The Marquis de Leech Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 There was no Maori state either. Didn't stop the British Crown recognising the United Tribes of New Zealand in 1836, or signing a treaty with the local chieftains in 1840. Oh, and Palestinians have lived in Palestine longer than Maori have lived in New Zealand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck norris 42 Posted December 30, 2016 Author Share Posted December 30, 2016 47 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: There was no Maori state either. Didn't stop the British Crown recognising the United Tribes of New Zealand in 1836, or signing a treaty with the local chieftains in 1840. Oh, and Palestinians have lived in Palestine longer than Maori have lived in New Zealand. What do you think of the following article, it says New Zealand should copy Israel and give Maoris their own state. http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/221092/new-zealands-settler-problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 56 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said: What do you think of the following article, it says New Zealand should copy Israel and give Maoris their own state. http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/221092/new-zealands-settler-problem FFS. We have had this for more than forty years: https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/ that deals with the very real grievances between the Crown and Maori. Maori do not need their own state; unlike Palestinians, they are an integral part of an existing one (having had guaranteed representation in the New Zealand Parliament since 1867. All Maori men could vote before all European men). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Just before this discussion gets back on track, may I suggest we all move back to where we came from, namely the Rift Valley? May be a bit cramped for space is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 15 hours ago, maarsen said: Well, if the Celts all move back to their central Asia homeland, there should be lots of room. As if Ethiopia didn't have enough problems - it's about to get one hell of an overcrowding problem - 7.5Bn people, all coming back home to what? 30 square miles? The rest of the planet will thank us though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 5 hours ago, Rorshach said: Just before this discussion gets back on track, may I suggest we all move back to where we came from, namely the Rift Valley? May be a bit cramped for space is all. Well stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 This is what happens if every human moves back to where we came from:https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 the UN resolution said the Temple Mount and Western Wall are not part of Israel these are the birthplaces of Judaism And the US endorsed this claim... It's silly that we all must pretend this is some land dispute, rather than one religion wanting to eradicate another. Abbas/Arafat both were offered land for peace and both walked away without a counter offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, Commodore said: the UN resolution said the Temple Mount and Western Wall are not part of Israel .... As far as I am aware those are the facts as stated by the treaties that govern the foundation of the state of Israel. So perfectly fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 The settlement policy is identical to 19th century America's land grab of Native American lands. Israel is guilty of following the same course nearly every modern country has, exploiting the indigenous peoples that are inconvenient to their manifest destiny plans. Humanity has learned so little from previous centuries that people actually act surprized as if this was anything other than the same rinse and repeat we've seen through history on every corner of the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 20 hours ago, Commodore said: the UN resolution said the Temple Mount and Western Wall are not part of Israel these are the birthplaces of Judaism And the US endorsed this claim... No, the US abstained and refused to denounce that claim. It did not endorse it, simply allowed an endorsement to pass. There is a difference. And I'm pretty okay with abiding by the treaty that founded Israel in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andriy Czarchenko Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Commodore is obviously just pissed that the vatican isn´t claiming the whole area as the birthplace of christianity. Or he is just as clueless as usually. One of those anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 The controveries on Jerusalem were related to UNESCO and not with the Security Council. The resolution text http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/full-text-of-un-security-council-condemnation-of-israel-resolution-2334/2016/12/24/ Anything that was mention was of prior Security Council resolutions. Jerusalem mention is related to the settlement building. It is nothing more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 On 12/31/2016 at 7:18 AM, MerenthaClone said: No, the US abstained and refused to denounce that claim. It did not endorse it, simply allowed an endorsement to pass. There is a difference. There was no difference in the outcome whether they chose to endorse or abstain. There is no amount of land Israel could give up that the Palestinians would agree to in exchange for peace, short of the complete dissolution of the state. Yet we pretend as if settlements going away would matter. Any Palestinian leader who agrees to anything that recognizes Israel's right to exist is signing their own death warrant. Which is why they never have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 13 minutes ago, Commodore said: There was no difference in the outcome whether they chose to endorse or abstain. There is no amount of land Israel could give up that the Palestinians would agree to in exchange for peace, short of the complete dissolution of the state. Yet we pretend as if settlements going away would matter. Any Palestinian leader who agrees to anything that recognizes Israel's right to exist is signing their own death warrant. Which is why they never have. The issue with land claims is that land is not equal. There are highly valuable and desireable areas and many that is neither. It is very easy to get most of the highly valuable and desireable land and have it be only 10% of the total land amount (and that is disputed). Many Palestinian leaders and people discuss that recognizing Israel "Right to Exist" is denying the Nalba and their claim to the land. Overall very few treaties have this "Right to Existance" even with Nations that had long running disputes. It is also a precondition for the Palestinian to accept which contradict the statements of no pre-condition. Though none of the above matter when people do not accept Palestinian Right of Existance, and is viewed as a religious war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 41 minutes ago, Commodore said: There was no difference in the outcome whether they chose to endorse or abstain. There is no amount of land Israel could give up that the Palestinians would agree to in exchange for peace, short of the complete dissolution of the state. Yet we pretend as if settlements going away would matter. Any Palestinian leader who agrees to anything that recognizes Israel's right to exist is signing their own death warrant. Which is why they never have. The fly in the ointment of your claim is, of course, that the Palestinians have recognised Israel's right to exist on countless occasions since the first time in 1993. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Commodore said: There was no difference in the outcome whether they chose to endorse or abstain. There is no amount of land Israel could give up that the Palestinians would agree to in exchange for peace, short of the complete dissolution of the state. Yet we pretend as if settlements going away would matter. Any Palestinian leader who agrees to anything that recognizes Israel's right to exist is signing their own death warrant. Which is why they never have. Are we exclusively consequentialist now? That's...interesting. This isn't something I can say is false because its a hypothetical, but I do kind of think you're wrong on this one. False, as said by Hereward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck norris 42 Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 4 hours ago, Commodore said: There is no amount of land Israel could give up that the Palestinians would agree to in exchange for peace, short of the complete dissolution of the state. Yet we pretend as if settlements going away would matter. Why do you say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 52 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said: Why do you say that? because Arafat and Abbas have both been offered land for peace, and have both rejected it, without a counteroffer and Sadat was assassinated for the Camp David accords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck norris 42 Posted January 2, 2017 Author Share Posted January 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Commodore said: because Arafat and Abbas have both been offered land for peace, and have both rejected it, without a counteroffer and Sadat was assassinated for the Camp David accords Are you saying Arafat and Abbas represent all Palestinians ? Also are you saying nobody on the planet would support anything the camp David accords because they are scared of being assassinated? I really does seem like you are focusing on individuals and specific deals in attempt to point out the obvious fact that some people that support the Palestinians commit evil acts. Ghandi Was killed by a Hindu extremist and deplore the extremists actions. However it would be crazy to say all the Hindus living in India are Genocidal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.