Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I just dont understand why the palestanians/Hamas dont fight with Jordan or Libanon or Syria over territory. They "stole" land from them to.
Ohh wait..The Palestanians tried under Arafat(PLO) to make a coup in Jordan around sept 1970, the Jordanian army responded with killing 20.000 people in one month and the PLO gave up. Very humane of there muslim brothers!
Both sides are very wrong anyone who claims otherwise is just another mindless propagandist.
Ohh wait..The Palestanians tried under Arafat(PLO) to make a coup in Jordan around sept 1970, the Jordanian army responded with killing 20.000 people in one month and the PLO gave up. Very humane of there muslim brothers!
Both sides are very wrong anyone who claims otherwise is just another mindless propagandist.
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist :
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -
"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".
- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -
(edited)
“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.
"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".
- Zuhair Muhsin, military commander of the PLO and member of the PLO Executive Council -
"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".
- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat -
(edited)
It doesn't matter if Palestinians are Jordanians or not. That's irrelevant to the problem. Those people lived there - regardless if there nation is Jordanian or Palestinian - before the Jews migrated to the Palestine region.
The problem is bringing those two peoples (the Israeli's and the Palestinians/Arabs/whatever) into peace with each other by splitting the Palestine region into two.
The problem is bringing those two peoples (the Israeli's and the Palestinians/Arabs/whatever) into peace with each other by splitting the Palestine region into two.
Where were the so-called Palestanian people then ? Looks quite deserted to me. Btw this is just to try to make clear it's not only the Israeli's who are wrong here. The Palestanians are pretty good at this game to.
"In 1590 a 'simple English visitor' to Jerusalem wrote: 'Nothing there is to bescene but a little of the old walls, which is yet remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and weedes much like to a piece of rank or moist grounde'.".
- Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement, p. 86; de Haas, History, p. 338 -
"The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".
- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s -
"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".
- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -
"The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it".
- Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s -
"Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride".
- William Thackeray in "From Jaffa To Jerusalem", 1844 -
"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population".
- James Finn, British Consul in 1857 -
"There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There are some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted. As the sun was setting we gazed upon the desolate harbor, once filled with ships, and looked over the sea in vain for a single sail. In this once crowded mart, filled with the din of traffic, there was the silence of the desert. After our dinner we gathered in our tent as usual to talk over the incidents of the day, or the history of the locality. Yet it was sad, as I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us".
- B. W. Johnson, in "Young Folks in Bible Lands": Chapter IV, 1892 -
"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants".
- The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 -
"In 1590 a 'simple English visitor' to Jerusalem wrote: 'Nothing there is to bescene but a little of the old walls, which is yet remayning and all the rest is grasse, mosse and weedes much like to a piece of rank or moist grounde'.".
- Gunner Edward Webbe, Palestine Exploration Fund,
Quarterly Statement, p. 86; de Haas, History, p. 338 -
"The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".
- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s -
"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".
- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -
"The Arabs themselves cannot be considered but temporary residents. They pitched their tents in its grazing fields or built their places of refuge in its ruined cities. They created nothing in it. Since they were strangers to the land, they never became its masters. The desert wind that brought them hither could one day carry them away without their leaving behind them any sign of their passage through it".
- Comments by Christians concerning the Arabs in Palestine in the 1800s -
"Then we entered the hill district, and our path lay through the clattering bed of an ancient stream, whose brawling waters have rolled away into the past, along with the fierce and turbulent race who once inhabited these savage hills. There may have been cultivation here two thousand years ago. The mountains, or huge stony mounds environing this rough path, have level ridges all the way up to their summits; on these parallel ledges there is still some verdure and soil: when water flowed here, and the country was thronged with that extraordinary population, which, according to the Sacred Histories, was crowded into the region, these mountain steps may have been gardens and vineyards, such as we see now thriving along the hills of the Rhine. Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride".
- William Thackeray in "From Jaffa To Jerusalem", 1844 -
"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population".
- James Finn, British Consul in 1857 -
"There are many proofs, such as ancient ruins, broken aqueducts, and remains of old roads, which show that it has not always been so desolate as it seems now. In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life. There are some rude mills here which are turned by the stream. A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted. As the sun was setting we gazed upon the desolate harbor, once filled with ships, and looked over the sea in vain for a single sail. In this once crowded mart, filled with the din of traffic, there was the silence of the desert. After our dinner we gathered in our tent as usual to talk over the incidents of the day, or the history of the locality. Yet it was sad, as I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us".
