news.yahoo.com— Thailand said Thursday that it has recognized a Palestinian state, in a move hailed by Palestinian leaders eager to boost their international standing amid a stalemate with Israel.
Jan 20, 2012View in Crawl 4
So does this mean that Thailand would back Israel if it were to invade Palestine?
Funny, no one ever makes that connection. If Palestine is a state, its committing acts of war against Israel as Hamas, the elected government, is the one lobbing rockets into another sovereign nation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Lets go with Israel occupying Palestine. Under what conditions is it okay for to target civilian populations?
And please let me know when this nation of Palestine declared itself... was it in 1948 when Britain set aside land for the Palestinian people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The British, the legal, internationally-recognized owners of the land that would have become Israel and Palestine, gave the land to each group.
Palestine could have come into existence on that day. Instead, they joined the rest of the Arab world in trying to destroy Israel. They could have had their designated land on that day... and probably have changed the entire debate that day.
Interesting legal manoeuvre. The British also legally owned America, India, Canada, and half the know world at various times.
What happened was mass Jewish immigration, into Palestine, during the 20's and 30's under the direct hand of the British, after the Balfour Declaration.
This created many lines of division amongst Arabs and Jews.
You see, Palestine was being "overseen" by the British. They were doing this because they defeated the Ottoman empire which Palestine was part of.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that after WWII, America decided that Germany should be given to the Native Indians of North America.
Though it may have been "legal" in terms of who won the war, It is disingenuous to say, that giving a country away, does not or should not have consequences.
It is not black and white..........
If we want to go back that far, then we should move both the Jews and Palestinians out of Israel/Palestine and find the Canaanites who were there before the Hebrews invaded and give it back to them. Or whomever the Canaanites took it over from.
But that's ludicrous, so we need to go back and find a point that both parties could have had some of what they wanted, as neither party can have all.
Sure, lets pick 1947 and give the entire area to the British. Or go further back and let Turkey have it. Or further back and give it to the Persians, or Greeks, or Egyptians, or Babylonians (I guess that'd be Iraq?). Or, as I said, lets find some Canaanites and give it all back to them.
The reason I say 1948 is the UN had a plan to give land to both sides. If you know a point that would be better and allow both sides to have their respective countries, please, tell me.
Businessman91Jan 20, 2012
This sounds like what the Chinese did to the Tibetans. The outnumber them 3 to 1 in their country
meowmaJan 21, 2012
Long live Palestine!!!!
badwetterJan 21, 2012
Good for Thailand.
auditortuxJan 20, 2012
So does this mean that Thailand would back Israel if it were to invade Palestine?
Funny, no one ever makes that connection. If Palestine is a state, its committing acts of war against Israel as Hamas, the elected government, is the one lobbing rockets into another sovereign nation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drunkclamJan 20, 2012
Just keep completely ignoring the fact that Israel has been illegally occupying Palestine for decades and the Palestinians are defending themselves.
auditortuxJan 20, 2012
Lets go with Israel occupying Palestine. Under what conditions is it okay for to target civilian populations?
And please let me know when this nation of Palestine declared itself... was it in 1948 when Britain set aside land for the Palestinian people?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boo1Jan 20, 2012
Please describe the method by which Israel came about, and exactly what happened to the inhabitants of the land they moved into.
auditortuxJan 20, 2012
The British, the legal, internationally-recognized owners of the land that would have become Israel and Palestine, gave the land to each group.
Palestine could have come into existence on that day. Instead, they joined the rest of the Arab world in trying to destroy Israel. They could have had their designated land on that day... and probably have changed the entire debate that day.
Unfortunately, they wanted all or nothing. They just didn't expect to get nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boo1Jan 20, 2012
Interesting legal manoeuvre. The British also legally owned America, India, Canada, and half the know world at various times.
What happened was mass Jewish immigration, into Palestine, during the 20's and 30's under the direct hand of the British, after the Balfour Declaration.
This created many lines of division amongst Arabs and Jews.
You see, Palestine was being "overseen" by the British. They were doing this because they defeated the Ottoman empire which Palestine was part of.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that after WWII, America decided that Germany should be given to the Native Indians of North America.
Though it may have been "legal" in terms of who won the war, It is disingenuous to say, that giving a country away, does not or should not have consequences.
It is not black and white..........
auditortuxJan 20, 2012
If we want to go back that far, then we should move both the Jews and Palestinians out of Israel/Palestine and find the Canaanites who were there before the Hebrews invaded and give it back to them. Or whomever the Canaanites took it over from.
But that's ludicrous, so we need to go back and find a point that both parties could have had some of what they wanted, as neither party can have all.
There was a declaration, approved by the UN but rejected by the Palestinians, that would have created Israel and Palestine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boo1Jan 20, 2012
So you are arbitrarily going back to a point in 1948?
What if we went back one day before that or is that straining your "get back" machine?
auditortuxJan 20, 2012
Sure, lets pick 1947 and give the entire area to the British. Or go further back and let Turkey have it. Or further back and give it to the Persians, or Greeks, or Egyptians, or Babylonians (I guess that'd be Iraq?). Or, as I said, lets find some Canaanites and give it all back to them.
The reason I say 1948 is the UN had a plan to give land to both sides. If you know a point that would be better and allow both sides to have their respective countries, please, tell me.