[pikey]

Ah, you’re too harsh, Grandma. The point at which your accent becomes the Scots language is a fine one. You can hardly be piqued at a punter from Penzance puzzled by your Pictish patter. :D

[pikey]

There are some points I’d like to pick up on here, I think.

@Mr Bigstuff wrote:

The land had been called Palestine since the days of antiquity, so the idea that “Palestine” is a modern myth is sheer absurdity.

The area certainly has been called Palestine, on and off, since antiquity. However, the idea of an autonomous state named Palestine is a new one. It is a good idea, though. I wouldn’t agree that Palestinian culture is non-existent and would support the self-determination of the people. This courtesy must be extended to Israel, though.

@Mr Bigstuff wrote:

Drivel also says that Israel gave back most of the land it took after each war which again is complete nonsense considering something like 60% of the West Bank is covered in illegal Israeli settlements. There is also the Golan heights which were taken from Syria and are still under Israel occupation.

But Israel took these lands as the outcome of defensive wars against Arab aggression. They can hardly be blamed for being unwilling to hand them back to parties whom they suspect still wish to use them for strategic advantage in future attacks.

@Mr Bigstuff wrote:

The next flaw in drivel’s argument is that the refugees were fleeing from the Arab armies. He’s failed to mention the actions of the zionist militant groups that were involved in massacring palestinians such as the massacre at Deir Yassin. People often forget that Israel was founded by “terrorists”. It is true that some refugees fled the fighting but to imply that they were simply running away once the arab armies entered the scene is untrue.

You fail to acknowledge the refugee nature of the Israelis themselves. Also, if we are to categorise the early Israeli violence as terrorism, they certainly weren’t the only ones, as can be seen here. The line between terrorist and freedom fighter is always blurred, none more so than in this case.

@Mr Bigstuff wrote:

Of course the arab states didn’t integrate the refugees into their own population because refugees have the right to return to their homelands. To integrate refugees would have been a rejection of that inalienable right.

:-s Now this really is dodgy. By this reasoning, refugees fleeing to Britain need only be accorded a tent just outside Dover and then left to rot. Israel integrated its own refugees during this period. Why are the Arab states abrogated this responsibility?

@drivel wrote:

It seems you have to be either pro-Arab or pro_Israeli in this argument there is no middle ground – no wonder there will never be peace.

I’ve certainly no vested interest in either party. My posts are simply meant to show that it is not a simple situation of Israel bad, Palestinians victimised innocents. As I mentioned before, it is my belief that individuals do evil, not whole societies. The key is arriving at a situation that does not provoke violence in any but a very few individuals. That, however, has to progress from an understanding of both sides of the history of the region. In any case, it has to progress, as always, from we are now. It never fails to amaze me that oppressed groups, which some modern Palestinians certainly are, nearly always fail to heed the techniques of probably the most successful modern struggle for freedom.

[pikey]

:lol: Fuck off. You can’t fool me with your fancy talk. I know you lot still use oxen.

[pikey]

So, it was a shite idea, people pointed it out and it got dropped? That’s terrible. I must admit, I used to enjoy the traditional Tory it was a shite idea, people pointed it out and they did it anyway to hilarious effect. That Poll Tax had me chuckling for months.

I think you’re really an undercover Labour activist, here to convince me that the government isn’t as bad as I thought it was, PB. I shall have to start calling you Campbell.

[pikey]

:D Winchester, I reckon. It all gets a bit cloth cap, whippets, towns named after cakes and ee-by-gum when you go much further north than that

[pikey]

:-s I don’t think there’s any need for the hyperbole. Individuals are responsible for the murdering and killing, on both sides, not entire societies. Otherwise the whole of Germany should have gone to the gallows in 1945.

I do disagree that the Palestinians are in a similar situation to the Poles in 1939, though. Most of the major Israeli expansions have happened due to failed Arab military aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973. In my view, Israel has shown restraint in not annexing the land. They haven’t nicked bits of Palestine, they’ve nicked bits of former Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian territory. Remember, there has not been anything resembling a Palestinian state for many centuries, having previously been partitioned between the surrounding Arab states and before that part of the Ottoman Empire. An independent, free Palestine is a newer idea than the state of Israel itself, especially in and amongst its brotherly, wailing with the unfairness of it all, Arab neighbours. I reckon much of the blame lies with the previous attitudes of the surrounding Arab states in refusing to countenance a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state that did not also include the destruction of Israel.

Also, when considering refugees, I reckon it is important to remember that a good proportion of Israelis are themselves refugees, driven out of newly independent Arab nations after the Second World War. None of this is one sided, and we do the issue a disservice, I think, in pretending otherwise.

As for the idea that it is all some big, international Jewish conspiracy, I’ve heard that somewhere before, I’m sure. :-k

[pikey]

It seems to me that Israel, throughout its modern history, has been defined and enlarged as a result of Arab aggression. The Arabs keep losing and then whining about the consequences. If I were them, I’d alter my strategy before things get even worse; come to terms with the existence of Israel, cease all violence and come to a stable resolution at the negotiating table. The whys and wherefores of individual incidents are irrelevant. They need to start from where they are now.

[pikey]

:-s Didn’t we beat Tunisia in ’98?

[pikey]

@abitofmary_j wrote:

now IF,,…. the shoe was on the other Foot… if Scotland was their at the world Cup… im dam sure the English certainly widnae be supportin us eh….. think aboot it its not NATURAL……

Ah, but that’s just the thing, Mary, most of the English would support Scotland (or Wales or Ireland) if the situation was reversed – without a second thought. Most English are just baffled it doesn’t work t’other way ’round.

[pikey]

:-s Hexakosioidikontaenneaphobia. Thickee.

[Author]

Posts