debosky:

Your assertion is equally ridiculous - since Gaza and the West Bank are no longer territorially contiguous with Jordan and Egypt, why should they be treated as the vanquished in a fight with an opponent that has long withrdawn (Egyptian and Jordanian forces)?

Territorially continguous? Leave blowing grammar to me.  

You are weakening your argument with every post. If states, like Germany and Japan, could lose their independent military capabilities, how much so non-states like the proposed Palestinian state.

Strictly speaking, the US taking over the newly formed Western Germany post WWII is apt here. There was no state of W.Germany prior to the war. Germany surrendered, would you now claim that since the people of West Germany did not surrender as a state, the US could not lay down the law there?

@debosky,

No parallel can be drawn that will be absolute in every sense. The issue is that the Palestinian situation is very unique and must be treated as such. Can you point to any nation in history that has gone thru the same evolution as this one? Absolutely not!

The overiding issue is this: "Is a military apparatus an  indispensable part of a nation"? The answer is obviously negative 'cos we have many countries today without a standing military. Isreal has every reason to be sceptical about a Palestinian military when the governing coalition does not believe in the right of Isreal to exist.  Isreal unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the territor became a rocket launching station against Isreal. Isreal will be stupid to not protect themselves against such in the future.

Ikomi:

If only you could read, I have mentioned to you that Germany and Japan were at war, they invaded other states and an agreement had to be exhumed from them that they would not and never invade other nations, which involved written there constitution by ailied forces. Still you agree that these same allied forces allowed them to have there own army at the time of writing this constitution, so what are you doing a round about for?

Germany/Japan were at war while Israel and the Palestinians were at peace? Are you a retard?

The first major war was the War of Independence. Who launched the invasion?

Still you agree that these same allied forces allowed them to have there own army at the time of writing this constitution, so what are you doing a round about for?

You are a slowpoke. They were allowed to have a small army in return for having hundreds of thousands of occupying foreign troops.

Lets see 2 scenarios:

1) Palestinian state has no army and no occupying forces

2) Germany has an army but a larger contingent of occupying forces

Why do you prefer one to the other?

4 Play:

Germany/Japan were at war while Israel and the Palestinians were at peace? Are you a retard?

The first major war was the War of Independence. Who launched the invasion?

These are the kind of questions that makes a student loose his/her placement in college, or Uni as a political science student.

Describe WWII and describe Middle East, if you come up with the same description then you know what your talking about.

Dont just use words, because you heard pple use it, find out the meaning. Retard, who does that word best describe between me and you?  

Ikomi:

These are the kind of questions that makes a student loose a his/her placement in college, or Uni as a political sicience student.

Describe WWII and describe Middle East, if you come up with the same description then you know what your talking about.
Dont just use words, because you heard pple use it, find out the meaning. Retard, who does that word best describe between me and you?

This man is the quintessential blithering idiot.

Difference between WWII and the Middle-East is that the former describes an event while the latter is a geographical region. What was your point again?

4 Play:

This man is the quintessential blithering idiot.

Difference between WWII and the Middle-East is that the former describes an event while the latter is a geographical region. What was your point again?

Kai 4Play, take it easy on this guy now!!!!

Considering that this is the same guy who refered to a Shiite as a member of a tribe, I am not totally taken aback by the non-existing parallel he is trying to draw.

@4 Play

You have clearly shown your stupidity.

When Hiroshima was bombed, the guy that launched the atomic bomb came back and said, if he knew that was the kind of destruction the bomb would cause, he would not fly that plane.

Then the makers of the atomic bomb replied that: "they made the bomb knowing that, if one nation knows the damage another could cause to it, by going to war, it would rather seek peace.

Thomas Hardy in his book, "the return of the natives" wrote:  "if you know the fight you would get by taken off another mans hat, you would rather leave it on"

Your are so stupid, the allied forces allowed the Germans and Japan have an army, knowing that, although they might be drafting their constitution, a breach of their right would be strongly defended.

Ikomi:

@4 Play

You have clearly shown your stupidity.

When Hiroshima was bombed, the guy that launched the atomic bomb came back and said, if he knew that was the kind of destruction the bomb would cause, he would not fly that plane.

