58
   

Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 30 Nov, 2020 03:11 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
The Palestinians and their demented supporters always falsely accuse Israel of imaginary war crimes.

If the Palestinians didn't run around trying to murder innocent Israelis, Israel wouldn't need to protect themselves against them.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 08:13 pm
@Robert Gentel,
No I cannot. The image link is dead.

But I understand the picture you are talking about. Israel only appropriates Israel.

Quote:
The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, 3 but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

4 “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

5 David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! 6 He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”


Israel only has Israel. What the Muslims call "Palestine." Israel loves its land like a daughter. It has not had sovereignty over its own country for centuries.

Islam has Saudi Arabia,Yemen, Qatar, Syria, Pakistan, and a bunch of others. Yet it wants to take Israel and has no pity.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 09:42 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Religious mythology, and bigotry are poor justifications for the oppression of a people.

One state, pluralistic and egalitarian, in Palestine for all of the peoples therein.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 09:45 pm
@InfraBlue,
Telling Palestinians that they can't have anymore land until they make peace is hardly oppression.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 10:42 am
The Israeli Feminist Trying to Save Liberal Zionism

Quote:
When Merav Michaeli, a pathbreaking feminist, was elected head of Israel’s Labor Party in January, some people offered her condolences. Labor was once Israel’s governing party, the home of many of the country’s iconic leaders: David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin. It ruled continuously from Israel’s founding in 1948 until 1977, and then a few more times after that.

But since the second Palestinian intifada in 2000, which for many Israelis discredited the country’s peace camp, the Israeli left has collapsed. Because of its politicians’ inability to form a stable government, the country is about to hold its fourth elections in two years, and in January polls showed that, for the first time, Labor might fail to meet the threshold to win any seats at all in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. For a party that once seemed to define Israel itself — especially to liberal diaspora Jews — it’s been an almost inconceivable fall.

There’s a phenomenon in business and politics called the glass cliff, in which organizations in crisis turn to female leaders. That seems to be how Michaeli, a former journalist who once gave a talk titled “Cancel Marriage” at an Israeli TEDx conference, became Labor’s leader.

“Welcome to the Worst Job in Israeli Politics, Merav Michaeli,” said a headline in the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Her victory, wrote Anshel Pfeffer, doesn’t “so much reflect Michaeli’s popularity — she ran against six virtually unknown candidates — but the fact that no other politician wants to be remembered as the leader under whose watch Labor failed to get into the Knesset altogether.”

But after Michaeli won, something unexpected happened. Labor’s poll numbers ticked up, and it’s now expected to capture six or seven seats when the country votes on March 23.

“She’s the best thing that’s happened to Labor in recent years,” Dahlia Scheindlin, a pollster and political analyst in Israel, told me. She described Michaeli, a former journalist once known for her campaign to make Hebrew, a highly gendered language, more gender inclusive, as “avant-garde.” Scheindlin added, “She has a backbone, and she’s not just blowing in the wind.”

Labor’s last leader, Amir Peretz, was the opposite. In 2019, he swore he would never join a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, shaving his famous mustache so Israelis could better “read his lips” on the matter. The next year, he went back on his pledge, bringing Labor into Netanyahu’s unity government.

Even as her party joined the ruling coalition, Michaeli insisted on remaining part of the opposition, making her, as The Times of Israel wrote, “a bizarre sort of one-woman opposition to the coalition from within.” Once in charge, she pulled Labor out of the government. The party’s improving fortunes suggest that taking a stand against Netanyahu has paid off.

Now, six or seven seats still isn’t much, given Labor’s former dominance. (Netanyahu’s Likud currently holds 36 seats, followed by 33 seats for the centrist Blue and White party.) A party led by an avant-garde figure might seem, almost by definition, to have limited mainstream appeal. But after rescuing Labor from oblivion, Michaeli is convinced she can restore it. “I am here because this is my project — to turn it back into a ruling party,” Michaeli told me.

I first met Michaeli in 2009, when she was still a journalist. As she remembers it, it was at a party in New York before the first convention of J Street, the liberal pro-Israel group. At the time, she said, Israelis knew only two kinds of American Jews — those with right-wing views on Israel, and those who were indifferent. She wrote a newspaper column about progressive American Jews who cared about Israel’s future. Her editor, she said, told her that she had no idea what she was talking about, and never ran it.

J Street would eventually turn into a force in the Democratic Party. But as Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians has grown ever more entrenched, many progressive Jews, myself included, have become skeptical about the future of liberal Zionism. I’d love to believe that Michaeli could do what she’s promising, creating a socially democratic Israel committed to a just resolution of the Palestinian conflict. But I see plenty of reason for doubt.

