Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation?

[J. J. Phillips]

The allied forces occupied Germany during WWII. This was an act of self defense, after Germany had started a war. As I pointed out, military occupation is a perfectly legitimate way to defend oneself. Had the Arabs not attacked Israel, multiple times, Israel would not have been forced to defend itself.

Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.

Absolutely right. I asked earlier:

Is Poland occupying Breslau?

The only person who responded as a Golden Dawn supporter with a modified swastika as his avatar. He said the wrong side won WW2. Very insightful.

Thanks for joining the thread. I've lost patience multiple times, but I keep coming back.

[1714633759]

1714633759

[1714633759]

1714633759

[1714633759]

1714633759

[1714633759]

1714633759

[lophie]

The allied forces occupied Germany during WWII. This was an act of self defense, after Germany had started a war. As I pointed out, military occupation is a perfectly legitimate way to defend oneself. Had the Arabs not attacked Israel, multiple times, Israel would not have been forced to defend itself.

Germany was also forced to hand over areas to other countries after WWII. The attacker lost land. But when Israel takes land from the attacker today, people are up in arms. This double standard is deeply troubling.

Absolutely right. I asked earlier:

Is Poland occupying Breslau?

The only person who responded as a Golden Dawn supporter with a modified swastika as his avatar. He said the wrong side won WW2. Very insightful.

Thanks for joining the thread. I've lost patience multiple times, but I keep coming back.

Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.

[J. J. Phillips]

Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.

Aw, that's all right. Sorry about blasting back. From now on, I'll maintain a cool rationality in all my posts. Well, maybe for the next few minutes.

[lophie]

Serious fair points. Thanks guys. I will think about that and read some more. Sorry for me blasting a couple of posts ago but you have to admit J. J. Phillips you were very condescending in that post man.

Aw, that's all right. Sorry about blasting back. From now on, I'll maintain a cool rationality in all my posts. Well, maybe for the next few minutes.

Well it is the nature of this discussion we are dealing with a very sensitive subject that many many people lost their lives over it

[saddampbuh]

Zionists aren't a people, but rather a movement working towards a homeland for the Jews. And they succeeded.

people who support zionism are zionists, its not difficult

Palestine was not someone else's country, but rather an area under British administration in the years before Israel was founded.

a territorys being under foreign colonial administration doesn't negate the rights of citizens of said territory. the british themselves recognised the rights of palestines non jewish population in the balfour declaration.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as the original inhabitants, as Palestine had a rather small population before the Jewish immigration started around 1900.

everyone living there, mostly non je ws

Yes, Arabs were expelled from Israel, but this was because of the war that several Arab countries started in an attempt to wipe out the newly founded state. As a matter of fact, there were about 50/50 Arabs and Jews in Israel originally. Had the Arabs not started the war, all those people would not have been refugees today.

arab population in what was to be israel was lower at 40ish% but whatever, that's still far too many to have a viable jewish state. like i told the other guy it was too high for the peel commission and its still too high in 2015. the idea jews were willing to live with such a huge arab population is some childish bullshit that used to appear in israeli school textbooks before benny morris came out with his book in the 80s and debunked it.

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

http://www.haaretz.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1.61345

As for defending themselves, do you really consider launching rockets at civilians a form of defense?

reciprocity. killing civilians to get an aggressor to stop killing your civilians is self defence.

This is not true. Israeli Arabs do have their full rights, and they also have laws protecting them as a minority. Furthermore, Arabic is an official language in Israel.

You can't expect Israel to give equal rights to foreigners, and no other state on earth does that.

one is not a foreigner in his own country but this is moot as the palestinians have all but given up on the right of return for refugees. the two options are one state with everyone having citizenship or two separate states. the current situation where the israelis get to control everything while denying half the people their rights and expropriates still more of their land from time to time when the world's attention is off them wont be allowed to continue indefinitely.

if you want don't want the jews to end up like the white rhodesians and south africans then you should be telling them to disengage from palestinian areas and build up their wall as high as they can.

Israel is a beacon of freedom and democracy in the area. Minorities are granted equal rights and protection under law. Arabic is even an official language in Israel. Individual rights are extremely important. For example, where else in the area would you expect to see homosexuals parading through the streets celebrating their sexual orientation as they do yearly in Tel Aviv? Comparing this to people from societies where freedom of speech is non-existent and where homosexuals are executed is quite a stretch!

