Noone disputes that the objective of the PLO was to liberate Palestine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Noone can dispute either that the PLO used terrorism as a means to achieve that objective.
Means and ends are two separate entities.
Printable View
Noone disputes that the objective of the PLO was to liberate Palestine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Noone can dispute either that the PLO used terrorism as a means to achieve that objective.
Means and ends are two separate entities.
Er... surely the 'German Democratic Republic' example shows what's wrong about going entirely by the name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Of course, but it doesn't rule it out completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Go tell that to the members of the resistance movements that used "terrorism" to fight the Nazi occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
It may come as a shock to you but in life there are many means to achieve an objective, not just one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
In the cases you mention violence/terrorism is one but peaceful means are another.
Before you start claiming that peaceful means were not open to the PLO I remind you they achieved more in a few weeks of talking at Oslo than they ever did in four decades of killing civilians.
You don't get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But at least it was all legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
But do you think they'd gotten the chance for Oslo talks without violence? I don't. They had to make Israel listen. I don't think Israel would have given away voluntarily anything of what they had hoarded, and they international community was in love with Israel, so there was no way they would have put any pressure on Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Isn't there always a double standard, or should I say hypocrisy involved when it comes to nations and their attempt at freedom. The old adage, "one man's ........ is thrown around just like the founding fathers of the US.
What I find strange is that Palestine, a country that was eradicated when the Jews came to reclaim it after WWII and thus became a people without a home.
Has anyone here on this board ever been to Israel? I have not. I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?
Does anyone recall the slaughter in a place named Jenin. Israel went into the refugee camp and it was claimed that they killed hundreds. They agreed to an investigation by the UN but just as it was about to occur they refused to allow anyone to investigate. The totals killed ranged originally in the hundreds if not thousands to 50 to 60.
There was no outcry from the west except from a BBC show I happened to watch while on vacation. It opened my eyes. It made me ponder the violence there and then consider what is a terrorist if the IRA,UDA,UFF and all those involved in the "troubles" of Northern Ireland are now free and actually serving as MP's. The Treaty was initiated by Sen Mitchell and with President Clinton coming in there is virtually total peace. Why was Northern Ireland any different to Palestine or allowing Palestinians some form of a country?
If PLO terrorism was the driving force behind Israel wanting to negotiate then the Oslo accords would have been signed in the '70s when they were at their strongest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
By the mid '90s the PLO were pretty much finished as a terrorist organisation since they'd been ripped apart by every major intelligence organisation and hounded from state to state.
The Oslo accords happened for two reasons.
The Israelis were getting fed up with the cost of administering the Occupied Territories and were happy to pass that responsibility onto someone else within reason.
The PLO were getting weaker and weaker and were losing both support and funding to rival organisations like Hamas and grabbed the opportunity to become the leading Palestinian group again through negotiating.
The talks made the PLO important again as they were the only group the Israelis and the US were willing to negotiate with and the Israelis managed to reduce their presence in the Occupied Territories. The fact that the PLO had to renounce terrorism didn't mean much by then because they'd lost much of their ability to launch such attacks by then anyway.
Palestine was never a country, at least not the last couple of hundred years. Before Israel the area was part of Britain and before that the Ottoman Empire. Jews have always lived there.Quote:
Originally Posted by monadvspec
Because the media always boils it down to a black/white, good vs. bad battle.Quote:
Has anyone here on this board ever been to Israel? I have not. I only reas about it. I read of atrocities meted out by both sides, but, here in the US it is always the Palestinians that are the worst. Why is that?
Palestinians were always allowed to form a country. It's just that they did not accept any sort of 2 state-option.Quote:
Why was Northern Ireland any different to Palestine or allowing Palestinians some form of a country?
No, because you are not the best at putting coherent points across.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
As have Palestinians, and even until the British withdrawal Arabs/Palestinians formed the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
The Israelis haven't wanted a two state solution either, particularly as the right wing fanatical Jews who hold disproportionately large political power wreak havoc on any party that is happy to give away the Occupied Territories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
I never said they didn't. The poster I responded to claimed that Jews came in only after the WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
They don't want it anymore now, but they did want it in 1948.Quote:
The Israelis haven't wanted a two state solution either, particularly as the right wing fanatical Jews who hold disproportionately large political power wreak havoc on any party that is happy to give away the Occupied Territories.
