ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

@Foxfyre,

So because one occupier give the land to another occupier regardless of who signed, makes it ok to push people who were living at a place off the land and gave Israel power over their lives? This happened as a reaction to the horrible persecution of Jews without addressing the plight of those living there and what status they would have to be able to control their own lives. The victim became the aggressor and then wonders why the oppressed attempt to fight back.

If a state had to made at all, it should not have been made until the non jews in the area were given their own state so they could be in control of their own lives instead of being under the rule of Israel de facto or in fact.

Nevertheless, now it is time to think of how to go forward which is anybody's guess. I think it is just destined to keep on going like it is until everybody is killed.

2 Replies

I imagine that the truth of the matter is that Shalit was tortured to death a long time ago. Hamas is such a nice group.

Hamas leader says captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit may be dead
News Wire Services

Israel has ruled out a ceasefire unless Gilad Shalit, a 22-year-old soldier seized in a joint raid by Hamas and two other militant groups in June 2006, is set free.

Senior exiled Hamas official Mussa Abu Marzuq said over the weekend that Shalit may have died during the recent Gaza war.

"I don't have enough information, but Shalit may have been among the children who died. But really, I don't know," he told the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat.

Israel has tied the Hamas demand that Gaza's border crossing be reopened to the Shalit issue. Hamas is desperately trying to delink the two.

Hamas "rejects any linkage of the truce question and that of the release of the soldier Gilad Shalit," the Hamas delegation told Egyptian mediators.

"If the Gilad Shalit issue is solved, other things will be able to fall into place," Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told London's Daily Telegraph.

Israeli officials have not commented on Marzuq's statement.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

That's something the leftwing loonies rarely ever want to acknowledge, however.

Quote:

And though you at least have much to offer in the way of insights and good information, Genoves, I do not appreciate hateful, unkind, personally insulting remarks from you directed at anybody either. While liberals so often cannot, I like to think that at least most conservatives can make their case without doing that. It isn't necessary.

The sanctimonious ironies of foxfyre never fail to disappoint.

1 Reply

@revel,

One thing is guaranteed by the way the Jews are treating Palestinians; they're never going to see peace or security. They have never learned the simple lesson that you cannot take away their property and jobs, kill the innocent, and hope peace will be achieved.

0 Replies

@revel,

Perhaps you are unable to discern between a personally directed insult and an opinion expressed in a general way Revel? More importantly, why do you identify yourself with the leftwing loonies if that was your intention? I certainly didn't call you that but, since you took offense, can we assume that see yourself as part of that group?

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

So because one occupier give the land to another occupier regardless of who signed, makes it ok to push people who were living at a place off the land and gave Israel power over their lives? This happened as a reaction to the horrible persecution of Jews without addressing the plight of those living there and what status they would have to be able to control their own lives. The victim became the aggressor and then wonders why the oppressed attempt to fight back.

If a state had to made at all, it should not have been made until the non jews in the area were given their own state so they could be in control of their own lives instead of being under the rule of Israel de facto or in fact.

Nevertheless, now it is time to think of how to go forward which is anybody's guess. I think it is just destined to keep on going like it is until everybody is killed.

I've probably answered this at least a dozen times in various ways by now, but let me make one more attempt. This went right over some heads here, but hey, I'm a glutton for punishment.

Those Palestinians living on the land at the time Israel was designated by the United Nations were allowed to stay. They were invited to stay and asked to stay when the Arabs and Egyptians were amassing their various armies to attack Israel. Those Arab Palestinians who stayed and/or their progeny are still there living prosperous lives as full citizens of Israel. Those Israelis of Arab descent enjoy freedom and civil rights and opportunity they would probably have never had if they had chosen to live in another Middle East country.

Those who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away and therefore of their own free will declared themselves to be hostile to and enemies of Israel were not allowed to return.

Evenso, they have nothing to fear of any kind from the Israelis if they leave the Israelis alone. They have much to fear from their own leadership, however, as that leadership intentionally puts them into harms way as they launch attack after attack at Israel.

Now it seems to be that any person of normal intelligence should be able to grasp these simple facts and put them into their proper perspective in the whole Middle East mix.

Those who hate Jews or who think Israel has no right to exist don't seem to be able to catch onto the concept that Israel is not the problem in the Middle East.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away and therefore of their own free will declared themselves to be hostile to and enemies of Israel were not allowed to return.

1. How do you distinguish between those "who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away" and those who fled because they didn't want to die?

2. If Israelis leave a city like Sderot because it has been attacked again and again and move to, say, Tel Aviv because they think it's safer and don't want to die - do those people also declare themselves, of their own free will, to be hostile to and enemies of Israel?

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Those who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away and therefore of their own free will declared themselves to be hostile to and enemies of Israel were not allowed to return.

1. How do you distinguish between those "who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away" and those who fled because they didn't want to die?

2. If Israelis leave a city like Sderot because it has been attacked again and again and move to, say, Tel Aviv because they think it's safer and don't want to die - do those people also declare themselves, of their own free will, to be hostile to and enemies of Israel?