The Jews in Palestine mostly settled down in areas where there weren't any existing inhabitants in the first place. Palestine was not a country of its own but rather just a rather big and rather empty area under different rulers. I'm not sure why you think Jews shouldn't be allowed to make use of freely available space in the middle of nowhere, where no one has laid any claims to the land in the first place.

this is mostly correct. the early zionist pioneers were peaceful and didn't displace anyone and actually created opportunities for arabs with their european technology and agriculture. everyone got along. it was only once it became clear the jewish leadership were making moves to create a separate state with a jewish majority inevitably leading to arab disenfranchisement that arabs started being uppity and rioting.

the arabs can burn your freedom of speech loving sodomites alive for all i care

What are these no-go areas for natives related to Israel, if I may ask?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdLDv8JNnMA
Army separator between Jews and Palestinians on a main street, Hebron 2015

[jaysabi]

Israel is a country. Palestine is not (and never was). Do people really want to argue that Palestine is an actual sovereign state?

This is a losing argument. You're trying to play semantics about what is a "country." If Palestine is not a country, then to which country does the land belong? If the land belongs to no other nation, and the people of that land organize their own government, hold elections, and have a self-identity as a nation, and appoint ambassadors who are received by the world governing body and other nations, is that not a de facto nation?

If de facto status- the fact that no one else claims the land is part of their country, and the people there have a functioning government which speaks for the people- isn't enough, how about diplomatic recognition? More nations on this planet than not have formally recognized Palestine as a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine

I say yes, Palestine should be regarded as a state. Only most of the western world tries to pretend otherwise, and the US has directly worked to prevent UN-recognition.

Take this argument at face value, I am not extending it beyond what I have wrote to make any arguments about Israel, or "occupation" by Israel, etc. I am only arguing that the semantic definition of a "country" is ridiculous given that Palestine functions as an country and the land is not claimed as part of another nation, and the US seems to be the only reason it's not recognized by the UN as a nation.

[jaysabi]

The only power the US has at the UN is the ability to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council (see Negroponte Doctrine).

In follow-up to my previous post, would just like to address this a little more. The US does have more influence than you let on. The US has been quite obstructionist in Palestine's attempts to gain international recognition.

On 22 November 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. It also recognised the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and accorded it observer status in the United Nations. The designation "Palestine" for the PLO was adopted by the United Nations in 1988 in acknowledgment of the Palestinian declaration of independence, but the proclaimed state still has no formal status within the system.

Shortly after the 1988 declaration, the State of Palestine was recognised by many developing states in Africa and Asia, and from communist and non-aligned states. At the time, however, the United States was using its Foreign Assistance Act and other measures to discourage other countries and international organisations from extending recognition. Although these measures were successful in many cases, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) immediately published statements of recognition of, support for, and solidarity with Palestine, which was accepted as a member state in both forums.

In February 1989 at the United Nations Security Council, the PLO representative acknowledged that 94 states had recognised the new Palestinian state. It subsequently attempted to gain membership as a state in several agencies connected to the United Nations, but its efforts were thwarted by U.S. threats to withhold funding from any organisation that admitted Palestine. For example, in April of the same year, the PLO applied for membership as a state in the World Health Organization, an application that failed to produce a result after the U.S. informed the organisation that it would withdraw funding if Palestine were admitted. In May, a group of OIC members submitted to UNESCO an application for membership on behalf of Palestine, and listed a total of 91 states that had recognised the State of Palestine.

In June 1989, the PLO submitted to the government of Switzerland letters of accession to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, Switzerland, as the depositary state, determined that because the question of Palestinian statehood had not been settled within the international community, it was therefore incapable of determining whether the letter constituted a valid instrument of accession.

Due to the incertainty [sic] within the international community as to the existence or the non-existence of a State of Palestine and as long as the issue has not been settled in an appropriate framework, the Swiss Government, in its capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, is not in a position to decide whether this communication can be considered as an instrument of accession in the sense of the relevant provisions of the Conventions and their additional Protocols.

Consequently, in November 1989, the Arab League proposed a General Assembly resolution to formally recognise the PLO as the government of an independent Palestinian state. The draft, however, was abandoned when the U.S. again threatened to cut off its financing for the United Nations should the vote go ahead. The Arab states agreed not to press the resolution, but demanded that the U.S. promise not to threaten the United Nations with financial sanctions again.

Many of the early statements of recognition of the State of Palestine were termed ambiguously. In addition, hesitation from others did not necessarily mean that these nations did not regard Palestine as a state. This has seemingly resulted in confusion regarding the number of states that have officially recognised the state declared in 1988. Numbers reported in the past are often conflicting, with figures as high as 130 being seen frequently. In July 2011, in an interview with Haaretz, Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour claimed that 122 states had so far extended formal recognition. At the end of the month, the PLO published a paper on why the world's governments should recognise the State of Palestine and listed the 122 countries that had already done so. By the end of September the same year, Mansour claimed the figure had reached 139.

