, "We will wipe Israel off the map". Israel has said, if you want to be recognized, it is reciprocal. Recognize the State of Israel. We are here, we are not going away.
Instead you Arabs want the return of lands (some of which we are prepared to negotiate) and you will still persist in wanting our annihilation. The 1967 borders, (like the Mexico vs Texas and Arizona borders) is not on the table.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Actually, the League of Nations was a failure, because no one took it seriously.
I agree. In 1922 the League was relatively fresh. It was later everyone ignored it (same with the UN after the Communist+Islamic 'Red/Green' alliance set up a voting bloc that allowed crazy resolutions after about 1970 - which one of the videos I posted in an earlier comment shows how that came about). The main thing to take away is, *under international law there is a legal basis for Israel* (many deny that there is this basis). We can quibble about where the borders ought to be, but the position of many in the UN's OIC voting bloc is that there should be no Israel whatsoever - which it not in line with accepted international law.
Yes, those boundaries are even worse bullshit than the "original" boundaries of "Israel".
Ok, so would it be safe to assume that you don't think Israel should exist at all? that would explain the rest of your post - but it would be nice if you 'came out' in front of other Slashdotters so they could judge how reasonable you are (as in, you agree with the genocidal aims of the Palestinian Arabs, yes?).
Given that Jews were 10% of the population of the area and were driven out by force, and you want to suggest that the wars should be able to push the boundaries around, the answer to the question is pretty much no. Either using force to establish territory is valid, in which case the Jews were already kicked out of the region by completely valid means, or it isn't, in which case the nation of Israel was created under completely specious conditions.
Well, either you believe in force as the basis of authority or you don't. If you do believe in force as the basis of national authority then Israel deserves to keep the land it has - and might as well annex Judea and Samaria under the same 'rule of force' rules you propose. If you believe that force/conquest does not legitimize national sovereignity then you then have to turn to the legal basis of these things, in which case Israel is legal and the status of Judea/Samaria/West Bank remains officially "disputed" territory to be resolved by negotiation. Either way, Israel has the right to be in Israel proper and the only thing left is the sovereignty of the "disputed" territory of the West Bank (do the Jordanians own it, or does Israel? that's the question to be resolved).
If it's valid to create an Israeli state in the region by act of violence, which is what happened, then it's valid to create a Palestinian state in the region by act of violence, right over the top of Israel.
False and shows you don't know even the basics of the 20th Century history of the region. It is no wonder your statements seem profoundly ignorant from the position of anyone who does know the history. Israel was set up by League of Nations mandate followed by UN recognition. The violence was the Arab Legion (including armies from five nations) attacking the day after Israel was recognized by the UN (and the Arab League had the stated goal of genocide). There was Arab vs Jew violence under the British, but this was inter-community tension not related directly for the political formation of Israel (there were terrorist attacks against the British, but you are talking about the Arab vs Jewish conflict, yes?). If you look at the history it is clear that the Israelis always fight wars that are 'strategically defensive' in nature because they are attacked by the strategically offensive Arabs. The Israelis do use 'tactical offense' as part of their strategically defensive posture. I hope you have enough military knowledge to know the difference. *It is the Israelis under attack by the Arab Ummah/jihadis/Iranian proxies and rocket fire etc* and it is the Israelis who are on the *strategic defensive*. If you hate aggression then you ought to look at the *strategic aggressor*, which is the Islamists.
They can say anyth