Then the makers of the atomic bomb replied that: "they made the bomb knowing that, if one nation knows the damage another could cause to it, by going to war, it would rather seek peace.

Thomas Hardy in his book, "the return of the natives" wrote: "if you know the fight you would get by taken off another mans hat, you would rather leave it on"

Your are so stupid, the allied allowed the Germans and Japan have an army, knowing that, although they might be drafting their constitution, a breach of their right would be strongly defended.

Even people in a state of drunken stupor make more sense

4 Play:



Even people in a state of drunken stupor make more sense

A clear sign of lack of ideas

Tayo-D:


The overiding issue is this: "Is a military apparatus an  indispensable part of a nation"? The answer is obviously negative 'cos we have many countries today without a standing military. Isreal has every reason to be sceptical about a Palestinian military when the governing coalition does not believe in the right of Isreal to exist.  Isreal unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the territor became a rocket launching station against Isreal. Isreal will be stupid to not protect themselves against such in the future.

1. The decision to own an army should be left to the Palestinian people not Israel.

2. Israel has a right to be skeptical about a Palestinian Army just as Palestine has every right not to trust Israel with a demilitarized Palestine.

3. Unilateral withdrawal of Israel from seized lands is pure nonsense because this is akin to saying that an armed robber returned one of the 2 TVs he stole from you and expected kisses and cheers.

4. Yes, Israel has every right to protect itself just as every other country or nation or people including the people of Palestine.

4 Play:

Strictly speaking, the US taking over the newly formed Western Germany post WWII is apt here. There was no state of W.Germany prior to the war. Germany surrendered, would you now claim that since the people of West Germany did not surrender as a state, the US could not lay down the law there?

Were the people of the West Bank and Gaza ever Egyptian/Jordanian citizens? Why should they be treated as citizens of a defeated nation subject to the whims of their conquerors? Again, there is only a tenuous at best parallel between the WWII cases and the current situation.

Tayo-D:

@debosky,

No parallel can be drawn that will be absolute in every sense. The issue is that the Palestinian situation is very unique and must be treated as such. Can you point to any nation in history that has gone thru the same evolution as this one? Absolutely not!

This is exactly my point - it should be treated as unique, without using near diametrical opposite cases (WWII) as analogues.

The overiding issue is this: "Is a military apparatus an  indispensable part of a nation"? The answer is obviously negative 'cos we have many countries today without a standing military.

This is not the overriding issue - the issue is, who holds the right to determine if a military apparatus is an indispensable part of a nation? Nations exist without militaries, some exist without nuclear reactors, some exist without foreign affairs ministries. The crux of the matter is WHO does the determination.

Isreal has every reason to be sceptical about a Palestinian military when the governing coalition does not believe in the right of Isreal to exist.  

Scepticism is allowed, but not manipulation. The blockade of Gaza was intended to frustrate Hamas and empower Fatah, tantamount to interfering in a 'sovereign' nation's internal affairs.

Isreal unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and the territor became a rocket launching station against Isreal. Isreal will be stupid to not protect themselves against such in the future.

That protection is not predicated on Palestine not having an army - If Egypt with it's much larger and sophisticated army does not threaten Israel (even with their past wars) then the existence of an army CANNOT be used as a security justification.

One more thing to note - the forces of Japan and Germany used their forces to encroach on other nations' territory. The Palestinians have not done that. To draw a parallel with WWII is akin to saying France's army should be subjugated to the US because it (France) was invaded by Germany.

Were the people of the West Bank and Gaza ever Egyptian/Jordanian citizens? Why should they be treated as citizens of a defeated nation subject to the whims of their conquerors? Again, there is only a tenuous at best parallel between the WWII cases and the current situation

This is an inane point, argument for argument's sake.

You seem to suggest that Israel's claim to determine the future security arrangements in Gaza is undermined by Gazans' not having Egyptian passports. Israel's claims stem from having conquered Gaza, in the same way that the US's claim arose from having conquered W.Germany.

The facts are anything but exact, but the underlying principle is the same: that a state's military capability can be circumscribed by outsiders to limit the potential of future outbreaks of major conflict. All your sophomoric arguments about the lack of surrender/citizenship are besides the point.