Someone made a point earlier about the US "controlling the UN" or something along those lines, and you dismissed it. Perhaps controlling is too harsh a word, but influencing is not, and the US has been instrumental in influencing a lack of UN-recognition for Palestine as a state, even as a majority of the nations on this planet have recognized it.

[J. J. Phillips]

Someone made a point earlier about the US "controlling the UN" or something along those lines, and you dismissed it. Perhaps controlling is too harsh a word, but influencing is not, and the US has been instrumental in influencing a lack of UN-recognition for Palestine as a state, even as a majority of the nations on this planet have recognized it.

Yes, I think when I said "the only power the US has at the UN..." it was oversimplifying, especially in light of the examples you bring up. Your word "influence" seems appropriate. I'll propose two statements that I suspect most people will agree are true. (If I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.)

(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.

(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.

People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.

There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.

Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.

I haven't counted the countries that recognize a Palestinian state, but I expect you're right that it is a majority (both in terms of number of countries and counted by population). It's not surprising. A huge part of the world is Muslim and they have their own motivations. (The Muslim world also has the numerical advantage in places like the UN since they have many different distinct states.) Among the rest of the world there is either a history of Jew-hatred, antipathy towards the US, or both.

Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.

I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.

I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.

[jaysabi]

Someone made a point earlier about the US "controlling the UN" or something along those lines, and you dismissed it. Perhaps controlling is too harsh a word, but influencing is not, and the US has been instrumental in influencing a lack of UN-recognition for Palestine as a state, even as a majority of the nations on this planet have recognized it.

Yes, I think when I said "the only power the US has at the UN..." it was oversimplifying, especially in light of the examples you bring up. Your word "influence" seems appropriate. I'll propose two statements that I suspect most people will agree are true. (If I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.)

(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.

(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.

People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.

There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.

Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.

I haven't counted the countries that recognize a Palestinian state, but I expect you're right that it is a majority (both in terms of number of countries and counted by population). It's not surprising. A huge part of the world is Muslim and they have their own motivations. (The Muslim world also has the numerical advantage in places like the UN since they have many different distinct states.) Among the rest of the world there is either a history of Jew-hatred, antipathy towards the US, or both.

Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.

I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.

I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.

Yes, I agree with both the statements you open with.

The semantics discussion about what constitutes a country is interesting to me (logically), but largely meaningless. The same way the US declared independence, so too did the Confederate States. The only difference is whether the newly declared independents won their revolutionary war. If the Confederate States had won, they would have been an independent nation. Before they were defeated, I would argue they were as well, though what does this really matter? The US teaches they never were, that the Union was preserved. But they had their own government and all the functioning of a de facto state, and had declared their independence from another country. They just lost their war. Interestingly, Texas did the same thing: declared independence from Mexico, and the US government diplomatically recognized it as an independent nation for the purpose of sending military aid. That was the US entrance into the Mexican-American war. Texans are proud of the fact that they were the only state to be their own country, but functionally, how much of a nation were they ever really? It was a diplomatic ploy to go to war with Mexico for more land; in my book entirely "technical" and yet their declaration of independence is regarded as legitimately creating a new nation, whereas the Confederate States' declaration is not. Has to do with who won the following wars. On that note, Palestinians have declared independence, but there was no war fought to enforce the declaration, and no war by Israel to deny it. So these other comparisons don't translate exactly. It's an interesting semantic gray area, but ultimately, what does it matter? The bottom line to me is that Palestinian representation in the UN presents political problems for Israel, and that's why Palestine isn't formally recognized by the UN, despite functioning as a state anyway and being recognized by a majority of the world (not merely Muslim nations, either, btw):

 

I do want to vehemently disagree with the prospect of a global referendum for the extermination of anybody passing. I see a very large disconnect in the amount of Jew Hatred I believe exists in the world and the amount you seem to represent as existing in the world. I don't believe the majority of any population would support the systematic murder of innocents. There is a lot of hatred in the world, no doubt. But people are, on balance, more good than bad. And there are more good people than bad as well.

