{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/13/2013 8:32:50 PM
26
Both. Only the very stupid thinks you have to support one over the other.
Both have a right to peaceful coexistence.
English
-
Editado por HM Rob: 5/13/2013 8:35:14 PMThey can coexist, but that doesn't mean that they can both of their own countries in the same place.
-
They can have neighboring countries.
-
Right, but they both want the same land. Someone's going to get that ass-end of the deal.
-
The neighboring countries want Israel off the map.
-
And? OP asked who I support. I support both countries' right to exist.
-
But the allies of Palestine don't want Palestine to be kicked out of where they originally were. They want Israel to disappear so Palestine can go back to when it originally was. The problem is that Israel has been giving up their land since its creation, but that's not enough to The Arab World. Both countries deserve a right to exist, but the issue is that Israel is constantly being attacked for existing.
-
[quote]The problem is that Israel has been giving up their land since its creation,[/quote]If you live in Oppositeland, maybe.
-
The fun new game that just came out of The Middle East: [i]The Incredible Shrinking Israel![/i]
-
There was no Israel in 1922. Your little comic self-debunks in the first frame. Were you going for humor as a means to bridge this political divide? If so, well done.
-
Editado por Gaara444: 5/14/2013 3:55:37 PMAre you -blam!-ing color blind? No where in the 1922 map does it have Israel in it. That's the Palestine British mandate. Read the color codes on top.
-
Uh huh. And what is that entire thing titled? Something something shrinking Israel? Implying the first frame is Israel. It isn't. It's also hilarious that it treats as legitimate the gains made in the Six Day War that Israel started.
-
Editado por Gaara444: 5/14/2013 4:05:18 PMThe image says the incredibly shrinking Israel, but it recognizes the 1922 map as the Palestine British mandate. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It clearly shows the Israel borders starting on the second frame. The first frame is simply there to show a comparison to what Israel would have on the second frame. Were your born this stupid or did you have to work on it?
-
Editado por RighteousTyrant: 5/14/2013 4:15:27 PMAmusing. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png]This is what Israel was to look like per the UN's plan for creating it.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cia-is-map2.gif]This is what Israel looked like in 1949.[/url] Funny, both of those are smaller than anything in that series of yours, yet they aren't included. Why might that be? (Answer: because the silly little series of yours is LYING.)
-
Editado por Gaara444: 5/14/2013 4:21:21 PMThat still doesn't excuse your blatant stupidity on how it worked. If I made a series called "Border changes in the US from its history" and included a map of the US before it was created with clear text saying "NOT US LAND YET" I'm not calling it the US just because its part of the series. And the borders of Israel in your two images didn't change at all, it's just the occupied territory that's different. You can sit their and claim that Israel just isn't being reasonable with the peace offerings, but its kind of hard to negotiate with some [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_process_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#2013_talks]firing rockets in your backyard.[/url]
-
Editado por RighteousTyrant: 5/14/2013 4:51:46 PMIt's also worth noting that the map series even gets that first frame wrong geographically. It labels the whole thing as the Mandate of Palestine, but in reality, the majority of that is not, but is instead [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan]Transjordan[/url] (the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine]British Mandate of Palestine[/url] greatly resembled modern-day Israel). Face it, bro, your map series is shit and wrong and you have been LIED TO. I look forward to your response.
-
Editado por RighteousTyrant: 5/14/2013 4:42:25 PMIt's ironic that you miss my point and continue to insult my intelligence. I'm well-aware that the first frame correctly labeled it as the Palestinian Mandate. That's exactly the problem: the Mandate =/= the State of Israel, but the authors of that series chose the Mandate as the starting point, because doing so helps make the case they want to make. If you want to show the shrinkage of a particular nation, why wouldn't you start the series with a map of the nation when it was created? Your series never shows such a map even once. Instead, it shows as its starting point an arbitrary division created by the British Empire a quarter-century (and one World War) before Israel even existed. Doesn't that strike you as illogical, or at least something to question why? My point is that the entire premise of that map series is bullshit. Israel has only shrunk over time if you totally ignore what Israel looked like in the 20ish years that it existed between 1947 and the Six Day War. Had those maps been included in that series, you'd see the large British Mandate, then a smallish Israel, then a larger Israel post-6DW. It doesn't fit the claim that Israel has been constantly shrinking, thus those truths were disregarded for political purposes.
-
By that map it sounds like Israel is doing a great job. [spoiler]Isn't the Sinai an arid, useless desert?. And I'm pretty sure the Israelis pushed nearly all the Palestinians into the West Bank and Gaza anyway with the previous wars. It makes economical sense to just stop ruling it when all they do is cause trouble. [/spoiler]
-
That's an extremely misleading image that doesn't reflect reality at all. The headline also makes it sound as though Israel is trying to give up land in exchange for peace, which is the exact opposite of what's actually happening.
-
The point is that Israel is willing to compromise, the rest of The Arab World however is not.
-
Which is not even close to true. There have been numerous attempts by Arab nations, most notably Jordan, to reach peace with Israel. However, Israel either refuses to negotiate or fails to express their desires. Numerous Arab leaders have been frustrated because they go to peace accords and then Israel never says what they want for peace. Over the years, Israel has made it clear that they don't want peace, they want to hold onto lands they've illegally occupied. They could have peace any time they want if they actually pursued it.
-
[quote]Over the years, Israel has made it clear that they don't want peace, they want to hold onto lands they've illegally occupied. [/quote] >Illegally occupied Here we go again. The land was theirs first, why is that so hard for people to comprehend? They were forced out and are now simply taking it back.
-
[quote]>Illegally occupied[/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories]Yep.[/url] [quote]Here we go again. The land was theirs first, why is that so hard for people to comprehend? They were forced out and are now simply taking it back.[/quote]They were forced out how many [i]centuries[/i] ago? "Our ancestors lived here two thousand years ago" is not a valid excuse when seizing land that is currently inhabited by Arabs, who have lived there for a loooooong time, too. At this point they have far more of a claim than the Israelis do.
-
Those territories have been designated Israel's by the UN, I trust them over a bunch of radicals. Also, you're forgetting what the mass eviction all those years ago started. They were forced to migrate to Europe, and we all know how wonderful the Jews lived in Europe for all those centuries! If you want my honest to God opinion on the subject, I think that the the borders should be based on the 1967 border lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders can remain in place. Other than that, I just don't care.
-
Editado por Garland: 5/13/2013 9:46:23 PM[quote]Those territories have been designated Israel's by the UN, I trust them over a bunch of radicals.[/quote]Clearly you didn't read the article. The West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem are all listed as "Israeli occupied" by the UN, and are in breach of international law. The Sinai Peninsula was on that list for a while, too. [quote]Also, you're forgetting what the mass eviction all those years ago started. They were forced to migrate to Europe, and we all know how wonderful the Jews lived in Europe for all those centuries![/quote]So? That's really irrelevant. Are you saying we should allow Israel to conquer Arab territory in the name of reparations for the past two milleniums of anti-semitism? Will it make them feel better knowing they've turned around and displaced Arabs from their homes? [quote]If you want my honest to God opinion on the subject, I think that the the borders should be based on the 1967 border lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders can remain in place.[/quote]Which is something that most of the Arab world has been pushing for. Jordan in particular has spent decades pushing for that exact plan. At every step, it has been Israel that has stifled that plan.
-
[quote]Which is something that most of the Arab world has been pushing for. Jordan in particular has spent decades pushing for that exact plan. At every step, it has been Israel that has stifled that plan. [/quote] Source? I don't want to start shit, so I will call myself a -blam!-ing asshole dip shit if you give me a valid source.