Right now, Israeli politics is mostly a contest between different right-wing factions. Seeking to cling to power, Netanyahu, on trial for corruption, has struck a vote-sharing deal with the Religious Zionist Party, which includes what The Times of Israel called “Israel’s most extremist and openly racist Jewish political movement,” Otzma Yehudit. (One of Otzma Yehudit’s leaders, the paper reports, holds an annual “commemoration party” at the grave of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians in 1994.)

Netanyahu’s main rival, Gideon Saar, was once his protégé, and is in some ways even more conservative. And unlike in America, young people in Israel are to the right of older generations; according to data from the Israel Democracy Institute, 69.9 percent of Jewish Israelis ages 18 to 24 describe themselves as right-wing. It’s hard to see where support for a liberal revival could come from.

But Michaeli argues that, as in the United States — where liberal economic policies are often popular even with self-described conservatives — there is a gap between people’s issue preferences and their political identity.

“There is actually a majority in Israel that wants what we are offering,” she said. “People want socially democratic positions on the economy and society. People want a welfare state. People want pluralism, they want equality.”

She’s convinced that there remains a large constituency for a two-state solution, at least in principle. “Of course there is a huge majority that does not believe it is achievable,” she said.

That’s true not only in Israel, and not only on the right. The inexorable growth of Israel’s occupation, and the increasing power of those in Israel calling for outright annexation of Palestinian lands, can make it hard to believe that a two-state solution is still viable. If it isn’t, neither is Israeli democracy, unless and until the country is prepared to give equal rights to the Palestinians it rules. For years, it’s been a truism to say that Israel is approaching the point where it can be Jewish or democratic, but not both. It’s possible that, as much as liberal Zionists don’t want to admit it, that point has been crossed.

So I asked Michaeli why American Jews committed to liberal democracy should still feel connected to Israel. She grew vehement, saying that the experience of living under Donald Trump should redouble our empathy for Israel’s embattled progressives.

Michaeli’s first four years in the Knesset coincided with Barack Obama’s second term. “I spent those four years being attacked by liberal American Jews for failing to replace Netanyahu, failing to be an effective opposition,” she said. She grew deeply frustrated trying to explain the near impossibility of constraining a demagogue.

“And then when Donald Trump was elected, I was devastated, but at the same time, I said to my friends, ‘Welcome to our lives,’” she said. “Now you will understand us better, because you felt the same — it’s the way your life changes. All of the sudden your president becomes your life, and your jaw drops 10 times a day, and you experience how a scandal happens every 10 minutes and everybody becomes numb, and you run out of words to express how horrible things are.” With Trump, she said, “I thought that my American liberal friends will at last understand what we have been up against all this time.”

Instead, Michaeli feels that some liberal American Jews are giving up on their Israeli peers. “Don’t you get that we need you and you need us?” she asked. “You need us, because as long as Israel, which used to be a true democracy, and is half of the Jewish people, is under such threat, you need us to get over this as much as we need you to be able to strengthen your democracy.”

She insists, however hard it is to imagine now, that a two-state solution is still within reach. “It has to happen,” said Michaeli. “I’m convinced that it will, eventually.”

“Really?” I asked.

“Yeah, of course,” she said. “Listen, I brought Labor back almost from the dead.”


I find that article interesting, in that it explained to me the Israeli government better, I didn't understand how their system of government is set up. I think I have a better grasp now.

Having said that, from a purely logical point of view, I don't understand how a two state solution would ever conceivably work, nor a one state solution for that matter. But I hope smarter heads someday come to a solution.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 10:49 am
@revelette3,
Although Israel has a president, they’re mainly a figurehead, like the UK real power lies with the prime minister.

Government is based on who has a parliamentary majority. Israel has PR and many parties so no single party can form a government, all rely on some form of coalition with other parties.
revelette3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 11:14 am
@izzythepush,
Yes, that is what I gathered from reading the piece. It's an interesting way to set up a government. I think it would be a nightmare here, we have enough partisan fights with two parties.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 12:01 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
It's an interesting way to set up a government. I think it would be a nightmare here, we have enough partisan fights with two parties.
Well, but that's how many governments work - all in parliamentary republics.

Like in Israel in Germany (and similar in many other countries, the parliament (Bundestag) elects the Federal Chancellor (after nomination from the President of Germany), who then forms the Cabinet. (We've got a coalition government of Conservatives [CDU/CSU] and Social-Democrats [SPD])
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 01:00 pm
@revelette3,
New York Times wrote:
She's convinced that there remains a large constituency for a two-state solution, at least in principle.

