BF2S Forums Israel: What To Give Up

ATG wrote:

As for Israel's neighbors, they had 13 centuries to make a go of "Palestine." Instead, they turned the Land of Milk and Honey into a desert.

The ecological reclamation of the land of Israel is nearly as dramatic as the creation of a Jewish state. (Indeed, environmentalists of real integrity should count among Israel's strongest advocates.) That return to the garden is as humiliating to feckless Arab cultures as their military defeats.

And we won't even talk about Israel's introduction of rule-of-law democracy into the wretchedly governed Middle East.

The point is that, whatever Israel does or doesn't do, it will always have plenty of enemies. No matter how self-destructive and murderous Palestinian behavior may be in Gaza, how nakedly corrupt Palestinian leaders are, or how hypocritical Arab governments remain, the global left will always make excuses for them, while blaming Israel for every boil on a terrorist's backside.

SO why should Israel surrender any land to its enemies, if it gets in return nothing but empty promises and more security problems?

The reason has nothing to do with justice or sense, but with one of those oddities of the international system, "world opinion." I wish Israel could keep every inch of ground it now holds. But the reality is that global leaders who don't know Gaza from Giza will demand that Israel give up turf.

The popularity of anti-Jewish sentiment to be found here in DST is astounding.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05062007/po … peters.htm

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-08 05:46:27)

ATG wrote:

When the Mexican get a piece of our land from the U.N. we'll talk.

I don't accept the Zionist argument. How many times must I explain that?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-08 05:52:35)

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

When the Mexican get a piece of our land from the U.N. we'll talk.

I don't accept the Zionist argument. How many times must I explain that?

Why can't you understand the anti-Zionist movement never agreed with the UN taking it upon themselves to grant land it had no right to grant to Israel? Who was protecting the Palestinians interests? New Zealand and India had votes on whether to grant a homeland to Israel for Christ's sake: wtf do they have to do with that patch of land?

Answer me this: So how would you react if the UN actually did grant the Mexicans half of Nevada, because it thought they deserved a homeland for 'Mexifornians' there?

Varegg wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

When the Mexican get a piece of our land from the U.N. we'll talk.

I don't accept the Zionist argument. How many times must I explain that?

Why can't you understand the anti-Zionist movement never agreed with the UN taking it upon themselves to grant land it had no right to grant to Israel? Who was protecting the Palestinians interests? New Zealand and India had votes on whether to grant a homeland to Israel for Christ's sake: wtf do they have to do with that patch of land?

Answer me this: So how would you react if the UN actually did grant the Mexicans half of Nevada, because it thought they deserved a homeland for 'Mexifornians' there?

But Mexicans already have a homeland Cam, the Israelis never had.

Closest we come would be the ongoing conflict in Kosovo only with a tad less religion.

konfusion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why can't you understand the anti-Zionist movement never agreed with the UN taking it upon themselves to grant land it had no right to grant to Israel? Who was protecting the Palestinians interests? New Zealand and India had votes on whether to grant a homeland to Israel for Christ's sake: wtf do they have to do with that patch of land?

Answer me this: So how would you react if the UN actually did grant the Mexicans half of Nevada, because it thought they deserved a homeland for 'Mexifornians' there?

But Mexicans already have a homeland Cam, the Israelis never had.

Closest we come would be the ongoing conflict in Kosovo only with a tad less religion.

And that justifies making 90% of the Palestinian population homeless? That was only when Israel was created, mind you - now it's 99.99999%.
You cannot justify the creation of one country by destroying of another. It violates countless rights, including various ones stated in the Geneva Convention.

-konfusion

sergeriver wrote:

ATG wrote:

As for Israel's neighbors, they had 13 centuries to make a go of "Palestine." Instead, they turned the Land of Milk and Honey into a desert.

The ecological reclamation of the land of Israel is nearly as dramatic as the creation of a Jewish state. (Indeed, environmentalists of real integrity should count among Israel's strongest advocates.) That return to the garden is as humiliating to feckless Arab cultures as their military defeats.

Do you know that Israel uprooted more than 13 million trees from Palestinians farmlands in the last 5 years?  How do you expect Palestinians to keep the land of milk and honey?

sergeriver wrote:

If you live in the past, you'll have no future.  They need to leave their past behind and build the future with a new attitude (from both sides).  What really matters is the current conflict, and finding a solution.  If you want we can argue for hours about the failures of Mankind.

ATG wrote:

So why don't the bording Arab countries do something useful again?

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Do you know that Israel uprooted more than 13 million trees from Palestinians farmlands in the last 5 years?  How do you expect Palestinians to keep the land of milk and honey?

I think the point is what about the 13 centuries before that? Where does the ecological failures go then?

If you live in the past, you'll have no future.  They need to leave their past behind and build the future with a new attitude (from both sides).  What really matters is the current conflict, and finding a solution.  If you want we can argue for hours about the failures of Mankind.

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I think the point is what about the 13 centuries before that? Where does the ecological failures go then?

If you live in the past, you'll have no future.  They need to leave their past behind and build the future with a new attitude (from both sides).  What really matters is the current conflict, and finding a solution.  If you want we can argue for hours about the failures of Mankind.

I agree. But examining the past is the best way to foresee the future. Certainly if Israel dwelled in the past and looked back historically they would see that every time they have given up land it has resulted in them being on the defense. Remember If we decide to discard the past than we must also discard the argument of who is rightfully entitled to the land (Historically). That article has acknowledged that Israel must give up land. It discusses which areas should be given to the Palestinians and which land will allow Israel to keep it's security.

Things that should be considered. "Israel can never surrender the Golan Heights. We might as well be honest about it. Syria repeatedly - three times - attacked Upper Galilee from the Golan. Three strikes and you're out."

But when it comes to strategic terrain, forget about Hebron - the West Bank town that's home to less than 1,000 Israeli settlers, and well over 100,000 Palestinians. It's just one of the many settlements that hurt Israel's security instead of helping it.

konfusion wrote:

Varegg wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Palestine existed in pre-bible times - they were called Paelestina or something like that.

-konfusion

You are not konfusing this with Paellastina in Spain ?

Certainly not - I am sure of it - I think it was part of the Roman Empire.

-konfuison