UN Diplomats Walkout During Ahmadinejad Speech

I like how you're implying that it had at some point.

Lies, lies, lies. Arab citizens of Israel (roughly one fifth of the population) have all the rights and privileges that status entails, and even fewer obligations (e.g. they aren't required to serve in the military). Arab citizens of the Palestinian territories have all the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Palestinian National Authority, which apparently includes being poor, hungry, blown up, shot at, and forced to obey the dictate of a corrupt clique of terrorists.

 

Palestine was chopped up by the UN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

The key word there is "citizens...dia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy

These people cannot vote, have to carry ID cards, are subject to checkpoints, can't own property, and are not permitted to travel outside their designated areas freely. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like the ghetto's of 1930's Germany and Apartheid South Africa to me.[/url]

 

Not this again.... we barely finished our earlir discussion in the ''Tarnished Image of Israel'' thread...

 

Glass desert.

 

There was never an independent state of Palestine or a distinct Palestinian nation. Prior to establishment of the state of Israel, Palestine was a British mandate. Prior to that, it was a pissant province of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to that, a pissant province of the Mameluke sultanate. Prior to that, a pissant province of the Ayyubids. And before that, it was divided among the crusader states, who captured it from the Fatimids, who took it from the Abbasids, who seized it from the Umayyads, who snagged it from the Rashidun caliphs, who conquered it from the Romans, who subjugated an independent Israelite kingdom that existed there at the time (waaait a second...), which was established after the native population kicked out their Greek overlords, who had established their rule there following the dissolution of Alexander the Macedonian's empire, who had taken Palestine from the Persians, who had taken it when they pwned the Babylonians, who had come to control it when they destroyed the independent kingdom of Judah (oh-uh...), which had managed to survive its northern neighbor, the independent kingdom of Israel (starting to see a pattern here...) Hey, it's almost as if the only independent states that ever existed on the territory of what is now known as Palestine were Israelite! Nah, that can't be, everyone knows it was the Zionist-dominated UN that chopped up Palestine, seizing it from the phantom Palestinian nation and giving it to a camarilla of evil Jewish outsiders.

As you stated yourself, these are occupied territories. It's normal that residents of areas under military occupation have lesser civil rights than those under civilian rule. It's important to note that the present state of these territories, though dismal, is transient and will end when their final status status is agreed upon. Something which could have happened by now if Palestinian leadership was halfway competent and showed a modicum of concern for their citizens' well-being.

 

''And once more upon the breach, my dear friends, once more''

Thats actually quite a good historical perspective, and I'm not going to deny a state of Israel has existed many times in the past, as you have proven. But yes, since 2000 years ago, they have not had a state for themselves.

Sorry, but the ''We inhabited this land 2000 years ago and 1000 years before that'' doesnt fly anymore. Its one of those horrible excuses zionists love to employ. Okay then, according to that logic, lets give Scandinavia back to the Germans, England back to the Gaelics, Celts, Jutes and so on, in fact, get rid of the Francs from France, they never really bellonged there now did they? Send them back to Germany... I guess all the peoples of the Americas also reserve the right to revolt and send back all whites to the Old World, I mean, if the Israeli's can sucessfully claim they 'had' Israel since roman times, they their claim goes even beyond that!

The problem with the ancestral link is that it is in fact ancestral, nobody should be allowed to make politics on those kind of 'historical' facts. Especially when it involves partitioning a land that has been inhabited for generations.

 

Most of the peoples you mentioned already have their own countries. Some of them no longer even exist, because they have been either assimilated or eliminated through genocide (Gaelics, Celts, Burgunds, many native American tribes etc.). Others never even developed beyond tribal level (American tribes) and therefore have no history of statehood in territories they formerly occupied (or anywhere else).

Israelites, however, despite being stateless for thousands of years, never assimilated anywhere. They preserved their culture and identity with great care, which includes cultivating the memory of Palestine as their rightful homeland. It was only natural that they would at first opportunity return there and reestablish the Jewish state, only to suffer relentless attacks by descendants of the very outsiders who had helped drive them out centuries earlier. Not only do Israelites continue to successfully weather these attacks, but in a few short decades they managed to turn an undeveloped and unproductive Arab province into an agricultural and industrial power. That alone is a strong argument in favor of their continued rule in Palestine, even if you disregard the notions of historical justice and ancestral links.

 

Regardless, a people that have been stateless for centuries cannot carve for itself (or be carved) a nation in the middle of a populated area. The fact they have transformed the area into a agricultural and industrial power may be true but cannot be given as a reason for giving them a state. Can you imagine what kid of loopholes in international law that creates?

''Oh, you have lived in these lands for thousands of years and have produced nothing. We came along and made it productive. Therefore we have more right to it than you....''

Sounds like Jingoism and Colonial era rhetoric if you ask me.

 

Umm, a retard would develop into industrial and agricultural power with the amount of money tha has been pumped into Israel.


On topic though, Ahmadinejad has never been presented accurately by the media. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of his but every word he's ever said has been twisted until it sounded completely wrong. They do that to anyone who disagrees with the most popular opinion. Check any Ron Paul interview to see what I mean. When it comes to Israel or Jews, you know he's not even going to be listened to.

 

The problem I have is not where they are, but why they are there.