- B. W. Johnson, in "Young Folks in Bible Lands": Chapter IV, 1892 -
"The area was underpopulated and remained economically stagnant until the arrival of the first Zionist pioneers in the 1880's, who came to rebuild the Jewish land. The country had remained "The Holy Land" in the religious and historic consciousness of mankind, which associated it with the Bible and the history of the Jewish people. Jewish development of the country also attracted large numbers of other immigrants - both Jewish and Arab. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts... Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen... The plows used were of wood... The yields were very poor... The sanitary conditions in the village [Yabna] were horrible... Schools did not exist... The rate of infant mortality was very high... The western part, toward the sea, was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants".
- The report of the British Royal Commission, 1913 -
Indeed, here we go again .... White House condemns Israeli built settler homes in East Jerusalem, West Bank.
I hope the blind (pro) zionists also open their eyes now and finally see what 'peace' means for this israeli government :/ Probably not as they are blind, but who knows ...
Israel don´t want peace, they want expansionism, territories, finish by any method a possible Palestine state, and his hope.
that future homes is a (again) evidence.
USA don´t know that monster has created
(edited)
I hope the blind (pro) zionists also open their eyes now and finally see what 'peace' means for this israeli government :/ Probably not as they are blind, but who knows ...
Israel don´t want peace, they want expansionism, territories, finish by any method a possible Palestine state, and his hope.
that future homes is a (again) evidence.
USA don´t know that monster has created
(edited)
Even if that's true (that the Arabs only moved there when the first Zionists arrived at the end of the nineteenth century), your argument (Palestinians are Jordanians/Arabs/whatever) is still irrelevant. The Palestinians/Jordanians/Arabs/whatever have as many rights to have their country there as the Israeli's. So let's just call them Palestinians (as that is what they want to be called apparently).
You know I most of the time agree with you on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by saying both sides are wrong. That doesn't make your silly argument true though. (In contrary, it gives ammunition (although that might not be the most suitable description given the topic here) to the pro-Palestinian side which they will use.)
(edited)
You know I most of the time agree with you on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, by saying both sides are wrong. That doesn't make your silly argument true though. (In contrary, it gives ammunition (although that might not be the most suitable description given the topic here) to the pro-Palestinian side which they will use.)
(edited)
Both sides did mistake and will continue doing, hope that this conflict will end soon,
but since there are some people here with so much knowledge regarding the Palestinians, I will ask than some question , hopefully they will be able to teach me some new thing.
1. If you believe that the state of Palestine were exist in the past, so who create it back than, and when?
2. What were they historical borders?
3. What were this countries city's and Capital city?
4. what kind of government it had?
5. Can anyone give a name of any Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
6.What was the language of that country?
7. what was the religious of that country?
and the most important question for me, since there is no Palestine country today, why did this country disappeared? who did it? and when?
but since there are some people here with so much knowledge regarding the Palestinians, I will ask than some question , hopefully they will be able to teach me some new thing.
1. If you believe that the state of Palestine were exist in the past, so who create it back than, and when?
2. What were they historical borders?
3. What were this countries city's and Capital city?
4. what kind of government it had?
5. Can anyone give a name of any Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
6.What was the language of that country?
7. what was the religious of that country?
and the most important question for me, since there is no Palestine country today, why did this country disappeared? who did it? and when?
and the most important question for me, since there is no Palestine country today, why did this country disappeared? who did it? and when?
some people would surely disagree. Is there no Western Sahara just because it is occupied? Was there no Kosovo before they stated to be independent? Is there no Palestine?
Otherway, I just can not believe how lengthy is this discussion and it seems almost impossible to bring here something new. Was there Palestinian state before? Well, Israel wasn´t there for hundreds and thousands years, that´s for sure; and most of the Jewish citizens of Israel had just 30 or less years "tradition" in the region.
Generally, the trouble is that if Arabs (Palestinians - not saying there is specific Palestinian nation - seems similar to (Kosovian) Albanians), tend to be politically agressive and weak, the other side is very arrogant, controls everything and presents it like something totally ok.
Btw, that all is historically ridiculous since Christians always used to be much bigger enemies for both Muslims and Jews...
(I believe I am rly not saying anything new; just felt I have some meaningful feeling about your post, what is pretty rare for me in such a weird topic..)
(edited)
some people would surely disagree. Is there no Western Sahara just because it is occupied? Was there no Kosovo before they stated to be independent? Is there no Palestine?
Otherway, I just can not believe how lengthy is this discussion and it seems almost impossible to bring here something new. Was there Palestinian state before? Well, Israel wasn´t there for hundreds and thousands years, that´s for sure; and most of the Jewish citizens of Israel had just 30 or less years "tradition" in the region.