Well, yes. But....


New York Times wrote:
"Of course there is a huge majority that does not believe it is achievable," she said.

Exactly. There is nothing anyone can do about the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace.


New York Times wrote:
That's true not only in Israel, and not only on the right. The inexorable growth of Israel's occupation, and the increasing power of those in Israel calling for outright annexation of Palestinian lands, can make it hard to believe that a two-state solution is still viable.

Wrong. Palestinian refusal to make peace is what derails a two-state solution.


New York Times wrote:
She insists, however hard it is to imagine now, that a two-state solution is still within reach. "It has to happen," said Michaeli. "I'm convinced that it will, eventually."
"Really?" I asked.
"Yeah, of course," she said. "Listen, I brought Labor back almost from the dead."

Raising the dead may be an easier task than getting the Palestinians to accept peace.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 01:09 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I have had that explained to me several times, but I guess it being just technical terms, I couldn't really picture how it worked out. The following made it clearer for me.

Quote:
Now, six or seven seats still isn’t much, given Labor’s former dominance. (Netanyahu’s Likud currently holds 36 seats, followed by 33 seats for the centrist Blue and White party.) A party led by an avant-garde figure might seem, almost by definition, to have limited mainstream appeal. But after rescuing Labor from oblivion, Michaeli is convinced she can restore it. “I am here because this is my project — to turn it back into a ruling party,” Michaeli told me.


Like right now in comparison either our Pelosi or Schumer would be like Netanyahu?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 01:14 pm
@revelette3,
If we had a parliamentary system, Mrs. Pelosi would be our prime minister.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 02:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
If we had a parliamentary system, Mrs. Pelosi would be our prime minister.
Perhaps, if elected.
Otherwise, she would be (similar to what she is): parliamentary group chairwoman.

revelette3 wrote:
Like right now in comparison either our Pelosi or Schumer would be like Netanyahu?
No.
Netanyahu is head of the government (cabinet).
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 02:07 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
If we had a parliamentary system, Mrs. Pelosi would be elected Prime Minister.

I think you misunderstood Revelette's question. I think she was trying to confirm that if the US had a parliamentary system, a Congressional leader would be the head of our government.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 02:15 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I think you misunderstood Revelette's question. I think she was trying to confirm that if the US had a parliamentary system, a Congressional leader would be the head of our government.
That's what I understood.
In a parliamentary system, the leader of a party's parliamentary group is never the head of the government.

Edit:
Quote:
In many countries, the position of leader of a political party (that is, the organisational leader) and leader of a parliamentary group are separate positions, and while they are often held by the same person,[1] this is not always or automatically the case. If the party leader is a member of the government, holds a different political office outside the parliamentary body in question, or no political office at all, the position of parliamentary leader is frequently held by a different person.[2]

In English, the leader may be referred to as a "parliamentary chairman", "group leader"[3] or simply "parliamentary leader", among other names.
wikipedia
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2021 03:30 pm
@revelette3,
The only reason one state wouldn't work is because the extremists there are in control of the situation.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2021 09:42 am
Quote:
Understanding Israel’s Latest Attack on Gaza — And Who Benefits

( Foreign Policy in Focus) – “Both sides need to de-escalate.”

“No one benefits from this. ”

You’ll hear a lot of statements like that from pundits, elected officials, government spokespeople, and mainstream media anytime there’s violence in Israel-Palestine.

In the last few days, Israeli war planes, armed drones, and artillery mounted on tanks have killed more than 119 Palestinians in the besieged and blockaded Gaza Strip. Thirty-one of them were children. Rocket fire from Gaza left eight Israelis, including one child dead.

It’s easy to say no one benefits. But it’s not true.

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has a whole lot to gain from this assault — among other things, it may keep him out of jail. More broadly, Israel’s strategic military planners have been waiting for another attack on Gaza. And for Israel’s arms manufacturers, assaulting Gaza is what the leading Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz has called “a cash cow.”

A Series of Provocations
It’s important to understand the specific factors that led to the current escalation in Israel’s horrific air war against Gaza.

The Hamas rocket fire that began on May 10 did not come out of nowhere. It was a response to Israeli police and settler attacks against Palestinians in Jerusalem, indeed across much of the West Bank as well.

Those attacks included demolitions to force Palestinians out of their homes and the continuing threat of eviction for families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of occupied East Jerusalem. They included police denying Palestinians access to the steps of the Damascus Gate of the Old City, their traditional gathering place to share iftar (sunset) meals during the fasting month of Ramadan.

And they included the deliberate provocation — not only to Palestinians but to Muslims everywhere — of Israeli police raiding the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in all of Islam, shooting stun grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets at worshipers at morning prayer in and around the mosque.

Meanwhile, given the experience of Gaza’s 2 million people — half of whom are children and around three-quarters of whom are refugees, who have lived through 14 years of a crippling Israeli blockade of the over-crowded, impoverished strip — it was hardly a surprise that such provocative actions would lead to a military response from Hamas.

But these actions don’t explain Israel’s choice — and it was certainly a choice — to immediately escalate its military assault to the level of full-scale war. So what does explain it?

Netanyahu’s Troubles
For starters, politics.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is on trial and facing years in jail for a wide range of corruption charges. As long as he remains prime minister, he can’t be jailed — but if he loses his ruling coalition, as he was on the verge of doing just before this crisis, he could go to prison.

So for Netayanhu, maintaining public support is not just a political goal but an urgent personal necessity. The mobilization of troops and the sight of Israel’s military in action allows him to reprise his longstanding role as the ultimate “protector” of Israel against its “enemy” — whoever the chosen enemy du jour might be.

It might be Iran (which, unlike Israel, does not have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program). It might be the non-violent BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) campaign, which leading Israeli leaders equate with Iran as an existential threat. Or it might be Gaza — as it was in 2008-2009, 2012, and especially for the 50 days of Israeli bombardment in 2014 that left 2,202 Palestinians, including 526 children, dead.

Netanyahu’s political capital is also bound up with his claim to be the only Israeli leader who can maintain the key levels of absolute impunity and uncritical economic and political support from the United States. Certainly the Trump years were characterized by Washington’s warmest embrace of Netanyahu’s right-wing government and the most extremist pro-Israel policies to date. But so far President Biden, presumably convinced that moving to restore the Iran nuclear deal means no other pressure on Israel is possible, has recalibrated only the rhetoric.

Washington’s actual support for Israel — including $3.8 billion in military support every year and the one-sided “Israel has the right of self-defense” rhetoric that refuses to acknowledge any such right to the Palestinians — remains in place. And history shows us that direct U.S. backing — in the form of additional cash and weapons as well as effusive statements of support — rise when Israeli troops are on the attack.

“Mowing the Grass”
Beyond the political advantages, there are strategic advantages for Israel to go to war against Gaza. Despite the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from inside the Gaza Strip in 2005, since 2007 Gaza has remained under an Israeli-imposed blockade and siege. It is, under international law, still occupied.

And for years, Israel’s strategy towards Gaza and the Palestinians who live there has been one of absolute control. Israel controls who can enter or exit Gaza, which means control over people’s lives — and deaths. In the past, Israel has determined exactly how many calories Gazans should be able to eat each day — to “put them on a diet,” as Israeli military officials said in 2006.

And not surprisingly, Palestinian resistance to the years of siege and occupation in Gaza has at times included military resistance.

During the 2014 war, the influential Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies issued a report endorsing what had already become a standard approach for Israel toward Gaza. It was called “Mowing the Grass in Gaza,” and it described the lethal military assault as being “in accordance with a ‘mowing the grass’ strategy. After a period of military restraint, Israel is acting to severely punish Hamas for its aggressive behavior, and degrading its military capabilities — aimed at achieving a period of quiet.”

The report ignored the fact that Israel is an occupying power, that the people of Gaza are protected civilians, and that collective punishment, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the use of dramatically disproportionate levels of violence are all violations of international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, and more. The report’s author was unequivocal that “a war of attrition against Hamas is probably our fate
for the long term, and we will quite frequently need to strike Gaza in order keep the enemy off balance.”

Initiating periods of intense violence in Gaza, even when the resistance was non-violent such as the 2018 Great March of Return, has been Israel’s approach ever since.

Israel’s Arms Industry
Finally, these frequent attacks on Gaza have provided a critically valuable testing ground for the Israeli weapons manufacturers whose export deals — worth $7.2 billion in 2019 — represent a huge component of Israel’s GDP.

During the height of the 2014 assault, Ha’aretz reported that the company’s factories “worked around the clock turning out munitions as the army tested their newest systems against a real enemy. Now, they are expecting their battle-tested products will win them new customers.”

“Combat is like the highest seal of approval when it comes to the international markets,” explained Barbara Opall-Rome, the Israel bureau chief for Defense News told Ha’aretz. “What has proven itself in battle is much easier to sell. Immediately after the operation, and perhaps even during, all kinds of delegations arrive here from countries that appreciate Israel’s technological capabilities and are interested in testing the new products.”