The same way you tell terrorists from suspected terrorists, of course - a complete and total judgment call which is the most convenient for the person doing the choosing at that very moment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

Those Arab Palestinians who stayed and/or their progeny are still there living prosperous lives as full citizens of Israel.

When any thesis includes lies like the one Foxie tried to push by her above statement, all her statements become unreliable. How is it that even Israeli-Jews do not believe what Foxie wrote?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Those who fled expecting/hoping the Israelis to be slaughtered or driven away and therefore of their own free will declared themselves to be hostile to and enemies of Israel were not allowed to return.

I've heard you tell this story many times and it only works in your favor if you indulge your desire to project hostile intentions onto those people who were fleeing a war zone. You have no idea why the people who fled did so. It is an incredibly natural thing to do to flee a war zone, that's why we have international laws and conventions to protect refugees.

Israel didn't let them return because they wanted the land and they wanted a Jewish and democratic state -- two things you can only have if you can ensure a Jewish majority, which allowing the refugees to return would undermine. Even so, why not compensate the people whose land was taken?

Do you understand that there are people, many in power, in Israel who believe that they are entitled to all of the land -- including Gaza and the West Bank -- and that the Palestinians should just go live in some other Arab country? Do you agree with this? Do you understand that these people have been doing everything they could to prevent the existence of a Palestinian state?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There are many web sites that claims all Palestinians in Israel have equal rights, but that's written for the pro-Israel-Jewish community. The reality is quite different from their rhetoric.

Here's a sample that describes some of the facts:
http://al-amana.net/home/2009/02/15/israels-forgotten-palestinians/

1 Reply

In short: if civilians are fleeing from a war zone, they express solidarity with the aggressor. If civilians are staying in a war zone, they express solidarity with the attacked country.

Interesting concept.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

You are drawing a whole lot more assumptions here than anything I have said. The Arabs who fled from within Israel were not a majority and did not threaten the Israelis. I will concede that I do not know that they all left hoping the Israelis would be killed, but given that they had the option to stay, it is reasonable to think their sympathies were with the Arab leaders who intended to destroy Israel.
There is quite a bit of history available describing what happened.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html

You are correct, however, that the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians who abandoned Israel to return there, and the Israelis do absolutely want a Jewish majority as that is the only way that the security and self-determination of Israel can be retained. How long do you think there would be an Israel should an Arab majority occupy that land?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You are drawing a whole lot more assumption here than anything I did. The Arabs who fled from within Israel were not a majority and did not threaten the Israelis. I will concede that I do not know that they all left hoping the Israelis would be killed, but given that they had the option to stay, it is reasonable to think their sympathies were with the Arab leaders to intended to destroy Israel.

I think it is more reasonable to assume they were fleeing a war zone.

Quote:

There is quite a bit of history available describing what happened.

Do share.

Quote:

You are correct, however, that the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians who abandoned Israel to return there, and the Israelis do absolutely want a Jewish majority as that is the only way that the security and self-determination of Israel can be retained. How long do you think there would be an Israel should an Arab majority occupy that land?

All the more reason why Israel should be doing its utmost to ensure a viable Palestinian state, don't you think? And even more reason whey they should stop expanding settlements. Why, you should ask yourself, would a state so purportedly vulnerable as Israel want such indefensible meandering borders like those created by the "security wall"? You should ask yourself a great many more questions, but we'll start with that one.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You are drawing a whole lot more assumption here than anything I did. The Arabs who fled from within Israel were not a majority and did not threaten the Israelis. I will concede that I do not know that they all left hoping the Israelis would be killed, but given that they had the option to stay, it is reasonable to think their sympathies were with the Arab leaders to intended to destroy Israel.

I think it is more reasonable to assume they were fleeing a war zone.

Perhaps. But then a whole bunch didn't flee. And they've been most handsomely rewarded for their loyalty to Israel.

Quote:

Quote:
There is quite a bit of history available describing what happened.

Do share.

I provided a link for your perusal. There are lots and lots more.

Quote:

Quote:
You are correct, however, that the Israelis will not allow the Palestinians who abandoned Israel to return there, and the Israelis do absolutely want a Jewish majority as that is the only way that the security and self-determination of Israel can be retained. How long do you think there would be an Israel should an Arab majority occupy that land?

All the more reason why Israel should be doing its utmost to ensure a viable Palestinian state, don't you think? And even more reason whey they should stop expanding settlements. Why, you should ask yourself, would a state so purportedly vulnerable as Israel want such indefensible meandering borders like those created by the "security wall"? You should ask yourself a great many more questions, but we'll start with that one.

The Israelis were receiving regular deadly internal sabotage, suicide bombers, and such as that before they put up the security wall. Such terrorist attacks are now infrequent and the few that get through or originated within are mostly intercepted and stopped before they can blow up a crowded market or a bus filled with school children and moms.