I visited Israel (Jerusalem) and The West Bank two years ago. It was a place I had always wanted to see, so on the spur of the moment I booked a flight and hotel, and arranged with the Alternative Tourism Group a couple of days in the West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem).Quote:
Originally Posted by monadvspec
When you are there you gain a small glimpse of daily life in Palestine and the Israel - it's not all doom and gloom but you cant help but sympathise with the Palestinians when you witness some of the restrictions imposed and daily encroachment of the settlements.
I would love to go back sometime, as I only managed to see a fraction of the sites I wanted to visit.
No thats way too simplistic as it depends on what type of Jew you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
The Jews who'd lived there for centuries are Arab Jews, culturally and racially very similar to their Muslim and Christian neighbours.
The British banned migration into Palestine after WW1 in an effort to prevent a demographic swing from the Jews forming a definite minority into a majority.
Despite this many Ashkenazi Jews predominantly from Europe and the US migrated into Palestine mainly using illegal methods. This trickle turned into a flood after WW2. When found by the British these guys were mainly deported to their countries of origin.
These Jews were responsible for the sudden surge in the proportion of Jews in Palestine prior to 1949, but few of them held legitimate papers for Palestinian residency and were therefore not by any means Palestinian.
???Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
In 1917 the British promised the Jews (and the rest of the world) the secure settlelment into Palestine, pee-ing off the Palestinians at the time who were previously guaranteed security in exchange for fighting against the Turks.
I don’t think you can call their migration at the time illegal :mark:
They were flying Blenehiems along with those Messerschmitts. I think there's some context you're missing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Plenty of Socialist republics could claim to be meeting the definition of a republic; it's just how far down you allow participation. Look at the Republican Party in the US. You think any of the clowns posturing for the primaries has any chance when the party hierarchy puts Jeb Bush forward as the nominee? It'll be just like Dole in 1996 and George Bush in 2000 ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Hang on a minute. Weren't you trying to insinuate that a Parties name somehow had some sort of special relevance to how it behaved. Then you suddenly equate the United Kingdom to this model :confused: For you information, it is hardly United any more with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales being devolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I shall now apply your model to other nations. Can China be destroyed by tapping it with a hammer? Is Germany at risk from a good dose of Domestos? Is Greenland not covered in Ice and just how many Fins do you have?
No, I think this is irrelevant. Don't you?
Money talks, and Jews or other pro-Israel own much of the media? I don't know, but there must be some reason for it. In the Finnish media, it seems to be the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by monadvspec
What goes on in Bangkok then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
In 1948, 65% of the Jews in Israel were foreign born immigrants (now about 30%):Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Latest Population Figures for Israel
Quote:
Some 5,874,300 of the population (75.3 percent) are Jewish Israelis; 1,600,100 (20.5%) are Israeli Arabs; and, those not identified as either make up the remaining 4.2% of the population, or 323,000 people. When the state was established, there were only 806,000 residents, with this number reaching its first and second million in 1949 and 1958 respectively. Today, over 70% of the total Jewish population are "Sabras" - born in Israel - compared with 35% native-born in 1948.
I think that's a bit of a poor example, to be honest, for the United Kingdom still officially exists as a single entity. You may not consider it to be united according to your definition, but that's an opinion. Few of the countries, however, that have had 'Democratic' in their title are anything of the sort according to any accurate sense of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
One reason worth stating as often as possible is the fear of setting into action the immense Israeli government-funded media monitoring machine. Even specialist publications incur its wrath for printing even mild anti-Israeli statements. It is a country that refuses to tolerate criticism of the mildest form, and I find this highly disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by monadvspec
This whole deal is ridicules - I have been to TV and Jers - Just let this people live their lives. Carve out a country for the Pales and get on with it. TV reminded me of So Cal along the beach.
If you look at the whole deal for some reason most of the people have a screw loose. Look at Saddam - he had so many options i.e. 1. let the inspectors in 2. take 20 billion and move the family to Syria on and on. Quaddafi - Take all your wealth and sh!t and leave. Iran - Get off the nuclear kick and just live life. On and on - but oh no these people are going to fck around until they start a hell of a war. I wish someone would just give me the option to take millions and move. Can you spell Italy??? I would be there in a heartbeat.