Generally, the trouble is that if Arabs (Palestinians - not saying there is specific Palestinian nation - seems similar to (Kosovian) Albanians), tend to be politically agressive and weak, the other side is very arrogant, controls everything and presents it like something totally ok.
Btw, that all is historically ridiculous since Christians always used to be much bigger enemies for both Muslims and Jews...
(I believe I am rly not saying anything new; just felt I have some meaningful feeling about your post, what is pretty rare for me in such a weird topic..)
(edited)
Where were the so-called Palestanian people then ? Looks quite deserted to me. Btw this is just to try to make clear it's not only the Israeli's who are wrong here. The Palestanians are pretty good at this game to.
You have to keep in mind the quotes in your post are all from an European perspective.
The region never was highly populated, compared to Western Europe. Part of the Arab population was nomadic, and overall a tribal culture dominated. (Compared to Western Europe, where Kingdoms, Nation states, and later industrialisation had already developed).
So for people from Europe, the region indeed looked deserted and "under developed". But that does not mean nobody lived there. And of the people that lived there, Arabs were the majority overall, with some towns/cities having a local Jewish majority.
(And I agree: both sides are "wrong" and conveniently only remember the parts of History that are in their favor . ;) )
You have to keep in mind the quotes in your post are all from an European perspective.
The region never was highly populated, compared to Western Europe. Part of the Arab population was nomadic, and overall a tribal culture dominated. (Compared to Western Europe, where Kingdoms, Nation states, and later industrialisation had already developed).
So for people from Europe, the region indeed looked deserted and "under developed". But that does not mean nobody lived there. And of the people that lived there, Arabs were the majority overall, with some towns/cities having a local Jewish majority.
(And I agree: both sides are "wrong" and conveniently only remember the parts of History that are in their favor . ;) )
All your questions are irrelevant. It's not because there wasn't a state like you think a state should look like that those people didn't live there. Like Zwelgje said, you cannot look at the Palestine region and say: "Hey, there is no state to Western standards there, we'll start one and all the land is ours."
To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...? From what I remember, our idea of having a war is that when you win a certain territory and win the war, then you keep the territory or you can trade it for money/another territory/whatever. When you lose the war and territory, nobody gives you back this territory, no matter how long you've been there.
Seriously, what's the deal with 'we've been there before, give us back our land' ?
Seriously, what's the deal with 'we've been there before, give us back our land' ?
To be honest I don't understand the 'return our land that you have won in a fair fight' attitude. Since when we do that in Europe...? From what I remember, our idea of having a war is that when you win a certain territory and win the war, then you keep the territory or you can trade it for money/another territory/whatever. When you lose the war and territory, nobody gives you back this territory, no matter how long you've been there.
Seriously, what's the deal with 'we've been there before, give us back our land' ?
It depends on how and by whom the war was started. It would be wrong (according to my principle called non-initiation of violence) to simply look at the results of the war without looking at how it started and how it developed.
For instance, some people in Madrid have said they will invade Catalonia if that region declares itself independent. Imagine that would be the case (although highly unlikely). Imagine no country in the world would help Catalonia (in fear of the Spanish reaction to that). Spain would probably win the war in short term and your reaction would be to leave it like that because Spain was the stronger one?
I wouldn't. Because starting a war is - for me - never justified unless it's a reaction on earlier oppression or violence (and no, the fact that the Spanish Constitution says Spain is 'inseparable' doesn't make Catalan independence an act of violence). Therefore, it is for me unacceptable that you gain territory by starting a war (without any justified cause, see previous sentence).
That's what they call civilization (although the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not a good example). I hope we've outgrown the madness of war in Europe.
Seriously, what's the deal with 'we've been there before, give us back our land' ?
It depends on how and by whom the war was started. It would be wrong (according to my principle called non-initiation of violence) to simply look at the results of the war without looking at how it started and how it developed.
For instance, some people in Madrid have said they will invade Catalonia if that region declares itself independent. Imagine that would be the case (although highly unlikely). Imagine no country in the world would help Catalonia (in fear of the Spanish reaction to that). Spain would probably win the war in short term and your reaction would be to leave it like that because Spain was the stronger one?
I wouldn't. Because starting a war is - for me - never justified unless it's a reaction on earlier oppression or violence (and no, the fact that the Spanish Constitution says Spain is 'inseparable' doesn't make Catalan independence an act of violence). Therefore, it is for me unacceptable that you gain territory by starting a war (without any justified cause, see previous sentence).
That's what they call civilization (although the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not a good example). I hope we've outgrown the madness of war in Europe.
It depends on how and by whom the war was started. It would be wrong (according to my principle called non-initiation of violence) to simply look at the results of the war without looking at how it started and how it developed.
