The formation of Israel and the question of stealing land can be debated, but at this point it is history and cannot be changed. At some point a nation needed to arise out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The problem was, when one did it didn't encompass the entire area. Arab Palestinians didn't vote to accept the border, but neither did they declare war on Israel in 1948, how could they if they weren't even a state? The root of today's problems have to do with the taking of land by act of war. Palestinians are punished for the acts of the other arab nations.

I found it highly surprising the video didn't mention the countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts of land confiscation, usually with the USA and Israel the only ones opposing it. In war you can defend yourself, even invade the enemy's territory. But when it's over you have to go back your home, you can't keep a permanent army presence on the captured land and slowly allow your citizens to start living in the captured territory. The fact that the land wasn't part of Jordan made it easier for people to give Israel a pass since they weren't stealing land from a nation, just a nation-less people. That doesn't make it any more justifiable. Israel should have occupied the territory until the end of hostilities and then completely withdrawn.

The video mentions the land they grabbed from Egypt, the almost empty Sinai peninsula that was an incredible strategic value. They were plenty happy to hand it back for a peace treaty, mainly because the hardcore Zionists weren't determined to expand the state of Israel there as they are in the west bank, which has much more history for their people. Notice how they went out of their way to establish a salient to Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The only reason at some point in the last 40 years Israel hasn't just put up a fence and closed the border permanently(surely the safest choice if you're really worried about suicide bombers) is they wouldn't be able to move beyond that border and capture more land, which is what the orthodox Jews demand. People living in the west bank live under different laws based on their religion. Israeli civil code if they're settlers, military rule if they're Palestinians. How ironic that Israel is lauded as the great democracy in the middle east, yet deny the right of representation to millions under their control.

Neither.
Perhaps YOU didn't watch the video, or do you just refuse to acknowledge the facts that the Jewish population was quite small, and was treated fairly under 'Palestinian rule' (whether under the Ottomans, Brittan, or France)?
They didn't fight until AFTER Zionisation....or invasion. They declared war because the Jews in droves illegally immigrated there and TOOK/STOLE the land by force and asserted political and military control, and instantly started expanding their control to their neighbors and expelling or disenfranchising non Jews.
Yes, it's absolutely the Jew's fault for stealing other people's land. Yes, it's the Brit's and French's fault for not enforcing the legal immigration plans that were set up and for allowing all the insane illegal immigration/invasion, then later their and the USA's fault for supporting the invaders politically, militarily, and financially.
They absolutely should have KEPT them in Germany/Europe and taken state land and given it to the Jews to form their own state...not allowed them to relocate and take an innocent party's property because they want it. Before the Jewish invasion, the Jews in Palestine were treated just fine...not so with the Palestinians after the invasion.

Historically Islam didn't really engage in forced conversions, partly because under both the Caliphate and the Ottoman empire the tax break given to Muslims would've been problematic if given to the entire population (this tax break is the flip side of the "extort money" that you refer to).

Also speaking historically, Jews were much safer in Muslim lands than Christian since Christians tended to massacre them on a fairly regular basis until 1945 and despite what you've heard most Muslims are fairly tolerant. The same applies to minority Christian sects, the Nestorians for instance had to flee to Persia in 489 AD, and I seem to recall another minority group who fled England to Holland and then to the Americas (perhaps you've heard of them?).

I used to think that Buddhists and Hindus were more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, but unfortunately I've since learned that I only thought so due to ignorance.

After 1840, but prior to 1922 it was the Ottoman flag - http://goo.gl/C2r1Hu

Do you have a point here?

This situation is sad and ironic.

The area known as Judea was renamed Palestine during the time of Roman emperor Hadrian.
The residents of Judea/Palestine were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity around 400 ad by the Romans, and later in the 700's ad were forced to convert to Islam.
They never left. They just changed religions. The children of the Jews of the new testament, are the Palestinians of today (now practicing Islam).

Many years passed, the Eastern Roman empire resided over much of the area, ruled out of Turkey, and the region was more or less all-right. Along the way it changed names to the Ottoman empire.

After WW1, the Ottoman empire shrank dramatically, and renamed itself to simply Turkey. However it still held some lands that were not actually Turkish (eg. ~Syria), and was still a mini-empire.
Around this general time period, Palestine became a British colony.

