Do you consider Palestine a good country

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

is Palestine a good country that deserves statehood?

  • yes

  • no

  • purgatory


Results are only viewable after voting.

Caravaggio

Senior member
Aug 3, 2013
508
1
0
No, they (Gaza?) elected a terroristic government, they sent over 12,000 rockets into a neighboring country, they are involved in terrorism.

Did they have history taught as a subject at your school?

Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1947/8, drove-out the majority population by force, then THEY elected a truly terrorist Government, composed of immigrant Jews.
Have you heard of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin? He blew-up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Over 90 people died, including Jews working there. What was he then, "a freedom fighter" I suppose?

Have you heard of Albert Einstein? He was completely opposed to Zionist terrorism of the sort used by Begin and the Irgun. Check Wiki.

Should you be interested in the truth try:
Ilan Pappe (2006) "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine".

You can trust him, he is an Israeli.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Did they have history taught as a subject at your school?

Israel ethnically cleansed Palestine in 1947/8, drove-out the majority population by force, then THEY elected a truly terrorist Government, composed of immigrant Jews.
Have you heard of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin? He blew-up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Over 90 people died, including Jews working there. What was he then, "a freedom fighter" I suppose?

Have you heard of Albert Einstein? He was completely opposed to Zionist terrorism of the sort used by Begin and the Irgun. Check Wiki.

Should you be interested in the truth try:
Ilan Pappe (2006) "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine".

You can trust him, he is an Israeli.

Oh, and why is a work by Ilan Pappe deemed "the truth" by you? Is this a pseudo world you live in where the most anti-Israel sources are uncontested and there is no controversy? Ah, the favorite gambit of Israel haters, cite a source from a Jew or an Israeli and it supposedly becomes unimpeachable, but only if it's critical of Israel.

Pappe's book has been severely criticized by other Israeli academics, including those such as Benny Morris who have themselves been highly critical of Israel. Morris is Israeli, so obviously we can trust what he says about Pappe's book, right?

Out of curiosity, have you actually read even the selective sources that you've cited? You strike me as just another internet Israel hater, getting all your facts from websites which themselves will selectively quote various sources. Even if you've bothered to read a book or two, you are clearly quite selective in which books you choose to read. You wouldn't be reading them if you didn't know they had an anti-Israel slant to begin with.

You can stop your one-sided Israel bashing, your pretensions of intellectual superiority, and your frothing at the mouth. Citing a few highly slanted sources which you clipped from websites, and pretending that they're all undisputed, doesn't qualify you for anything, not even respect.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
BTW I voted "yes" in both polls, arbitrarily. "Countries" are not good or bad. People are, or more precisely, their actions.

If the point of these polls is to get a head count of who is pro or anti, then I'd say it's more complicated than that. My own view probably leans more pro-Israel than not, but it's highly mixed because the facts are highly mixed.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
BTW I voted "yes" in both polls, arbitrarily. "Countries" are not good or bad. People are, or more precisely, their actions.

If the point of these polls is to get a head count of who is pro or anti, then I'd say it's more complicated than that. My own view probably leans more pro-Israel than not, but it's highly mixed because the facts are highly mixed.

wow, out of 1,632 of your lame posts i agree with this one. i chose yes to both for teh same reason. huh, miracles can happen i guess.
 

Caravaggio

Senior member
Aug 3, 2013
508
1
0
Oh, and why is a work by Ilan Pappe deemed "the truth" by you? Is this a pseudo world you live in where the most anti-Israel sources are uncontested and there is no controversy? Ah, the favorite gambit of Israel haters, cite a source from a Jew or an Israeli and it supposedly becomes unimpeachable, but only if it's critical of Israel.

Pappe's book has been severely criticized by other Israeli academics, including those such as Benny Morris who have themselves been highly critical of Israel. Morris is Israeli, so obviously we can trust what he says about Pappe's book, right?

Out of curiosity, have you actually read even the selective sources that you've cited? You strike me as just another internet Israel hater, getting all your facts from websites which themselves will selectively quote various sources. Even if you've bothered to read a book or two, you are clearly quite selective in which books you choose to read. You wouldn't be reading them if you didn't know they had an anti-Israel slant to begin with.