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
It depends on how and by whom the war was started. It would be wrong (according to my principle called non-initiation of violence) to simply look at the results of the war without looking at how it started and how it developed.
For instance, some people in Madrid have said they will invade Catalonia if that region declares itself independent. Imagine that would be the case (although highly unlikely). Imagine no country in the world would help Catalonia (in fear of the Spanish reaction to that). Spain would probably win the war in short term and your reaction would be to leave it like that because Spain was the stronger one?
I will use your, apparently, favourite word: irrelevant.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
I wouldn't. Because starting a war is - for me - never justified unless it's a reaction on earlier oppression or violence (and no, the fact that the Spanish Constitution says Spain is 'inseparable' doesn't make Catalan independence an act of violence). Therefore, it is for me unacceptable that you gain territory by starting a war (without any justified cause, see previous sentence).
Irrelevant. And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
That's what they call civilization (although the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not a good example). I hope we've outgrown the madness of war in Europe.
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
It depends on how and by whom the war was started. It would be wrong (according to my principle called non-initiation of violence) to simply look at the results of the war without looking at how it started and how it developed.
For instance, some people in Madrid have said they will invade Catalonia if that region declares itself independent. Imagine that would be the case (although highly unlikely). Imagine no country in the world would help Catalonia (in fear of the Spanish reaction to that). Spain would probably win the war in short term and your reaction would be to leave it like that because Spain was the stronger one?
I will use your, apparently, favourite word: irrelevant.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
I wouldn't. Because starting a war is - for me - never justified unless it's a reaction on earlier oppression or violence (and no, the fact that the Spanish Constitution says Spain is 'inseparable' doesn't make Catalan independence an act of violence). Therefore, it is for me unacceptable that you gain territory by starting a war (without any justified cause, see previous sentence).
Irrelevant. And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
That's what they call civilization (although the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not a good example). I hope we've outgrown the madness of war in Europe.
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
From what I remember, our idea of having a war is that when you win a certain territory and win the war, then you keep the territory or you can trade it for money/another territory/whatever.
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore ;P Luckily we nowadays have international laws and human rights.
(edited)
We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore ;P Luckily we nowadays have international laws and human rights.
(edited)
How many wars did we have since we have agreed those laws and rights to judge whether these are applicable in post-war period?
(Yes, irrelevant is really my favorite word :D)
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
Guess what, I do think there is a problem with Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I do have a problem with 'the winner has the benefits', it is unfair (from the non-initiation of violence POV).
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)
Irrelevant, I asked you a different question. There are no [or scarce] examples of your idea of war. The winner of a war has benefits, end of topic. There are no judgments over the winner of war in history, whether he should leave the territory etc. Second World War - were there any problem with Germany taking over Osterreich and Czech Republic? No, I don't think so. Germany's winning streak became a problem for Western Europe the moment France and Great Britain started to feel threatened about their countries when Germany became dangerously strong.
Guess what, I do think there is a problem with Germany invading Czechoslovakia. I do have a problem with 'the winner has the benefits', it is unfair (from the non-initiation of violence POV).
And so on, you can go back with every war in European history - those who conquered the land kept the land. You didn't simply tell somebody to leave a territory, you had to take it from him.
Irrelevant (:p). I'm saying that Europe should be done with wars to gain territory. It has happened in the course of history (it was together with a good marriage policy the only way to gain territory). So what? That doesn't make it right.
Is Israel attacking Palestine at the moment? No? That's my point. And correct me if I'm wrong, was Israel the 'Spain' or 'Catalunya' in the Israel vs Arabic countries wars?
Israel was neither of them. The Spain/Catalonia example was just to show that results of war must not always be followed as the winner can be the party that was wrong. And therefore, your logic (Israel won the war, so it's theirs now) does not apply to this case (Jom Kippur war) in my opinion.
And actually yes, the Spanish constitution is the most important law-ground in Spain and if it says that Spain is inseparable - then it is and they have the right to fight any uprisings.
So you don't care for the right on self-determination of nations (which is an International Law btw). Nice. If Poland had been a part of Russia today, you would accept Russia to oppress uprisings in Poland against the Russians? Really?
That's irrelevant and naive. We have not outgrown war madness, we simply have a 'battle impass'. There are too many federations, confederations and treaties, any war would turn out to be hard to win and would simply bring no benefits, unless it would concern for example Russia-Georgia war.
Well, those treaties will not go away, will they? And sorry, but often when I say Europe, I mean Central and Western Europe. I should have been clear about that. (However, conflicts within countries seem to rise at the moment in Europe, which is a normal thing. Like in Greece. However, that will never lead to an international war.)