Israel announces largest seizure of Palestinian land in the past 30 years

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I knew this would come up. It's also the equivalent of the Vatican seizing a hop Scotch game. It's completely irrelevant what size in a bigger country. It's still 4 square kilometres. The land seizure is the bigger issue. No one uses hectares. They only used 400 hectares because it sends bigger, that's the issue I have.

Why use hectares?

Because of it's smaller size, it is more commonly used in association with land measurements.

Using Kilometres is like counting money in Millions.

"Well, I see you have .0024 million dollars in your account..."

Why not just use...dollars?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Because of it's smaller size, it is more commonly used in association with land measurements.

Using Kilometres is like counting money in Millions.

"Well, I see you have .0024 million dollars in your account..."

Why not just use...dollars?

When we're discussing countries we do use millions and billions. Sorry, but I don't buy what you're selling

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

When we're discussing countries we do use millions and billions. Sorry, but I don't buy what you're selling

I think that says more about you than me.

The provincial and federal governments use hectares.

http://data.alberta.ca/data/hectares...season-alberta

Hectares is the appropriate measurement to use to quantify land area.

Kilometres is a linear measurement unless squared or cubed.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think that says more about you than me.

The provincial and federal governments use hectares.

http://data.alberta.ca/data/hectares...season-alberta

Hectares is the appropriate measurement to use to quantify land area.

Kilometres is a linear measurement unless squared or cubed.

Square kilometres is what I was clearly talking about seeing as that is what I said.

Hectares is used to communicate size of wild fires. That's all relevant. The Crimea is 2700000 hectares big!

[Flash Walken]

So you're more outraged by the completely legitimate measurement, which is actually more accurate than what you would propose, than you are by an illegal seizure of land from a country that has claimed that they've stopped building illegal settlements which provoke violent resistance.

Ok then.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So you're more outraged by the completely legitimate measurement, which is actually more accurate than what you would propose, than you are by an illegal seizure of land from a country that has claimed that they've stopped building illegal settlements which provoke violent resistance.

Ok then.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

There's more than enough to show how Israel is bullying their way through the Palestinian problem without resorting to hyperbolic headlines. Jeezus

Reading comprehension much? Honest question, do you argue in every thread for enjoyment or to change the world?


/derailment.

Ignored

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Why use hectares?

Every journalism organization has a style guide that governs which units of measurement to use when reporting on a story. It would appear, based on a quick search of Google News, that the BBC always expresses land area using hectares. There's no conspiracy here.

Examples:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12541465
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27857337
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28003435
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28954177

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Every journalism organization has a style guide that governs which units of measurement to use when reporting on a story. It would appear, based on a quick search of Google News, that the BBC always expresses land area using hectares. There's no conspiracy here.

Examples:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12541465
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27857337
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28003435
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28954177

That's reasonable

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

So, the 2000 + dead Palestinians aren't enough, Israel also has the right to build in the West Bank (where Hamas is not the gov't)? If that's the punishment for 3 children, I wonder how Israel would react if someone did to Israel what it does to the Palestinians.

Firstly, there are a few things going on here:

1) The site of the land grab was actually the site of a Jewish town that was demolished in 1949. The town had undergone a series of riots and militant attacks that killed hundreds of civilians before the Jordanian government demolished the town entirely. This land can hardly be claimed as some ancestral land. I also don't see why it being under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967 makes it forever Arab land.


2) It was not Israel's goal to kill any civilians. The civilian deaths accomplished nothing. Israel's goal was for Hamas to stop attacking them. When people use civilian deaths as a talking point for their side (Hamas does this) it forces Israel to claim victories in other ways.

I'm not a fan of this move at all. However, you can't talk about it likes it happening in a vacuum. The withdrawal of settlements is part of a peace process. When one side does not play the game, Israel can't back down. That's unfortunately the way dealing with a group like Hamas works. You have to strong arm them, because every concession you make only encourages them.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly, there are a few things going on here:

1) The site of the land grab was actually the site of a Jewish town that was demolished in 1949. The town had undergone a series of riots and militant attacks that killed hundreds of civilians before the Jordanian government demolished the town entirely. This land can hardly be claimed as some ancestral land. I also don't see why it being under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967 makes it forever Arab land.