You can stop your one-sided Israel bashing, your pretensions of intellectual superiority, and your frothing at the mouth. Citing a few highly slanted sources which you clipped from websites, and pretending that they're all undisputed, doesn't qualify you for anything, not even respect.

Taking each of your paragraphs in turn.
1) I trust Pappe because he tells the truth. Of course Israelis hate him, they cannot handle it. He quotes IDF sources. Are you saying those are lies?

2) You like Benny Morris, so do Israelis. He towed the party line and suddenly found he was promoted. How strange. Have you read Avi Shlaim's criticism of Morris. It is blistering. He accuses Morris of 'betraying history'. Shlaim is an Oxford Prof and an Iraqi Jew. Do you hate all Jews who challenge your prejudices?

3) You say that I have not read the sources I quote. I have them all here on my desk now, so get your copies out and we can go through each, page by page. OK?
Do not dare bluff me you twit, you might end-up looking red in the face. Shall we start with Morris's '1948', It won the National Jewish Book Award. I have it here. Yes, I buy books I find I disagree with. Do you?
Ready when you are...

4) You are the bluffer, not me. What do you think of Pappe's use of IDF archive 49/ 6127? It details a policy of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian) by Jews of the IZL and Hagana. You have not the faintest clue what I am talking about have you?

Get reading, you arrogant bluffing twat.
 
Last edited:

Caravaggio

Senior member
Aug 3, 2013
508
1
0
Come on Woolfie.

What does it say on the bottom of page 126, in Benny Morris's (he is the guy you trust) book entitled '1948.'

He is talking about the Deir Yassin massacre, of Arabs by Jews. Tell us what he says? Even Morris cannot weasel out of that.

Come on tell us. You say I'm bluffing, so fucking test me.
Or apologise....
 

Rezist

Senior member
Jun 20, 2009
726
0
71
As soon as Israel is destroyed America, Britain, France, all other EU and NA countries become the target. Look at the shit Britain deals with due to there high muslim population.
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
As soon as Israel is destroyed America, Britain, France, all other EU and NA countries become the target. Look at the shit Britain deals with due to there high muslim population.

from under what rock did you crawl to post such an idiotic statement?
israel is not some poor little vulnerable country being threatened by big bad palestine. it has the world's most sophisticated weaponry and is backed by the most powerful nation on earth. america, britain, france, .... none of them are in any danger of anything.
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
And I'll see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
And that's why I hate you.....


the cowards should be forced to go on their own. why should a single Americans die for your war?

NEVER AGAIN (unless your Palestinian).
They (Israel) went it on their own for 20 years. Stronger nations attempting to destroy them. The Arab goal was elimination, not survival

And all the world did was condemn Israel for defending themselves.
For the next 40 years the US leverage was the only thing that stood in the way of Israel forcing the Palestinians to determine a statehood destiny.

Everytime the Palestinians started a ruckus, the US requested Israel to stop eliminating the trouble makers. Just so the trouble makers could again break their promises and become trouble again with another round of promises.

The Palestinian people as a whole are willing to work with Israel; however, they have made bad choices with respect to leadership and then complain about the results.

Like little children they need to grow up. The West Bank population has for the most part; Gaza has not.

As long as they are willing to be manipulated and have that manipulation supported by outsiders, there will be trouble. And the outsiders never bear the pain.
 

Ryujin Jakka

Member
Aug 23, 2014
33
0
36
Again double standards. When you commit mass murders kill children rape women its acceptable and when palestinian kills an isrealite its called terrorism and is unacceptable. Truly disgusting. Invading the borders of arabs carrying mass eradication of palestinians its acceptable.
Hitler did the same thing to jews and yet that was unacceptable. And the same thing jews are doing to muslims that is acceptable. Very well
 

cabri

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2012
3,616
1
81
Again double standards. When you commit mass murders kill children rape women its acceptable and when palestinian kills an isrealite its called terrorism and is unacceptable. Truly disgusting. Invading the borders of arabs carrying mass eradication of palestinians its acceptable.
Hitler did the same thing to jews and yet that was unacceptable. And the same thing jews are doing to muslims that is acceptable. Very well

Both sides can play tit for tat.

And as long as one side uses such as an excuse, it will never stop.

The radicals use it as an excuse for their behavior and to get attention.
 

Caravaggio

Senior member
Aug 3, 2013
508
1
0
To Cabri, posts 35 and 38.

Your last two contributions are absurdly ill-informed bar-room pontifications completely devoid of a shred of evidence or humanity. You spout generalist waffle and seem too lazy to do any research. I suspect that your views are based mostly on extensive reading from the ‘National Enquirer’.

If you peep outside your tawdry bar you will notice that a rusty old heap of a pick-up has just scraped the full length of your gleaming sedan and parked against the driver’s door. You are going to have to do some negotiating if you want to drive home with your inflated ego intact.

Let’s take a closer look at your assertions.

The Arab goal was elimination, not survival

No, the Arab goal was survival in the face of un-controlled Jewish immigration driven by the Zionist project complete with its elaborate myth-history.
Zionism, the policy which drives Israel, has its roots in Russia (Leo Pinsker), Bonn (Moses Hess), Herzl (Budapest) and the “Lovers of Zion” movement based in Odessa.
Thus Zionism is a European Jewish movement intended to get European Jews (who had no links to the Middle East for at least 100 generations) to escape Russian and Polish anti-semitism by going to Palestine. They forgot to ask the local Palestinians if this would be OK.
Herzl and David Ben Gurion both knew that a viable Jewish state would depend on the successful ethnic cleansing of the local Palestinian population, contrary to the second paragraph of the Balfour declaration sent to Lord Rothschild in 1917. That is the part no one bothers to read.
(Read ‘Herzl’ by Shlomo Avineri 2013) for details of Zionism and Ilan Pappe, (2006) for details of the ethnic cleansing in atumn 1947 and the spring of 1948)

And all the world did was condemn Israel for defending themselves.
That would account for why Truman recognised the State of Israel within 30 minutes of Israel taking control of the whole Mandate territory (contrary to the UN partition plan). With such rapid support from the US Israel knew it could never lose, while Truman got rid of his “Jewish pressure group problem” in California. ‘Everyone a winner’, except the poor old Palestinians who went from being the majority to a minority in their own land, in the space of a few weeks.
(Check out Wiki, ‘Deir Yassin masscre’, if you want details)


Everytime the Palestinians started a ruckus, the US requested Israel to stop eliminating the trouble makers.

Actually, every time any of Israel’s neighbours ‘start a ruckus’, the American Israel lobby (AIPAC) ask for free weapons from the US and the US duly coughs-up.
Which explains why the Palestinians still get ‘surgically’ bombed by 2,000 lb laser-guided Paveways made by Raytheon, while French doctors pull shrapnel from the faces of pre-school children.(See latest TV and press and Noam Chomsky’s ‘Fateful Triangle’)

Just so the trouble makers could again break their promises and become trouble again.
Tell me Cabri, if someone threw you of your land, or scraped the side of your new car, say, would you just walk away saying “Hey ho, that’s a bummer’?


Like little children they need to grow up. The West Bank population has for the most part; Gaza has not.
What utter ignorant, patronising, crap. They are not ‘little children’, they are a people that has been displaced by force, marginalised, impoverished and humiliated for over 60 years. Their land was stolen as David Ben Gurion admitted. (see below)

If you want to hold the attitudes of a de-corticated dribbling bigot, that’s fine, but don’t come round here spouting your demeaning hate speech and expect to get away with it.

Now you better get your buddies to come out to the car park and sort something out with the hairy-arsed hoodlum in the pick-up. He has just backed into your trunk.


_____________________________________________________________________
“Why should the Arabs make peace?If I was an Arab leader I would never make peace with Israel.That is natural: we have taken their country.”
David Ben Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister, 1956)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Here's the sad truth. We have a lot higher tolerance for injustice than we'd like to admit.

