The_Gabe

So basically you are trying to say the Jewish State of Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Good to know where you stand. I do believe Israel shouldn't have been created. They should have either be sent back to where they lived before the holocaust, or if they wanted to be in that land, the should have gotten a palestinian citizenship. Then there would be no Israeli state, the palestinians would still have their lands, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. I do believe America shouldn't have been created. They should either be sent back to where they lived before exploration, or if they wanted to be in that land, they should have become Native Americans. There would be no America, and the Native Americans would still have their land, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. Do you realize how absurd you sound? So you're OK with killing indians and taking their lands. It was a totally moral thing to do. Their fault for not having gunpowder, right? With your argument anyone can expropiate anything from anyone "because". Yes, it is wrong. No, but here's the thing -I'm a realist. You aren't. Victors write history, and the weak die out in the end. It's been like this throughout history. That's how the world has been shaped. Are you going to come and tell me that everything in history is morally wrong? Hey, while we're at it, lets just blow up the world so nothing immoral would exist. Is that what you want?

So basically you are trying to say the Jewish State of Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Good to know where you stand. I do believe Israel shouldn't have been created. They should have either be sent back to where they lived before the holocaust, or if they wanted to be in that land, the should have gotten a palestinian citizenship. Then there would be no Israeli state, the palestinians would still have their lands, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. I do believe America shouldn't have been created. They should either be sent back to where they lived before exploration, or if they wanted to be in that land, they should have become Native Americans. There would be no America, and the Native Americans would still have their land, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. Do you realize how absurd you sound? Well that would be a valid argument except Americans killed off most of the people [Native Americans] who would hold that view. I fear that this will eventually happen to the Palestinians. We are not trying to repeat history of violence and chaos. We are trying to start a history of peace and serenity.

So basically you are trying to say the Jewish State of Israel doesn't have a right to exist. Good to know where you stand. I do believe Israel shouldn't have been created. They should have either be sent back to where they lived before the holocaust, or if they wanted to be in that land, the should have gotten a palestinian citizenship. Then there would be no Israeli state, the palestinians would still have their lands, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. I do believe America shouldn't have been created. They should either be sent back to where they lived before exploration, or if they wanted to be in that land, they should have become Native Americans. There would be no America, and the Native Americans would still have their land, and ta-dah, conflict avoided. Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Not dead, just out of Palestine. No thanks, we don't want more rockets launched at us. There would be no more rockets if you weren't in Palestine. Except they don't want us to exist at all. So no, there would be more. We wouldn't be in this discussion if you actually saw the video I linked. I'm fairly sure that if you got up and left completely (to somewhere decently far away, like somewhere in Africa, Russia, Europe, etc.) then they would leave you alone.

Not dead, just out of Palestine. No thanks, we don't want more rockets launched at us. There would be no more rockets if you weren't in Palestine. Except they don't want us to exist at all. So no, there would be more. We wouldn't be in this discussion if you actually saw the video I linked.

Not dead, just out of Palestine. No thanks, we don't want more rockets launched at us.

Actually it shows you can't read. It said hundreds, not 10,000 people praised him. That's just showing there's a few bad apples. It's nothing new. I don't support it, and you bet your ass I condemn it. They want us dead. What's there to empathize?

Nifflin, before the quote, I said "a quote I really liked". I liked how it was written and such, but I never did say it was true. That's why I posted it at the bottom of my post. I'm not including it in the debate. Of course it's a faulty quote, you don't have to be a genius to see that. I didn't actually expect you and Isreal63 would debate it. I could say the near damn thing to you. You're not ahead of us, even though you seem to think you are. Not even going to bother replying to this. It's not even worth the time to explain the insanity of your post.

I liked it.

Gabida Sounds odd.

Tell vacation I said hi !

So are a lot of people and we still don't think it's dangerous.

You really should. It's not a waste of 47 minutes. It's an amazing 47 minutes.

I have broken the wall. 99hp.

Okay, earlier I quoted wikipedia, you said it wasn't a trusted source. Here, then, this is a direct quote from the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan), November 29, 1947. And another quote: War hardly ever is the beginning of a conflict. It is more an action taken to solve an already existing conflict, which at the time was that the Israelis decided that since the british left now a chunk of Palestine was theirs. Unless my reading is incorrect (which it shouldn't be) then the two quotes you've provided talk about evacuation of the British armed forces, not the citizens. Plus the "chunk" you're talking about was stated in the UN partition of 1948 in the two state idea. And exactly what is the case of people having homes that is threatening to the lives of millions? With that same excuse you might as well kill all the palestinian on sight, under the eyes of Israel they are all obviously threatening terrorists. A line needs to be drawn, and that's what laws are for. And no, I haven't seen the speech. Out of those people, it takes only a small majority that could be terrorists to threaten security greatly. Mind I remind you that terrorists look like normal people (shocking, I know). Go watch the speech. Here's the video: I found a quote that I really liked so I'll post it.