*citation needed.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm not a fan of this move at all. However, you can't talk about it likes it happening in a vacuum. The withdrawal of settlements is part of a peace process. When one side does not play the game, Israel can't back down. That's unfortunately the way dealing with a group like Hamas works. You have to strong arm them, because every concession you make only encourages them.

concession |kənˈseSHən|
noun
1 a thing that is granted, esp. in response to demands; a thing conceded; or, in this case: not conceding something that isn't yours.


As always, language is important.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

concession |kənˈseSHən|
noun
1 a thing that is granted, esp. in response to demands; a thing conceded; or, in this case: not conceding something that isn't yours.


As always, language is important.

I think this is the problem to begin with. The idea that all of the land is owned by the Palestinians to begin with is simply false and devoid of all history. If you want to ignore the history of the region and start the clock at 1967, then yes you are going to a see the Israelis just taking someone's land.

Edit: This is also particularly true of the land around East Jerusalem, which this is. The history of Jewish massacres in Jerusalem is consistent and goes back hundreds of years before ultimately culminating in Arab forces totally destroying the Jewish communities in and around East Jerusalem in 1949.

[Manhattanboy]

Great, so each time Israel does something with which the Hamas apologists on this board disagree we will have a new thread with a dramatic title.

I could not find their thread (after no internal Palestinian investigation) HAMAS TERRORISTS ADMIT KIDNAPPING AND MURDERING THREE ISRAELI TEENS.

And this is not Palestinian land by the way.

[Itse]

How on earth does Israeli grabbing Palestine land have something to do with Hamas apologism?

Also, all land is someone else's land when you go back in time, that's such a stupid argument.

In any case, it's pretty clear Israel is deliberately being provocative here. There's no reason why they would do it so so quickly after a ceasefire otherwise.

This leaves Hamas with two options: do nothing. Fine with Israel. Strike back, in which case Israel can say they broke the ceasefire. In the mean time, they will, again, keep "listening to" but completely ignoring attempts to settle the matter diplomatically. If the ceasefire lasts, they'll go back to killing people as "police actions" and "fight against terrorism".

We've seen this film. The amount of mindbending people do to keep telling themselves that what Israel is doing is not seriously ####ed up is simply beyond me.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is the problem to begin with. The idea that all of the land is owned by the Palestinians to begin with is simply false and devoid of all history. If you want to ignore the history of the region and start the clock at 1967, then yes you are going to a see the Israelis just taking someone's land.

Edit: This is also particularly true of the land around East Jerusalem, which this is. The history of Jewish massacres in Jerusalem is consistent and goes back hundreds of years before ultimately culminating in Arab forces totally destroying the Jewish communities in and around East Jerusalem in 1949.

Still waiting for citation.

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is the problem to begin with. The idea that all of the land is owned by the Palestinians to begin with is simply false and devoid of all history. If you want to ignore the history of the region and start the clock at 1967, then yes you are going to a see the Israelis just taking someone's land.

So everyone else is wrong,the UN Security council, the UN general assembly, the International Court of Justice, and 99.9 % of the countries of the world-all who consider these settlements illegal. Everyone is wrong but Israel regarding these settlements. Got it.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think this is the problem to begin with. The idea that all of the land is owned by the Palestinians to begin with is simply false and devoid of all history. If you want to ignore the history of the region and start the clock at 1967, then yes you are going to a see the Israelis just taking someone's land.

Edit: This is also particularly true of the land around East Jerusalem, which this is. The history of Jewish massacres in Jerusalem is consistent and goes back hundreds of years before ultimately culminating in Arab forces totally destroying the Jewish communities in and around East Jerusalem in 1949.

You're simply making a might makes right argument, with flimsy rationalizations.

Might makes right is a morally vacuous way to go about life. Of all countries and societies, Israel should be aghast at any type of might makes right rationalization.

This type of hypocrisy is simply rooted in tribalism, and an inability to value all innocent human lives equally.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Great, so each time Israel does something with which the Hamas apologists on this board disagree we will have a new thread with a dramatic title.

I could not find their thread (after no internal Palestinian investigation) HAMAS TERRORISTS ADMIT KIDNAPPING AND MURDERING THREE ISRAELI TEENS.

And this is not Palestinian land by the way.

The previous thread discussing the conflict, including the kidnapping is locked. Starting a new thread with a completely accurate title was the only option.

And for the record, I'm in no way a Hamas apologist; I'm an advocate of each side being held accountable for their stupidity, belligerence, etc.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by T@T

This what?

As in, "is this the picture you tried but failed to link to?"

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Mike F

As in, "is this the picture you tried but failed to link to?"

Oh, it was working when I posted it..thx.