-->This is a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's relevant and important. People have a natural instinct to avoid killing other people. There are outliers (clinically, psychopaths), but we are naturally born with the instinct not to kill other people, as is almost every species on the planet born with a natural instinct not to kill its own kind. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a soldier and a psychologist, published a book called On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932). It's a fascinating read. It details the history of firing rates in various US wars dating back to the Civil War. What the military has found is that the firing rate (the rate at which soldiers would fire at enemy soldiers) was surprisingly low. I think it was 25% in the Civil War. Many soldiers would intentionally fire over the heads of the enemy so it would look like they were doing something, but also so they wouldn't have to kill anybody. This was supported by commonly finding rifles that were loaded with 16 or more bullets on the battlefields post-battle. Remember, this was a time when 99% of the time was spent loading the single-shot rifle, and 1% firing. So men would continuously go through the motions of loading the rifle and never fire them to look like they were participating. (Conscientious objectors wasn't a thing back then, people who refused the draft were shot for cowardice.) When one side would retreat, they would just abandon the overloaded rifles, which were couldn't be fired anyway. It was far too common an occurrence to be the case that a couple of soldiers were confused in the heat of battle and overloaded their rifle. The most logical conclusion was it was a deliberate stalling tactic to avoid killing anyone.

-->When the military identified the low firing rate as a problem, it sought correct the behavior to make more effective soldiers, but despite changes to training, the firing rates did not improve as late as WWI, where it was still estimated to be around 25% of soldiers attempting to hit any enemy soldiers. After WWI, the army's tactics started incorporating psychological study and tactics to desensitize soldiers to killing. And that's largely what military training is about to this day, overcoming the natural instinct not to kill through desensitivity training. By WWII, firing rates were up to 50%, and by Vietnam I think it was 90%. Grossman's point though is that in Vietnam, you start to see collateral damage of desensitized soldiers (My Lai Massacre, etc.) and today, there are societal costs of desensitizing soldiers to killing. Soldiers rejoin society, and this has ripple effects for the society at large and he provides data to support the claim that domestic violence rises as soldiers come home. Further problematic, many of the desensitivity techniques the military uses are inadvertently replicated by the news, or Hollywood, or video games, and these have further effects. (The book is really fascinating, I highly recommend it.)

All of that is a lot of background for my main point: people are generally good, and will not condone murder and killing, but over very long periods of time and under very harsh living circumstances, people become desensitized to it and to violence. If you think about the people with political power in Palestine, preaching to the abject poor that the only way to bring about change is through violence and to defend yourself from the aggressors who have taken your land, smashed your houses, killed your neighbors, and these are the things you personally witness all the time... I do not find it surprising that the message of violence resonates so strongly where sensitivity to killing has been so diminished.

That's not at all to justify it. If these people had any interest in using the poor as anything other than an instrument to protect their own political power, they would teach peace, but I think you have to look at the political aspect to derive the motivation. The leaders of the PLO for so long have sought to maintain their positions of power as much establish a Palestinian state, and in order to remain in power, you have to have popular support, and the easiest way to have it there is to marshal the hatred and victim-hood that so many people feel.

And I think the same is true on the Israeli side. There are enough fundamentalists (the policy "hawks") on that side politicians have to appease to stay in power that peace is never a serious consideration. Look how Netanyahu pandered to them before the last election when he said there would never be a two-state solution with him in power, and then he backed off that statement once he won reelection. That's just an indication that on both sides there is popular support not to have peace, and the politicians pander to this for their own gain instead of leading. It has to start at the top, and the leaders have to stop the violence, and ostracize people who call for violence. I think much credit could be established by Palestinians if they establish a proper police and court system and start going after people who fire rockets into Israel like a proper damn crime, but just the notion of how ridiculous that sounds tells you how far away we are from peace. How desensitized this area of the world is to violence.

I've written a lot more than I thought I was gonna, but just my last note: no way Obama recognizes Palestine. It would doom the next democrat running for President, and that's the only consideration that ultimately matters because fucking politics.

[abyrnes81]

Yes, I think when I said "the only power the US has at the UN..." it was oversimplifying, especially in light of the examples you bring up. Your word "influence" seems appropriate. I'll propose two statements that I suspect most people will agree are true. (If I'm wrong, feel free to chime in.)

(USIUN) The US has more influence on the UN than most other countries.

(USUNI) The US sometimes uses its influence at the UN to help Israel.

People are free to think these are good or bad things, of course, I'm just saying it might be two points we at least agree are true.

There was the embryo of a discussion a few pages ago about whether or not Palestine was a "country" when under British rule after WW1. Some people here think it was, and I think it wasn't. I said it wasn't because it was never under autonomous self-rule. Arguably it's more under autonomous self-rule now than it has ever been. I'm not sure of a criteria that counts the Palestine under British rule as a country, but doesn't, for example, count Kurdistan as a country.