I think this raises an interesting point. Is there not, sadly, quite a large constituency on both sides with whom the status quo goes down well, no matter what the cost may be in lives? It may be a little simplistic to say so, but there was an extent to which I feel this was true for many years in Northern Ireland. People may have said they wanted peace, but their voting habits didn't seem to indicate it. Only when negotiation started was any progress made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Finland bought a license for the Blenheims already in 1938 from Britain, and the planes were built in Finland. Finland also bought Brewster F2A Buffalos from the US in 1939. Messerschmitt Bf 109 started to replace the Brewsters in 1943.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Talking about brown-nosing Stalin, the US gave him fighter planes that were used against Finland:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Soviet Air Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
As with many allied countries in World War II the Soviet Union received western aircraft by Lend-Lease, mostly P-39 Airacobras, P-63 Kingcobras, Hawker Hurricanes, Curtiss P-40 Kittyhawks and A-20 Havocs. Soviets in P-39s scored the highest individual kill totals of any pilot ever to fly a U.S. aircraft.[citation needed] Two air regiments were equipped with Spitfire Mk. Vb in early 1943 but immediately experienced unrelenting losses due to friendly fire as the British aircraft looked too much like its German nemesis, the Bf 109[citation needed]. Lend-Lease aircraft from the US and UK accounted for nearly 12% of total Soviet air power.[14]
You don't get an empire the size of the Great British Empire and hold onto it by being straightforward and honest. Ever heard of perfidious Albion? The smart untrustworthy country that likes nothing better than playing political games?Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
The Balfour declaration only had one objective, it was to deny the Germans who were running out of funds access to credit from banks, many of which were run by Jews. It was purposefully wooly and was just a general statement of intent with no timeline, no means of establishing that homeland. Once WW1 was won the Brits forgot about it, the Jews never did.
As you said, at the same time Lawrence of Arabia was busy telling the Arabs including in Palestine that they would get independence if they fought off the Ottomans, they both couldn't both get what the British promised them could they?
The British never wanted to give Palestine away, its too close to the Suez canal and losing it to another power could mean that British lines of communication with the Far East would be cut. If that meant some Jews and Palestinians felt betrayed by the British then they could go to the back of the long queue of people around the world who harboured a grievance against Britain.
And yes the policy of the British was clear, migration to Palestine by Jews was strictly prohibited to keep the demographic status quo there in favour of palestinians and prevent a disturbance of the peace. Its pretty well documented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Ahhhhh....The Wizard of Wikipedia strikes again.
Enemy of my Enemy is my friend. That was the case with US/Soviet relations during WW2....After V-E day all bets were off.
As opposed to the entirely independent, non-internet-using research you perform before offering an opinion, presumably?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
There are (or maybe were by now) plenty of people across Eastern Europe who resented the fact the Allies (minus Russia) abandoned them to the Soviets while making such a show over protecting Germany and Greece. Then again even John Dulles' 'rollback' rhetoric wasn't feasible by the early 50s, either, unless you wanted to run the risk of a nuclear conflict, which would have been possible with nuts like LeMay still holding sway in the US (to say nothing of different Soviet military mindsets).Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I'm not sure what the Finnish attitude was like at the time.
Yes, and that was also the case with Finland/German relations during WW2. And after the Germans were beaten, there was no hope for Finland to keep on fighting the Soviets alone, so it was better to change sides and make peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
The difference is that the Finns were the ones who attacked the Soviets 1st. Just like their friends.....The NAZIsQuote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You presume wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Are you seriously defending the use of Wikipedia as a legitimate and respectable source?
There's no way you can be this uninformed. I refuse to believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Er... no. As I intimated before, comprehension is not your strong point.
Uninformed? This is a view he will have based on much original historical study, I'll have you know, as opposed to a quick Google search, which is apparently all the rest of us have ever been able to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
If we put it like that, the US also invaded and occupied Hawaii first and the Japanese just tried to liberate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US also attacked Germany in 1917 and then again in 1941.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki