Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

There was no vote. It was pretty much guilt on Britain's part and secret deals, if memory serves.

[Il Palazzo]

(this is history, mind you, you can start speaking who's right and who's wrong after the history lesson)

That was hardly an unbiased history lesson. If you want to come off as objective, you need to drop all the condescending and glorifying remarks(idiot president, smashed to pieces, annihilated, etc.), as well as speculations("could have asked for Russian territory").
This is not to say that the facts that you've presented are falser. I'm saying that they're mixed with expressions of personal opinion - what it is being clear without going to the "personal comment" section - that obscure the history.

[Virex]

There was no vote. It was pretty much guilt on Britain's part and secret deals, if memory serves.

It wasn't like Britain had much of a choice. The Zionists (it wasn't a curse word yet back then) had already started to migrate to Palestine before the First World War, leading to among others massive riots in Jerusalem. Britain could hardly afford a second holocaust in territory they previously owned...

[shadenight123]

(this is history, mind you, you can start speaking who's right and who's wrong after the history lesson)

That was hardly an unbiased history lesson. If you want to come off as objective, you need to drop all the condescending and glorifying remarks(idiot president, smashed to pieces, annihilated, etc.), as well as speculations("could have asked for Russian territory").
This is not to say that the facts that you've presented are falser. I'm saying that they're mixed with expressions of personal opinion - what it is being clear without going to the "personal comment" section - that obscure the history.

no no, i don't want to come off as objective. i was just looking at wikipedia and churning off data and facts. it's history, everyone agrees hitler is bad right? everyone agrees Caesar brought civilization to europe right? everyone agrees the one who invented fire in the prehistoric era is nice, right?
what do you call someone, who could have had peace, but preferred to stir the tail of the cat by closing off the suez chanel? a nice guy? a smart one?
and what adjective do you use to state that, even though they were numerical inferior, they still won? and speculations happen for the present, technically, my question was "Ucronistic" "what would have happened if russian territory was asked, instead of arab?" hypothesizing. facts remains facts, the adjective i may have used to spice things are adjectives, remove them, the sentences still stands. >.>
and it's hard to not have a personal opinion, mind you, usually, i do not absolutely care about the situation in israel and neighbouring countries, because its "their countries", however, israel wasn't the one to begin this, and the facts, which remain, even though the adjectives added showed my personal opinion, give them at the very least valuable reasons to not want to let countries help palestina or arab-near countries. history has shown that given the chance, or the possibility, arabic countries next of border to israel wouldn't hesitate to suppress israel, so why should israel feel obliged not to try and suppress neighbours?

[Il Palazzo]

no no, i don't want to come off as objective. i was just looking at wikipedia and churning off data and facts. it's history, everyone agrees hitler is bad right? everyone agrees Caesar brought civilization to europe right? everyone agrees the one who invented fire in the prehistoric era is nice, right?

First of all, no, not everyone. Additionally, assigning moral qualities to historical occurences and persons is an act of stating an opinion and not a fact. My problem with your description of history is that you've infused it with your personal opinion, one that is much more likely to be debated than e.g.Hitler's "badness", and tried to protect it from being argued with by putting a disclaimer that "it's just a history lesson" and as such should not be debatable. I find it underhanded and dishonest.

[shadenight123]

i'll edit my post then. i see no problem in that. >.>

edit: done.
furthermore, history lessons (at least in my high school) were so much debatable they became a time to play cards, as two sides argued wherever or not Pogroms existed. one being a pro-communist classmate, the second being a pro-fascist one. Fun times, i always grabbed the ace, three and king of the "briscola".

[Zangi]

Your history class actually had debates?  My history class was just canned 'History'.  Best parts of history being a single paragraph... or worse.

[Phmcw]

Shadenight : thanks for the summary. However there is one or two flaw in your reasoning : first how exactly the fact that there has been a vote (to de-possess the Palestinians of their land) make it justified? Would you agree to loose everything because complete stranger (not even the same nation) decided that we should put a bunch of people where you live?

Second :

they even FAKED THE ELECTIONS! to elect a more "arafat-loveable" president

citation needed. Seriously.

did they get peace?

Similarly, the expansion of Israeli settlements[17] and blockades caused the deterioration of economic conditions, and much frustration for Palestinians. These factors caused a drop in support for the accord and for those who supported it.