During WW2, there were many displaced Europeans of Jewish faith that had nowhere to go.
(*Britain didn't want them either, most places didn't. Anti-Semitism was rather common at the time. Even the Nazi eugenics policy wasn't much criticized at the time. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics. Actually, the Nazi's strong association with anti-semitism + all the anti-Nazi propaganda during WW2, helped cure a lot of anti-semitism in Europe.).
In the late 1940's Britain split occupied Palestine into smaller-Palestine+Israel, and assisted in relocating WW2 displaced Europeans of Jewish faith to Israel. Which at face value made sense, because "the bible says Jews are from Judea". However the area from which was established Israel was more or less ~devoid of followers of the Jewish faith in the 1940's.
And that's the irony! The British creation of Israel involved taking land from Palestinians (i.e. The children of the original Jews of Judea), and giving it to Europeans of Jewish faith (foreign immigrants).

That then resulted in middle-eastern resentment and backlash over western invasion/occupation/seisure-of-land. This resentment against immigrating European Jews caused 'Jews at large' to be discriminated against throughout the middle-east, and that in turn led to a migration wave of regional-Jews from the surrounding areas into Israel.
This resulted in a concentration of Jewish-faithed immigrants of European and middle-eastern ethnicity, all in Israel - further displacing the original residents.

Basically, in the end, the original people of Judea were kicked out of their homes and their lands given to immigrants... and they really resent it. While in the mean time the immigrants acclaim to have a god given right to be there because there is some old paper that says that people of their faith are from the area.

Ta-da.

Britain could have just sent Europeans of Jewish faith to Palestine, and made it an integrated nation.
But nope, they had to displace people and create a bunch more problems.
Gee, thanks Britain.
I pretty much face-palm when I hear "this conflict is thousands of years old" (when it's only been ~66 years).


Note :
I make the distinction between ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish.
I use the phrase "Europeans of Jewish faith" to clarify that these were displaced Europeans, who may have had an ancestor or two way way way up the family tree that was from Judea - but were otherwise European and of Jewish faith - who may have lived in an area with little mingling with outsiders, and hence a visually distinct appearance (i.e. what made it possible to make visual caricatures of their people, such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29)
You can also play semantics with "what is ethnically Jewish, when the ethnicity is labelled after the faith", etc.

There's also the geopolitical aspect. Israel is the only "Western" nation in the middle-east. Given that the area is globally significant in terms of resources, that makes Israel a critically important ally. So the rhetoric will always lean.

Personally, I wonder if the things that European Jews suffered during WW2, didn't create some mental/emotional baggage that today plays itself out with how they treat Palestinians. Sort of a "I don't care about your suffering, because I've been through worse" kind of situation.

However, I understand how Israel does not want an open integrated society with Palestinians. The Jewish population is rather small, and in an integrated society they would be such a small proportion that they would essentially be bred out of existence within a few generations. For those who wish to preserve their culture, that's 'kind of a big deal'.

-scheherazade

@chingalera
and lets not forget that along with the dog and pony show,those who hold the levers of power pick that carcass of empire clean while the masses enjoy their culture of violence and death.

enjoy your american idol and jersey shore kiddies.
the politicians are making away with your future.
see:rome
see:ottoman
see:russia

Who is he talking about? Does he know anything at all about the Ottoman Empire? Other than being predominantly Muslim, the Middle East today doesn't resemble the Ottoman Empire in any way. Not even at all. Least of all the former Ottomans themselves, the Turks.

Troll-o-lo-lo-lo.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

@bcglorf
I think it's about where you start from. Without opportunistic pillaging in these countries they wouldn't be a threat at all.
In fact they wouldn't have gunpowder let alone stinger missiles.
Obviously you can't unscramble the pudding and those now involved have to deal with it every day until the empire collapses under the weight (and this is the reason they all have sooner or later, ask the Brits, ottomans, romans etc). Still at least a couple of hundred fat families got a bit fatter - and will be able to buy large stakes in what comes next..
Btw as for Pakistan there was a whistleblower about nuclear secrets leaking who got totally crushed by the US gov a few years back. Pakistan going nuclear was a VERY shady episode that no-one seems to be free to speak about yet. Or maybe it's just slipped into the national ADHD..


I agree with it being where you start from, or with how you see our world. When I look at human history, I don't see any point in it where opportunistic pillaging wasn't the order of the day for whomever was strongest or able to. Perhaps that's why my bar for calling a national action 'good' is different, my view of history leaves me with extremely low expectations.

