BF2S Forums Israelis don't want peace

FEOS wrote:

Maybe you could explain why the focus of Europe was on Jews?

ruisleipa wrote:

Varegg wrote:

It's pretty much how we came to be enlightened in the first place ...

can you explain what you mean a bit more as that is an extraordinary statement to make.

Varegg wrote:

and while Europe, US and Asia is more or less finished with their enlightened period it's now time for Africa and the ME to sort out their business and be done with it ...

finished with our enlightened period? In what sense? The fact we still use torture, is that part of our 'enlightenment'? Or the amazing way fundamentalist religion holds such sway over so many people? Or invading other countries to serve our own selfish needs, is that 'enlightened'? I think not. We should never think we have no more left to learn.

Varegg wrote:

those parts of the world will never evolve without conflicts being settled, and nothing settles a conflict like a good ol war ...

I disagree with this statement, but it's slightly hypocritical (no offense intended) given it is our governments who are FUELLING the war, not least by buying and selling billions of dollars worth of arms from and to Israel every year. No-one could consider us to have 'left them to get on with it' in any sense whatsoever.

Varegg wrote:

[sarcasm]It's pretty much how we came to be enlightened in the first place ... and while Europe, US and Asia is more or less finished with their enlightened period it's now time for Africa and the ME to sort out their business and be done with it ... those parts of the world will never evolve without conflicts being settled, and nothing settles a conflict like a good ol war ...[/sarcasm]

ruisleipa wrote:

I think rammunition might be trying to point out that a country founded through the destruction of another people's homeland, said people being forced to live in squalor and poverty for the next several decades or so, will never be peaceful. The most basic, uncomplicated fact is that if Israel was serious about peace as opposed to land-grabbing and shitting on the Palestinians, they would stop the illegal building of settlements, withdraw to previously agreed boundaries, stop building and dismantle the 'apartheid wall' and give Israeli Arabs equivalent rights to Israeli Jews, with a view to providing (or at least not preventing) the Palestinians with the possibility of actually living there as well.

All this talk of 'whoshot first' is obscuring the fundamental issues, which suits the Israeli authorities very nicely thanks.

Pretty much sums it up I reckon.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Except you have to take into account whether the Pals would adhere to any kind of peace and not just use it as an oppurtunity to get into Israel and set off a few bombs.

UN gave the Jewish people with nowhere else to go their own state, on the land they originated from. The Arabs didn't like that, so they launch attacks and several wars, and got their asses kicked and lost territory in the process. Their fault. It would also stem from that the current situation. Israel is (and rightfully so) very serious about its security. It is surrounded by potential enemies, bordering many of them. Israel is a prime example of a country which has to constantly live on edge and be hard to enforce security. When so many of your neighbours vowed to wipe you out over the years, you're going to take a hardline against anyone who might do.

Last edited by rammunition (2009-10-14 12:42:40)

M.O.A.B wrote:

Are we allowed to remember the Hebron and Safed Massacres as well? Or don't they count cos they weren't orchestrated by evil Jews?

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

I think rammunition might be trying to point out that a country founded through the destruction of another people's homeland, said people being forced to live in squalor and poverty for the next several decades or so, will never be peaceful. The most basic, uncomplicated fact is that if Israel was serious about peace as opposed to land-grabbing and shitting on the Palestinians, they would stop the illegal building of settlements, withdraw to previously agreed boundaries, stop building and dismantle the 'apartheid wall' and give Israeli Arabs equivalent rights to Israeli Jews, with a view to providing (or at least not preventing) the Palestinians with the possibility of actually living there as well.

All this talk of 'whoshot first' is obscuring the fundamental issues, which suits the Israeli authorities very nicely thanks.

Pretty much sums it up I reckon.

just what i was going to say



It wasn't given to them on a plate, they bombed BRITISH targets and jewish terrorists destroyed towns killing many.

ok tell me this, muslims rules spain/portugal what 600 years ago. Would you support muslims going back their, raping the women, destroying towns, killing people just to take back land they once ruled?
The Jews are not innocent, no one in the M.E likes them because they are cowards and bullies. The jews are bad news.