First of all, let's look at this graph. Source. You can see that between 1941 and 1950 there's a sudden rise in the jewish population. This, we can attribute to the end of WWII, and the end of the British Mandate and the application of the Partition Plan, okay? Now, about the partition plan, as its name implies, it was the idea to split the territory of Palestine, where palestinians (and a very small jewish minority) lived in prior to the dissolution of the British Mandate, and give each party (The Zionists and the Palestinians) roughly half of the lands. Now, common sense should tell you that if you split a land you are taking a part from the total. The total belonged to the palestinians before the jews came. Therefore, land was taken from the palestinians and given to the Jews. Now, if lands were taken from the Palestinians, this means that before this happened those lands were rightfully theirs, and with the partition, they stopped having the right to inhabit those lands. Therefore, the palestinians who inhabited those lands had to leave. That is, they were evacuated and jewish immigrants were accomodated in those lands. Wrong. No one forced them to leave their homes. They were even encouraged to stay by the new Israeli government. They were not evacuated until the war where it was essential for security. Wrong again. They just did not want a Jewish state. They were not evacuated because of that. The beginning of the conflict was the Arab countries attacking the newly independent Jewish state. I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do. The law is solid, but the cases are not. Why do you think there is the International Court of Justice? The Only reason Israel is bypassing this law is because of the special requirements and land size that must be kept secured. One mistake could kill millions, and that's just not an option. I'll ask this again: Have you listened to Netanyahu's speech to Congress?

http://tickledbylife.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/eu-constitution-eu-treaty-referendum-mr-free-market-i-say-no-free-market-fairy-tales.jpg

7/10

I distract the Mongolians from the wall 96 hp

Gabe, I deny your existence. Does that now mean you can violate me however you want? Your example is completely unreasonable. One person does not equal a whole nation. You did not read my whole post. I'm talking about security of a nation, and existence as a second reason, not the primary one. Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists. Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands? This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want. Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope. These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193 "Terrorism by Jews is an aberration that is widely condemned, whereas terrorism by Palestinians is a norm that is widely acclaimed. " A few acts of terrorism by the Jews does not disprove a trend. I do not support acts of terrorism by anyone, but blaming it all on Jews in the great stats of Israel is completely false and biased. The British didn't want one, that may be true; however, the quote above explains what happens. They could have easily prevented what happened, but they didn't. Also, it doesn't matter if that quote is biased or not (which is hilarious to me because you've posted many biased links), it doesn't make it false. And if you call that misinformation, then does that mean I can call all of your biased sources "misinformation"? That's not even close to what you call a realistic debate.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand? The fact that you took one word out of an article on wiki does concern me, yes. So I am denying that. You can find the full speech here, but I don't expect you to read it as it's too long. As you can see, the British recognized the Palestinian's right to the land. The only difference between the British mandate and what could come after is the political administration, which would eventually be granted to the Palestinians. It did not matter whether or not the British did have control of it, but the fact was it was very unorganized. When the civil war started Palestine government collapsed and Israel government did not. "The Arab states contributed to the chaos by being able neither to determine Arab Palestine's political future nor to let the Palestinians shape their own destiny." Here's a quote from another article "When riots broke out, middle-class Palestinians sent their families to neighboring countries and joined them after the situation deteriorated." Another example of how it wasn't an evacuation. Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists. I'm not saying that, but sometimes, there's really no other way to protect and secure your people. If existing means having to violate a bit of human rights of those who refuse to acknowledge you exist, then I do. Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists. Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands? This pretty much sums up the generic Israeli attitude, of course there are exceptions but this is basically it. They were wronged, they need a state to protect themselves, that makes it OK to use any and all force necessary to get what they want. Also, I would like to point out that the British ended up caving to the demands of Zionist groups that used terrorism quite extensively (I've cited this multiple times in this thread). It's not like they just signed the lands over, many Brits and other foreigners were killed by Zionist terrorists before Israel was created. The British planned on eventually letting the Palestinians form a state, they were brutally attacked and terrorized and caved in to that. Should the British have stood up to Zionist terrorism? Probably. Does the fact that they didn't change what the Zionist terrorists did? Nope. These are from Wikipedia but provide some good background on notable instances of Zionist terrorism if anyone is interested; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre And a list of attacks, notice that they target both Palestinians and British; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_193 "Terrorism by Jews is an aberration that is widely condemned, whereas terrorism by Palestinians is a norm that is widely acclaimed. " A few acts of terrorism by the Jews does not disprove a trend. I do not support acts of terrorism by anyone, but blaming it all on Jews in the great stats of Israel is completely false and biased.

How do you people get so excited over that? :unsure:

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand? Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours. First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs. Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything. We are talking about a resolution that started a civil war. It is a fact that it happened. The resolution passed. This was the beggining of the war between the Israelis and the arabs. Are you seriously denying it's authenticity because I took it from wikipedia? Is that your whole argument about it? And yes, the british still had control over the lands. This doesn't mean that Palestine didn't exist as a state, it was just administrated by the British, as if it were a colony. And the british opossed to the Partition plan, even when it pased. Here's the Statement of the Principal Accredited Representative, Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore on a session of the League of Nations regarding the administration of Palestine by the British. You can find the full speech here, but I don't expect you to read it as it's too long. As you can see, the British recognized the Palestinian's right to the land. The only difference between the British mandate and what could come after is the political administration, which would eventually be granted to the Palestinians. Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists. Are you saying it's OK to violate human rights to coerce someone into giving in to your demands? I'm not going to reply to this atm, too tired. I will get back to you tomorrow.

NOBODY FORCED THEM OUT! What do you not understand? Here's the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel Now, if you pay attention, you can see the word "evacuate" is used there. That means that people were taken from where they were residing and relocated to somewhere else. Why? So that Jewish immigrants could take that land. Is that not being forced out of the lands that were rightfully theirs? To take half of a country and say "this is no longer yours, now this belongs to a Jewish state that is going to be built here". An unfair partition that gave most of the lands to a newcoming minority. Of course there would be an armed retaliation. It's common sense to defend what is yours. First point: The British still had control over them. It wasn't theirs. Second point: Taking one word out of a wiki (lol?) article means nothing at all to me. I don't trust that site for anything. Never denied it wasn't against the Geneva Convention; however, what Israel is trying to do by doing this is secure the country, and get the prime minister of Palestine to admit a Jewish state exists.