Pakistan has slipped into the national ADHD on the commoner level. At the decision making level, there has appeared to be a coordinated effort to say very little about Pakistan. I think largely due to the (IMHO correct)belief that Pakistan's current political environment is a giant house of cards being kicked at from all directions. Mark my words, by the end of this year I expect to see Pakistan once again under military rule. Currently it looks like the guise will be court appointed military rule to restore order and enable democratic elections in the near future.

The military leadership has consistently benefited from maintaining a degree of internal conflict and instability between the tribal regions and the government. Using the age old tactic of having a common enemy/opponent to unite the rest of the country behind. Of course, the military doesn't want a long term solution to that conflict, they want the conflict to go on forever as it is in their interest. The downside for us was that the Taliban gained enormous power and influence throughout the tribal regions in all that. They gained enough that they were a bigger challenge than the tribal regions themselves, as unlike the tribes the Taliban could hit back deep into Pakistan proper. Until the events of 9/11, the military(Musharaff at the time) handled this by having a pseudo alliance with the Taliban, basically allowing them to govern the tribal regions of Pakistan. After 9/11, American leadership decided they weren't comfortable with the Taliban by and large controlling large swathes of a nuclear armed state and maintaining an alliance with them of undetermined strength.

Of course, nobody in America is able to talk about it that way, because it would further strengthen the deeply anti-American sentiments in Pakistan already, maybe enough to tip the scales towards siding with the Taliban instead of America.

@bcglorf
I think it's about where you start from. Without opportunistic pillaging in these countries they wouldn't be a threat at all.
In fact they wouldn't have gunpowder let alone stinger missiles.

Obviously you can't unscramble the pudding and those now involved have to deal with it every day until the empire collapses under the weight (and this is the reason they all have sooner or later, ask the Brits, ottomans, romans etc). Still at least a couple of hundred fat families got a bit fatter - and will be able to buy large stakes in what comes next..

Btw as for Pakistan there was a whistleblower about nuclear secrets leaking who got totally crushed by the US gov a few years back. Pakistan going nuclear was a VERY shady episode that no-one seems to be free to speak about yet. Or maybe it's just slipped into the national ADHD..

>> ^obscenesimian:

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think
oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.
Those Kurds.
Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.
Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.
Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.



Or more simply, Saddam was so horrific and brutal a monster that Iraqis and the region as a whole are better off for his removal.

Yes yes. Kurds, hmmmmmm let me think

oh yes they were abused by turks throughout history but most notably during the the 1890's 1920's 1930's and on up to the 70's and 80's. Ironically, Kurds also were one of the primary agents used by the Turks in the deportations and massacre Armenians before and during world war 1.

Those Kurds.

Who were also abused by Saddam. All part of a long chain of ethnic cleansing, genocide and nationalist violence caused in a large part by religion and creed as well as tribal identity throughout the balkans and the ottoman empire and what became the palestinian mandate.

Which Hitchens thought we should wade into because science and atheism will put right through warfare that which religion and warfare could not put right.

Hitchens got so much so wrong so many times, but he sounded soooo good doing it.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^kceaton1:
Goodbye Chris. Some of his most profound moments for me came when he actually screwed up and was wrong! It would often lead to other talks and dialogs between the people he had erred against and himself and in some occasions Christopher would merely present them and allow the other person to put the matter straight. He could be friends with these people and often was.
It showed me that he had within himself the ability to be very humble and that to him the truth WAS paramount! For that and much more I will remember him always.
He had it within himself to be the best of us all.

His about face on waterboarding after being waterboarded was the point that I started paying attention to him.

His about face on Saddam era Iraq stood out more in my mind. After being a champion of the anti-war movement in the first Gulf war he went and spent time with the Iraqi Kurds. He came back vehement in his conviction that America's worst crime in Iraq was in essence listening to him in the first place and not pushing into Baghdad and removing Saddam the first time.

>> ^jersalv1:

These guys are NEVER getting laid


Unless they're at a furniture store.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gangbang, furniture, ottoman, pimps, audition tape' to 'gangbang, furniture, ottoman, pimps, audition tape, couchrape' - edited by gwiz665

i was surprised to see how long the ottoman empire hung around.

>> ^bleedmegood:

I'll take your word for it... discard>> ^gorillaman:
This is a dupe, but I don't know wtf search terms to use to find the other one.



Found it.