Fun questions to play with your definition of "country": Was the Confederate States of America a country in the early 1860s? Is it now an occupied country? It depends on who you ask, of course, and I'm sure it can start some fights if asked in the right (wrong?) saloons.

There are a lot of state help Israel, but when someone wants to help Palestine they is stopped : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid

I haven't counted the countries that recognize a Palestinian state, but I expect you're right that it is a majority (both in terms of number of countries and counted by population). It's not surprising. A huge part of the world is Muslim and they have their own motivations. (The Muslim world also has the numerical advantage in places like the UN since they have many different distinct states.) Among the rest of the world there is either a history of Jew-hatred, antipathy towards the US, or both.

Frankly, I suspect if we could have a worldwide referendum with the simple question: "Should the Jews be exterminated?" It would probably pass. That doesn't make me more comfortable with the idea.

I'm curious how people think the situation would change if a Palestinian state were to be recognized by the UN. Do they think rockets would stop being fired into Israel? Do they think Israel would stop responding? Israel responds to Syria (or its proxies in southern Lebanon) when they attack Israel. Would Israel let weapons flow freely into Gaza? It doesn't seem like it would change much.

I've heard rumours that Obama might recognize a Palestinian state before leaving office. If so, maybe we'll find out if anything would change.

If the Palestinian state (which state?) will be recognized by the UN I think a lot of things will change.

[J. J. Phillips]

There are a lot of state help Israel, but when someone wants to help Palestine they is stopped : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid

The flotilla raid happened because Israel (and to some extent Egypt) are controlling what enters Gaza to try to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. The explicit purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade. More than one ship was raided. The only one where people were killed was the one where the people fought. Quoting from the wikipedia article you cited:

"The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident."

However, I think it's not quite true to say that groups are stopped when they want to help the people in the Palestinian territories:

"Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians

It's several billion dollars worth of aid each year. Most of this aid comes from Europe.

If the Palestinian state (which state?) will be recognized by the UN I think a lot of things will change.

If you think a lot of things will change, then it should be easy for you to give two or three specific examples of things that will change.

[bryant.coleman]

The flotilla raid happened because Israel (and to some extent Egypt) are controlling what enters Gaza to try to prevent weapons from being smuggled into Gaza. The explicit purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade. More than one ship was raided. The only one where people were killed was the one where the people fought.

The United Nations should control the maritime area around the Gaza Strip. It should be their responsibility to prevent weapons from being smuggled in to Gaza. Israel should be kept out of that part of the world.

[Beliathon]

I think religion has absolutely no place in a world in which the atom can be split and viruses can be crafted. There is no room for superstition in the twenty first century, no room at all.

We are the gods of life and death now, the sole steward species of Earth, and we ought to take that power - that responsibility - very seriously. Real gods shouldn't worship false gods, it's a piss-poor excuse to behave like barbarians.

[Muhammed Zakir]

We are the gods of life and death now,

I am not telling you to pray God or something but just asking a question:

If you think humans are gods of life and death, can you predict an exact time of a death or birth?

[ahmedjadoon]

United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.

[redsn0w]

We are the gods of life and death now,

I am not telling you to pray God or something but just asking a question:

If you think humans are gods of life and death, can you predict an exact time of a death or birth?

Please guy, can we stay on topic? However thanks for your opinion but keep off the religion question of this thread . I want to discuss about the political side/view.

United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.

This is obvious, if they want to help Palestine who can stop them? The problem is they don't want "at all" help the Palestinian people.

[jaysabi]

Beliathon's response isn't really off topic. I see his point as being that so much of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is tied up in religious aspects, and when you look at it through that lens, it's completely on topic. It would be easier to solve the land dispute if people didn't believe in an afterlife, because they might be more ready to accept that you get one life and we have to learn to live together, because there are no second chances to live better next time.

[bryant.coleman]

United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.

Unless the VETO facility is removed from the superpowers, UN will remain as a toothless organization. Why we should consider five nations to be superior to the remaining world nations?

[Muhammed Zakir]

United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.

Unless the VETO facility is removed from the superpowers, UN will remain as a toothless organization. Why we should consider five nations to be superior to the remaining world nations?

Probably, money.

[redsn0w]

United Nations serve the needs of a few countries only.It's useless.

Unless the VETO facility is removed from the superpowers, UN will remain as a toothless organization. Why we should consider five nations to be superior to the remaining world nations?

Probably, money.

Hmmm I do not think it is only a question of money but I agree with bryant.coleman, why is it needed this VETO? We can't call it a democracy vote where 1 nation = 1 vote but if one (or more) of those 5 nations will express the VETO, it can block everything ( this is really insane).