If I knew nothing else re the situation that exists, that alone would be justification for the security wall. Had the Palestinians not regularly and persistently attempted to terrorize, injure, maim, and murder Israelis, the wall would not exist.

It is not Israel who has resisted a Palestinian state but the Palestinians themselves. They never agreed to the UN solution and are not agreeing to it now. Israel took some Egyptian land in previous conflicts--land they have not returned and Egypt does not now expect them to--and Palestinian land which at different times they have attempted to relinquish back to the Palestinians. Sooner or later each time they have done so, the Palestinians have used it to launch rockets into Israeli residential neighborhoods or as a base for their suicide bombers, murderers, kidnappers etc.

But the bleeding hearts out there seem to think it is only Israel's duty to make concessions and accommodations and nothing whatsoever should be required of the Palestinians in order to be accommodated by Israel.

Should the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist, should they cease and desist in their rhetoric demanding the extermination of Israel, when they condemn, arrest, convict, and punish those who would presume to do violence to Israelis, and promise peace through both word and deed....should the Palestinians do that, and then Israel did not become a good friend and neighbor to the Palestinians, THEN you would see my criticism and contempt directed toward Israel and not the Palestinian leadership.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Perhaps. But then a whole bunch didn't flee. And they've been most handsomely rewarded for their loyalty to Israel.

Do you think they stayed out of loyalty?

Quote:

I provided a link for your perusal. There are lots and lots more.

You linked to the Jewish Virtual Library. I wonder if they have any biased content?

Quote:

The Israelis were receiving regular deadly internal sabotage, suicide bombers, and such as that before they put up the security wall. Such terrorist attacks are now infrequent and the few that get through or originated within are mostly intercepted and stopped before they can blow up a crowded market or a bus filled with school children and moms.

That's an answer (though inadequate) to the question of the wall's existence, not the question of its path, which was the one asked.

Quote:

If I knew nothing else re the situation that exists, ...

Are you interested in knowing much else about the situation? Or is it enough to sympathize with the Israelis?

Quote:

It is not Israel who has resisted a Palestinian state but the Palestinians themselves.

Arafat threatened to declare one in 2000 which was decried as a threat to the peace process. The Likud party's charter denies the possibility of one. And "facts on the ground" consisting of settlement blocks in strategic areas make it all but impossible.

Quote:

But the bleeding hearts out there seem to think it is only Israel's duty to make concessions and accommodations and nothing whatsoever should be required of the Palestinians in order to be accommodated by Israel.

Israel has the power.

Quote:

Should the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist, should they cease and desist in their rhetoric demanding the extermination of Israel, when they condemn, arrest, convict, and punish those who would presume to do violence to Israelis, and promise peace through both word and deed....should the Palestinians do that, and then Israel did not become a good friend and neighbor to the Palestinians, THEN you would see my criticism and contempt directed toward Israel and not the Palestinian leadership.

Yeah, I don't quite believe you. This laundry list of arbitrary demands on a people, many impossible due to Israel's imposed constraints, is nothing short of an enumeration of excuses and self-justification for refusing to do that which is right.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck, I agree with all of your responses to Foxie's claims and statements.

She's trying to convince us that it's up to the Palestinians to work towards equal rights; what blind ignorance. When does the suppressed ever challenge the ones with all the tools of war and killing?

0 Replies

TRUTHS WORTH REPEATING AND REPEATING .. AND REPEATING
In the 20th century (i.e., 1947) the British, who were the last to steal Palestinian land--they stole it in 1920--gave it to the UN for the UN to figure out who should be given it next. The UN decided to give some of it back to the Arabs and some of it back to the Jews.

The Arabs tried in 1948 to steal what was previously given to the Jews by the UN"after the UN was delegated to do that by the British. That Arab effort failed at the price of the Jews stealing some of that land previously given to the Arabs by the UN.

Subsequently, the Arabs have tried repeatedly to steal back that land stolen from them by the Jews plus that land given the Jews by the UN. The Arabs have failed each time they tried and had more of the land given them by the UN stolen from them by the Israelis as a result.

Arabs, stop trying to steal land from the Jews before you don't have any left of your own to be stolen. It's simple! All you Arabs have to do to be given back what was stolen by Israel from what the UN gave you, is grant Israel's right to exist in the territory the UN gave Israel, and simultaneously stop trying to steal more than what the UN gave you!

Why the Israelis don't conquer all of Palestine after the Arabs have persisted all this time since 1948 in their efforts to conquer Israel, is inexplicable to me. Under the current circumstances in Palestine, the Arab civilians in Palestine would be much better off if Israel ruled all of Palestine. Then they would be getting Israel's help directly without continuing to endure Israel's flawed inadvertent civilian killing invasions to rid the terrorists from Arab neighborhoods.

If any nation A were attacked by another nation B, it sure would be prudent for the attacked nation A to counter attack and to defeat the attacking nation B before the attacking nation B grows able to conquer the attacked nation A.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If they had "equal rights" as many here claim, why do they need check points and walls?

1 Reply

@old europe,

As Bush said your either with me or against me. No in between.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know