Also i would like to point, 56 years ago on this day the jews commanded by the pig ariel sharon attacked the village of Qibya on the West Bank, destroying 45 buildings, killing 42 villagers, and wounding 15.

NEVER FORGET!!!!!

Are we allowed to remember the Hebron and Safed Massacres as well? Or don't they count cos they weren't orchestrated by evil Jews?

answer my point on muslims returning to spain/portugal, would you support such a movement?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Give Israel back to the Caananites then.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Give Israel back to the Caananites then.

I'm not saying anything should be given back to anyone, since that would throw off just about every country in history. I'm simply pointing out that if you were going to give Spain back to someone, it wouldn't be the Muslims.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hitler's main effort (supported by many other European countries prior to WW2) was the Jews. The others were simply convenient.

Not sure any other European countries supported Hitler, any more than the Americans did wrt the Jews.
No-one wanted to take them in, America included.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No one wanted to take them in and no one wanted them in their European countries, thus they supported Hitler's initiative to rid Europe of Jewry...at least his non-homicidal initiatives.

Same for America, not sure what point you're making.
America took a few, same as they took a few Nazis after the war.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The point being those who scream the loudest about the Israeli situation are the very ones who enabled it.

Incorrect, you're critcising Europe for doing the exact things America did.

eg Wiki

During his first term Roosevelt condemned Hitler's persecution of German Jews. As the Jewish exodus from Germany increased after 1937, Roosevelt was asked by American Jewish organizations and Congressmen to allow these refugees to settle in the U.S. At first he suggested that the Jewish refugees should be "resettled" elsewhere, and suggested Venezuela, Ethiopia or West Africa — anywhere but the U.S. Morgenthau, Ickes and Eleanor pressed him to adopt a more generous policy but he was afraid of provoking the men such as Charles Lindbergh who exploited anti-Semitism as a means of attacking Roosevelt's policies.

In practice very few Jewish refugees came to the U.S. — only 22,000 German refugees were admitted in 1940, not all of them Jewish. The State Department official in charge of refugee issues, Breckinridge Long, insisted on following the highly restrictive immigration laws to the letter. As one example, in 1939, the State Department under Roosevelt did not allow a boat of Jews fleeing from the Nazis into the United States. When the passenger ship St. Louis approached the coast of Florida with nearly a thousand German Jews fleeing persecution by Hitler, Roosevelt did not respond to telegrams from passengers requesting asylum, and the State Department refused entry to the ship. Forced to return to Antwerp, many of the passengers eventually died in concentration camps.
After 1942, when Roosevelt was made aware of the Nazi extermination of the Jews by Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Polish envoy Jan Karski and others, he told them that the best solution was to destroy Nazi Germany. At Casablanca in 1943 Roosevelt announced there would be no compromise whatever with Hitler. In May 1943 he wrote to Cordell Hull (whose wife was Jewish): "I do not think we can do other than strictly comply with the present immigration laws." In January 1944, however, Morgenthau succeeded in persuading Roosevelt to allow the creation of a War Refugee Board in the Treasury Department. This allowed an increasing number of Jews to enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945. It also financed Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg's work in Budapest, where he and others helped to save 100,000+ Jews from deportation to death camps. By this time, however, the European Jewish communities had already been largely destroyed in Hitler's Holocaust.

In any case, after 1945 the focus of Jewish aspirations shifted from migration to the U.S. to settlement in British mandate of Palestine, where the Zionist movement hoped to create a Jewish state. Roosevelt was also opposed to this idea. When he met King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia in February 1945, he assured him he did not support a Jewish state in British mandate of Palestine.

Seems like the US was fairly 'anti-semitic' also.

Europe didn't enable Israel, they were against it, as was the US.

Dilbert_X wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Give Israel back to the Caananites then.

I'm not saying anything should be given back to anyone, since that would throw off just about every country in history. I'm simply pointing out that if you were going to give Spain back to someone, it wouldn't be the Muslims.

And if Israel were to be given back to anyone it wouldn't be the Jews.