“From a business point of view,” concluded the editor of Israel Defense, “the operation was an outstanding thing for the defense industries.”

As I write this seven years later, Israel’s latest air war against Gaza continues. Ground troops are massed outside the Strip, with tank-mounted artillery weapons aimed at 2 million people crammed into one of the most crowded territories on the earth. Half an hour ago a family of six was killed in their home as tank and air strikes continue.

Far beyond some claim of “self-defense,” are there other reasons Israel might once again be on the attack? When you look at who benefits, the answer might not be so complicated after all.



https://www.juancole.com/2021/05/understanding-israels-benefits.html

Just because Israel has never said the words, "push Palestinians off the face of the earth" out loud doesn't make any the less of a nation which commit's war crimes on a daily basis. I just wish Hamas would quit playing into their hands seeing how it does nothing except make a bad situation worse and kill innocent people as well.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2021 02:58 pm
@revelette3,
Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
killed more than 119 Palestinians in the besieged and blockaded Gaza Strip. Thirty-one of them were children.

Many of those "children" were over 16 years old and were firing military weapons at Israeli soldiers.

Many others are fabrications that never even existed.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
demolitions to force Palestinians out of their homes and the continuing threat of eviction for families in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of occupied East Jerusalem.

Since the Palestinians refuse to stop waging an illegal war of aggression, Israel gets to keep that land for themselves.

Since Israel gets to keep that land for themselves, it's time for the Palestinians to pack up and move out.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in all of Islam,

Islam has no claim to other religions' holy sites. They have no right to complain about being denied access.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
Iran (which, unlike Israel, does not have a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program).

Wrong. Why else would Iran be enriching uranium to near weapons grade?


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
the non-violent BDS (Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions) campaign, which leading Israeli leaders equate with Iran as an existential threat.

False accusations that "Jews are committing imaginary atrocities" are only nonviolent until someone uses the false accusations as an excuse for violence.

And even nonviolent discrimination is wrong.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
50 days of Israeli bombardment in 2014 that left 2,202 Palestinians, including 526 children, dead.

Many of those "children" were over 16 years old and were firing military weapons at Israeli soldiers.

Many others are fabrications that never even existed.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
the one-sided "Israel has the right of self-defense" rhetoric that refuses to acknowledge any such right to the Palestinians

Not one sided. The Palestinians are NOT defending themselves.

The Palestinians are waging an illegal war of aggression against Israel.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
direct U.S. backing -- in the form of additional cash and weapons as well as effusive statements of support -- rise when Israeli troops are on the attack.

We help our friends in their time of need.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
Despite the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from inside the Gaza Strip in 2005, since 2007 Gaza has remained under an Israeli-imposed blockade and siege.

Blockades are lawful acts of war.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
It is, under international law, still occupied.

No it isn't.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
The report ignored the fact that Israel is an occupying power,

Rightfully ignored, because that is NOT a fact.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
that collective punishment, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the use of dramatically disproportionate levels of violence are all violations of international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, and more.

No such collective punishment. No such disproportionate use of force. No such violation of international law. No such violation of the Geneva Conventions.


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
when the resistance was non-violent such as the 2018 Great March of Return,

An attempt to overrun and murder Israeli border guards and then go into Israel and massacre innocent people is not "non-violent".


Foreign Policy in Focus wrote:
Half an hour ago a family of six was killed in their home as tank and air strikes continue.

Fake news.


revelette3 wrote:
Just because Israel has never said the words, "push Palestinians off the face of the earth" out loud doesn't make any the less of a nation which commit's war crimes on a daily basis.

No such war crimes. It's not against the law for Jews to defend themselves.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2021 08:46 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
Just because Israel has never said the words, "push Palestinians off the face of the earth" out loud doesn't make any the less of a nation which commit's war crimes on a daily basis. I just wish Hamas would quit playing into their hands seeing how it does nothing except make a bad situation worse and kill innocent people as well.

Their violence also distracts from the crux of the matter, the Zionists' apartheid oppression and discrimination of the Palestinians, and Israeli Arabs.
goldberg
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2021 08:53 pm
@InfraBlue,
It's acceptable for Israel to expunge Hamas since it's a terrorist group. Hamas uses children as human shields and also croaks children from Israel.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 May, 2021 09:01 pm
@InfraBlue,
Your neonazism is really horrible. Sad
 

Related Topics

Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
"Progressives(TM)" and Israel - Discussion by gungasnake
Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Abbas Embraces the Islamists - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 07:15:35