Fact of the matter is NOBODY, yes not even the Canadians at the time to my shame and dismay, wanted the Jews in their backyards. So they dumped them in the most squalid backhole they could find, somewhere far FAR away from the European and Western civilizations so that they would not trouble us anymore.

Foreign funds went into the country to make it stable and habitable to make the transient Jews of the world flock there, it came to the point where they even started turning back there own from what I have heard, but I can't validate that point at this time.

So now, using the foreign funds that were designed to fortify the land and make it a Jewish stronghold, they are now trying to conquer ALL the old Jewish land, not just what has been meted out to them.

Why? Because they've been given a carte blanché in regards to politics due to the holocaust. But they're visiting it on a whole other people, you can't proclaim you're in the right when you're doing to others EXACTLY what has been done to you!

They aren't content with what they have, they want more, and more and more, and they're using their Western and European backing to take what they want, because they know they can.

And what's worst of all, they don't have to explain themselves, the Palestinians have given them all the reason they need to keep expanding into their land, with superior firepower and training.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't agree with either side in this mess, I'm not a fan of war in any way shape or form, but if anyone is wrong, it's us. The European and Western civilizations that decided it was a good idea to turn Palestine into a Jewish dumping ground and pump money in to keep them there.

If any finger should be pointed, it should be those that engineered this conflict that get pointed at, not the actors in the play.

 

Wasnt there a Israel vs Palestina thread already?

The area is the source for some of the 3 bigest religions. And is sacred land for them. It is always only a matter of time before the sand is covered with blood again. I dont think any side can be blamed really.

This would not be so much a issue if people would just decide to follow their gods and for once listen to what is in their books like "you shall not kill", which counts for all 3 of those Abrahamic religions.

 

I get a kick out of Chancellor Kremlin's thought process. The Jews getting kicked out 2000 years ago is ok since it was soooooooooo looooooooooooooooooooooooong ago. But since they came back(Israel 3: The Revenge!) with a vengeance it is bad because it happened 50 years ago.

Fun Fact: This shit has been going on since the dawn of man. It is going to continue to happen until mighty Cthulhu awakens....or something. So none of this crap is new. You can go on and on if it is right or wrong but not of that matters as it is just based on biased opinions and pails in comparison to the the truth....It just is.

 

I'm not one to speak for another person, but I'm pretty sure that both events are "bad" regardless of the timeframe; the point is that two wrongs do not make a right.

Sure, one man's hero is another man's terrorist, and all that. Israel was gone, though. Ancient history. Bringing it back was and is at the expense of others, but it's here again. So, what should be done? I don't know. Like you've said, it just is. I don't think that there is a "right", only sides.

And hey, wasn't this thread about diplomats walking out on Ahmadinejad's speech?

 

Indeed, when did I ever say it was alright when it happened 2000 years ago? All im saying is that you can't go that far back in history with ancestral land claims. Its far too long ago, far too much has happened in that time, the world has moved on, and you can't partition a land that has been inhabited since those 2000 years because your great great great great great grandad elevated to the ninth power plowed that land long before the greeks, romans, byzantines, muslims, british and so on.

 

Yes you can.....because it happened. and you just proved me right with your post. You say because it happened so long ago it shouldn't be used. Tell that to Israelis.

See you are stuck the trivial point if it was right or wrong. The point is it is just there. So far they have proven they want it a lot more then anybody else. Just ask all the Arab neighbors.
-----

As for the Mr.Ahmadinejad. His act got stale years ago.

 

Nobody here is doubting whether it happened or not, its a historical fact. Whats in question here is whether their claim is valid. I don't think it is. I do in fact tell that to Israeli's and Jews I know, when I am asked my opinion about it. They may not like it, but sometimes truth hurts.

The reason we can't accept a claim like that as valid is because it leaves open all sorts of horrendous loopholes and contradictions. Shall we give back half of Asia to the macedonians then? Or isolated islands and seaports back to the greeks? (Such as marseilles)

Its not like its been continuously inhabited for those 2000 years is it? More peoples have come and gone over their lands than I care to count. Sorry, but 2000 years ago is ancient history. It is literally, antiquity. Any such claims belongs exactly there, in antiquity aswell.

As for ''they want it more'' therefore they have a right to it, I can't begin to tell you whats wrong with that philosophy.

 

You may think justice is a trivial point, but I don't (and I'm guessing Chancellor Kremlin doesn't either). As for the Israelis wanting it more, I'm sure the Arab neighbours would disagree (at least, the Palestinians would), and I'm not sure how you measure who wants it more, anyway.

Anyway, with regards to the actual topic, I think it's shameful that the diplomats walked out. If you can't call a racist state racist, at a conference about racism, without the western world throwing a tantrum, why even bother?

 

You go on about Giving it back....it was never given back, It was taken.

Their Claim is Valid? Valid to who? you? Claims of their validity are just matters of opinion. They say it is their right to be there for it is there ancient homeland, you say they have lost that right 2000 years ago. But it is all just words. The truth is they won a war and the others lost. That is in truth all the validity they need.

Justice.....your opinion of what is right and wrong is the part that is trivial. It holds no sway in the world. it is just words.

And yes the Israelis want it more for they have it.

Palenstinians turned on themselves years ago. more involved with their own power struggles then to attain a true nation, and holding on to a goal that is out of date.