Wikipeadia, on Oslo's agreement.

The settler were, and still are, expanding their settlement non stop, gnawning at the land left to Palestinians, and attacking their villages.
You cannot ignore that part of the Israeli population, the same that killed Rabin, are staunchly opposed to peace with Palestinian.

Not that I condemn you, the situation is a cluster-fuck, and there is no easy way out.
But it's easy to see that it please both the Hamas and the current Israeli government. Meanwhile the Palestinian suffer.

One thing, though, once the PR for the US become bad enough, they'll drop the support they gave to Israel.
Europe being against the way Israel treat the situation, will probably put an arm embargo on them next time they pull something like Operation Cast Lead.
And Muslims countries, now allied with the European and American, and good supplier of raw material and cheap labour will have their hands free to deal with Israel. There probably won't be any war, yet the situation will be easier for everybody if peace is achieved before that.
Just saying.

[mainiac]

I'd like to point out that the idea that peace deals are somehow impossible to get is laughable in the face of history.  Egypt and Jordan don't do the least to antagonize Israel.  Lebanon bends over backwards to play nice with Israel even after Israel launches airstrike against civilian areas in Lebanon.  Really it's only Syria that picks a fight with them.  Even the majority Palestinians show a lot more patience then I would expect for people living under such conditions.

That's not to say that they are nice, or even are going to tone down the mean words anytime.  But words aren't the danger.  When it comes to realpolitik, the Arab states are capable of detente with Israel, even after a fair bit of provocation.

[Zangi]

^ Then the problem is Israel if I'm reading that right.

[Virex]

I'd like to point out that the idea that peace deals are somehow impossible to get is laughable in the face of history.  Egypt and Jordan don't do the least to antagonize Israel.  Lebanon bends over backwards to play nice with Israel even after Israel launches airstrike against civilian areas in Lebanon.  Really it's only Syria that picks a fight with them.  Even the majority Palestinians show a lot more patience then I would expect for people living under such conditions.

You mean except, in the case of Egypt, having the police stand by idle while the Israelite embassy is looted and the ambassador flees the country?

[scriver]

Leveryone agrees Caesar brought civilization to europe right?

Dreadfully sorry to derail, old chaps, but; lolwhat?

[Il Palazzo]

I'd like to point out that the idea that peace deals are somehow impossible to get is laughable in the face of history.  Egypt and Jordan don't do the least to antagonize Israel.  Lebanon bends over backwards to play nice with Israel even after Israel launches airstrike against civilian areas in Lebanon.  Really it's only Syria that picks a fight with them.  Even the majority Palestinians show a lot more patience then I would expect for people living under such conditions.

You mean except, in the case of Egypt, having the police stand by idle while the Israelite embassy is looted and the ambassador flees the country?

Give us a source for the alleged idleness of Egyptian police, if you'd be so kind.

[Virex]

Huh, apparently nearly all English news sources reporting this part of the story are proxies of Fox news... I'm getting a feeling like "De Volkskrant", the Dutch newspaper where I got the news from has been sloppy in checking it's sources. Still, Channel 4 news would count as reputable enough for this purpose, no?


Sources said the mob breached the exterior of the compound but failed to break into the main embassy building, in a tower overlooking the Nile.

Egyptian police made no attempt to intervene for several hours.

But police and soldiers later fired tear gas and blanks after protesters threw firebombs and pelted them with stones.


Now either the police was too startled at a group of protesters having the guts to attack the Israelite embassy, not prepared to deal with mobs or just not interested in protecting Israelite property. Whatever way, they showed little intent of doing their job until the riot was shoved in their faces.


On a minor off-topic track, this and several other riots happen to coincide closely with the mandatory shut down of the Al Jazeera bureau in Egypt... Coincidence?

[mainiac]

A mob doing property damage is hardly an existential threat to the Israeli people.  Compare that to the killing of 5 Egyptian border guards mentioned in the very article you linked.  Imagine if Israel had responded to the 2006 rocket attacks by Hamas by merely threatening to recall it's ambassador from Beirut rather then extensively bombing southern Lebanon.  I don't believe that all the blame belongs to Israel but the notional that they don't have anyone to negotiate is ludicrous.