Dubstepforum.com

bennyfroobs wrote:

Israel was carved out of Palestine for Jews with help from the British in the late 1940s

also didnt britain oppose the creation of israel for a long time until it was pressued into creating it by USA?

It's complicated.

There was already a ZIonist tendency emerging in England as the 19th c. wrapped up (such as with Benjamin DIsraeli) - on top of the fact that the diaspora were already emigrating to Palestine by the thousands.

There reached a tipping point where ruling Palestine as it had been up until then became effectively impossible and radical nationalist Jewish activity stepped up. After WWII closed, the last thing the British wanted was to engage in another hot ground war and conceded for Israel's creation (it is also rumored that the royal family exercised a little sway over the opinion based on their belief that they are literally descended from David and thus "Biblical Royalty".)

With the USA was a slightly different set of affairs: a relatively large, wealthy, and established Jewish societal presence, the emerging oil markets in the region, and the opportunity to make allies in a region pocked with ancient internecine tribal weirdness were all too good to pass up. There are a handful of religious types with ideas about the necessity of the existence of Israel before the Apocalypse can occur according to prophecy, but I don't think they influenced the issue back at the time so much. The British Israelite thing was arguably more influential.

Eventually the American and British economists and military theorists found each other and reinforced the collective trans-Atlantic will to create Israel and it was done.

magma wrote:
Humanity still has a long way til it learns no piece of land is of equal value to human life.

when land sustains life? one field could feed 50. If you had to sacrifice one.. the field or the life, you'd choose the life?

some land is life and some life would be better in the land.

'Nother interesting perspective:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... ng/375116/

The reaction to the Gaza war—from the Turkish prime minister, who compared Israel's behavior unfavorably to that of Hitler's, to the Lebanese journalist who demanded the nuclear eradication of Israel, to, of course, the anti-Jewish riots in France—is a reminder that much of the world is not opposed to Israel because of its settlement policy, but because it is a Jewish country.


pretty wild claim

i find the most interesting / logical parts of articles are always tucked away in the comments

Edward_Fortyhands wrote:You can't have it both ways. If Gaza is not part of Israel, then I would expect that it would not be blockaded, and it would have its own ports and airports, and be able to generate its own power, and have its own water by tapping its own aquifers. Also, if Gaza was not part of Israel it shouldn't have to recite some credo in order to have its sovereign rights. (And everything that applies to Gaza applies to the West Bank, as well.)

But with the blockade, which many people say is punitive, and the control of the power and water, how can anyone say that Gaza is independent? It is not. It is a dependent of Israel.

Of course I defend Israel's right to exist, defend itself, and play right into Hamas' hands strategically. But either the Gazans are going to be left alone, or not. The tenor of your comment is that if the Gazans were able to do their own thing, they would perish. Others say that if Gaza develops, it will be another Singapore. So let's lift the blockade and see what happens. Given Israel's ability to defend itself, I consider it a low risk decision, and by so doing it would remove the last figleaf for Hamas' aggression.

butter man wrote:

magma wrote:
Humanity still has a long way til it learns no piece of land is of equal value to human life.

when land sustains life? one field could feed 50. If you had to sacrifice one.. the field or the life, you'd choose the life?

some land is life and some life would be better in the land.

But land is pointless if there is no life. You said yourself land is valuable when land sustains life, remove life from the equation and land loses all value. If land is so valuable because its ability to sustain life surely human life is more valuable. Also your example inherently makes human life less valuable and land more valuable, in the real world we don't have to sacrifice human life in order to gain land to sustain life lol.. its like me saying would you slaughter 10,000 children to get a nice acre in countryside? Outside the realm of weird hypothetical examples surely human life is valued more than land?

Plus his point was in relation to Gaza, the ownership of land isn't worthwhile in exchange for a lot of innocent lives.

Muncey wrote:would you slaughter 10,000 children to get a nice acre in countryside?

yh

Muncey wrote:

butter man wrote:

magma wrote:
Humanity still has a long way til it learns no piece of land is of equal value to human life.

when land sustains life? one field could feed 50. If you had to sacrifice one.. the field or the life, you'd choose the life?

some land is life and some life would be better in the land.

But land is pointless if there is no life. You said yourself land is valuable when land sustains life, remove life from the equation and land loses all value. If land is so valuable because its ability to sustain life surely human life is more valuable. Also your example inherently makes human life less valuable and land more valuable, in the real world we don't have to sacrifice human life in order to gain land to sustain life lol.. its like me saying would you slaughter 10,000 children to get a nice acre in countryside? Outside the realm of weird hypothetical examples surely human life is valued more than land?

Plus his point was in relation to Gaza, the ownership of land isn't worthwhile in exchange for a lot of innocent lives.

absolute no human life or absolute no land hmmmmmm whats more important? haha, I can see how using absolutes works haha.

in the real world we don't have to sacrifice human life in order to gain land to sustain life lol..

what would the acquisition of land through force be for then? you might say for a profit, but some abstract acquistion of gains in the form of monetary value used correctly as a means to raise empires seems a bit like life sustaing for the general populous.

(what is this real world though? do tell me more haha)

Well I just meant it isn't a necessity. In your example you forced the sacrifice of a human life in order to gain some land to sustain human life, people do take land by force but its rarely to sustain life its a matter of ownership and power (and profit).. at no point is it a requirement to kill off others to gain some land.

The fact that people do means they value the land (ownership, power and profit) more than human life. No piece of land in that sense should ever be valued more than innocent lives.

Muncey wrote:.. at no point is it a requirement to kill off others to gain some land.

not personally no. but countries and companies will kill for the ownership of a piece of land. a prairie perhaps feeding 5 turned into a a factory feeding much more. it happens, whos to say who owns what land? cos they were there first? sorry mate I got an army that needs feeding and your sticks wont stop us.. sustaining life wasnt necessarily a pre-requisite but its definitely a consequence.