We *want* injustice to continue, when any number of excuses for it exist.

It's only after it's ended and there's a new normal we all buy in to how that needs to be the case.

We're horrified at the idea of slavery, but we had it hundreds of years before a civil war ended it - and even that was not the main focus for the war.

We think the idea of laws that are discriminatory based on race are highly immoral - but white America demanded they continue for a century, and they weren't going anywhere, until a black resistance organized and fought. But now that that change has happened - oh yes of course we're all strongly in favor of it.

And we're happy to see the Palestinian situation continue, because of excuses, that make us want it to continue.

If the Palestinians could somehow gain power and gain their own rights, after the fact we'd be totally in favor, but we're not now.

Ironically, it was the same for Jews. We knew of the persecution, but Europe and America came to largely close their doors to immigration out of Nazi-controlled territories.

We look back in horror at the holocaust and say never again, but it wasn't so much a driving issue for us at the time.

That's a dirty little secret, that we like to think we're very much for the right things, but we're not, really - we reframe the issues so the injustice is justified.

We don't really view the Palestinian situation as a great injustice that has to be fixed. We demand that it continue, until Israel gains more and more of a 'victory' ending it.

Our own Native American history suggests some of this - first kill the millions, then a century later feel sort of bad about it. We're not really for that kind of thing, you know.

This is why any discussion of such issues will always be dominated by the attacks on the persecuted group, so that the persecution is justified, since we're not for that.

Save234
 
Last edited:

inachu

Platinum Member
Aug 22, 2014
2,387
2
41
Why?

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

It sounds like Israel was originally willing to accept the UN division plan, but the Arabs decided to make war on them instead.

In what world does it make sense to allow someone refuse to accept an agreement, have that party make trouble for almost 70 years, and then allow them to get the original terms?

Nice misinformation.

When either side writes up a peace plan that is fair and balanced for both then both sides refuse to sign the others peace papers so they can scream bloody murder is just an act on both sides because both sides refuse to use LEGALLY BINDING WORDS such as "SOVEREIGNTY"
Nobody wants to give the other side any SOVEREIGNTY
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Nice misinformation.
Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._for_Palestine

It sounds like Israel was originally willing to accept the UN division plan, but the Arabs decided to make war on them instead.

In what world does it make sense to allow someone refuse to accept an agreement, have that party make trouble for almost 70 years, and then allow them to get the original terms?

Sounds to me like Nehalem256 got it right!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
That would account for why Truman recognised the State of Israel within 30 minutes of Israel taking control of the whole Mandate territory (contrary to the UN partition plan). With such rapid support from the US Israel knew it could never lose,
That recognition that you speak of was nothing more than lip service.....the United states did not help Israel at all during the war of 1948...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1948_War.html

Violence in the Holy Land broke out almost immediately after the United Nations announced partition on November 29, 1947. Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, had told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood."1

Husseini's prediction began to come true after the UN announcement. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. By the end of the second week, 93 Arabs, 84 Jews and 7 Englishmen had been killed and scores injured. From November 30-February 1, 427 Arabs, 381 Jews and 46 British were killed and 1,035 Arabs, 725 Jews and 135 British were wounded. In March alone, 271 Jews and 257 Arabs died in Arab attacks and Jewish counter*attacks.2

The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee said the Arabs would "fight for every inch of their country."3 Two days later, the holy men of Al-Azhar University in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews.4

The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.5 In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.


In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.

On April 26, 1948, Transjordan's King Abdullah said:


[A]ll our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine.7

On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered.6 This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's declaration of independence.

Arabs Take Responsibility


The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the Security Council:


Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.8

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:


The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.9

The British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted:


Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.10

Despite the disadvantages in numbers, organization and weapons, the Jews began to take the initiative in the weeks from April 1 until the declaration of independence on May 14. The Haganah captured several major towns including Tiberias and Haifa, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem.

The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades."11

Superpowers Recognize Israel




Military Situation On Effective Date of Cease-Fire (June 11, 1948)



The United States, the Soviet Union and most other states immediately recognized Israel and indicted the Arabs. The United States urged a resolution charging the Arabs with breach of the peace.

Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko told the Security Council, May 29, 1948:


This is not the first time that the Arab states, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. The USSR delegation deems it essential that the council should state its opinion more clearly and more firmly with regard to this attitude of the Arab states toward decisions of the Security Council.12


The initial phase of the fighting ended after the Security Council threatened July 15 to cite the Arab governments for aggression under the Charter. By this time, the Haganah had been renamed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and succeeded in stopping the Arab offensive.

The Bernadotte Plan


During the summer of 1948, Count Folke Bernadotte was sent by the UN to Palestine to mediate a truce and try to negotiate a settlement. Bernadotte's plan called for the Jewish State to relinquish the Negev and Jerusalem to Transjordan and to receive the western Galilee. This was similar to the boundaries that had been proposed prior to the partition vote, and had been rejected by all sides. Now, the proposal was being offered after the Arabs had gone to war to prevent partition and a Jewish state had been declared. The Jews and Arabs both rejected the plan.

Ironically, Bernadotte found little enthusiasm among the Arabs for independence. He wrote in his diary:


The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.13

The failure of the Bernadotte scheme came as the Jews began to have greater success in repelling the invading Arab forces and expanding control over territory outside the partition boundaries.

The United States Holds Back Support


The Jews won their war of independence with minimal help from the West. In fact, they won despite efforts to undermine their military strength.

Although the United States vigorously supported the partition resolution, the State Department did not want to provide the Jews with the means to defend themselves. "Otherwise," Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett argued, "the Arabs might use arms of U.S. origin against Jews, or Jews might use them against Arabs."14 Consequently, on December 5, 1947, the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the region.


Many in the State Department saw the embargo as yet another means of obstructing partition. President Truman nevertheless went along with it hoping it would be a means of averting bloodshed. This was naive given Britain's rejection of Lovett's request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs and subsequent agreements to provide additional arms to Iraq and Transjordan.15


The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining all the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan's Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.16

The Jews, on the other hand, were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia. When Israel declared its independence in May 1948, the army did not have a single cannon or tank. Its air force consisted of nine obsolete planes. Although the Haganah had 60,000 trained fighters, only 18,900 were fully mobilized, armed and prepared for war.17 On the eve of the war, chief of operations Yigael Yadin told David Ben-Gurion: "The best we can tell you is that we have a 50*50 chance."18

The Arab war to destroy Israel failed. Indeed, because of their aggression, the Arabs wound up with less territory than they would have had if they had accepted partition.

The cost to Israel, however, was enormous. "Many of its most productive fields lay gutted and mined. Its citrus groves, for decades the basis of the Yishuv's [Jewish community] economy, were largely destroyed."19 Military expenditures totaled approximately $500 million. Worse yet, 6,373 Israelis were killed, nearly one percent of the Jewish population of 650,000.

Had the West enforced the partition resolution or given the Jews the capacity to defend themselves, many lives might have been saved.

The Arab countries signed armistice agreements with Israel in 1949, starting with Egypt (Feb. 24), followed by Lebanon (March 23), Jordan (April 3) and Syria (July 20). Iraq was the only country that did not sign an agreement with Israel, choosing instead to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to Jordan's Arab Legion.
 

Rakehellion

Lifer
Jan 15, 2013
12,181
35
91
I don't understand the whole Gaza conflict because literally every source of information on the matter is biased in one way or the other. I'm staying out of it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
I don't understand the whole Gaza conflict because literally every source of information on the matter is biased in one way or the other. I'm staying out of it.

You should understand that you need to get involved because the issues are hurting people, not because they're easy and black and white.

To reference John Kennedy, get involved and try to help not because it's easy, but because it is hard.

It's not about wagging your finger at the bad guys.

That's the point, it's not easy to improve these problems but it's important for people.
 

Remobz

Platinum Member
Jun 9, 2005
2,564
37
91
There NEVER will be a Palestine State.

Will I lose any sleep over this? Nope.