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

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I see the Jews as having suffered sufficient persecution, discrimination, displacement, and genocide to justify allowing them having one teeny tiny plot of ground in the world where they don't have to worry about the people they live with persecuting them, discriminating against them, displacing them, or attempting to exterminate them.

The context of the above is a 2,000 year inability of European Christianity to learn that Jews were no threat. One could argue that maybe in that 2,000 year span Jews should have learned to all convert to Christianity? Regardless, 2,000 years is the context of why there are Jews today that would just like to have little to do with Europeans or Americans or any other non-Jews. If after WWII many Europeans got their countries back from the Nazis, then notice that most Jews from Germany, Austria, Poland never got back their homes, relatives, etc. Yes, monetarily compensated; however, money was such a vulgar way to have bought off one's guilt, in my opinion.

That is why Israel should remain a Jewish Homeland - the best Gentile Europe could do to compensate the victims of the Jewish Holocaust was buy off their guilt with money. In my opinion, to vulgar for words.

I believe, those concerned for the Palestineans should contribute to Palestinean causes that help educate Palestineans, so they stop parading in the streets with rifles aimed into the air. A bunch of hooligans, in my opinion.

There is no arguing, I believe, with those that are concerned about Palestinean rights. Perhaps, their morality is too "universal," in a world that forgets too quickly how their own sinned.

By the way, are there not Christian communities in the Middle East? How much pro-Palestinean sentiment is based on not wanting a pogrom on fellow Christians in Middle Eastern countries, if the thought is that Christains are all siding with the Jews?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Israel has agreed to several cease fires, a peace with Egypt, and a protocol for the negotiated establishment of a Palestinian state, but nothing else.
...
I believe we have now come to a point at which there are only two feasible solutions: either the complete annihilation of the Palestinain people or the creation of a single state able to accomodate both.

Israel has offered the Palestinian people, in return for tolerance of the existence of Israel, the return of lands the Israelis stole from what the UN gave the Palestinians. Those offers were either ignored or rejected. The UN gave the Jews the terrirtory in which they established their Jewish state of Israel. They want to retain their Jewish state of Israel with its current voluntary Arab inhabitants. It is their lawful right to do so.

Actually, there are four seemingly feasible solutions:
1. "complete annihilation of the Palestinian people;"
2. "creation of a single state able to accomodate both;"
3. complete annilhilation of the Israeli people;
4. the UN's solution of two autonomous states, one for Arabs that do not live in Israel, and one for Jews that want to live in their own jewish state.

I believe that solution 2 is equivalent to solution 3. The Jews are a hated minority in Palestine. They would suffer the same fate so many of them suffered in Nazi Germany, if they were forced to live in the same state as an over whelming number of Arabs who hate them. So in order to prevent complete annihilation of either people, that leaves solution 4. The problem with solution 4 is that it too is unacceptable to the majority of Arabs living in Palestine. Alas, that then leaves only solution 1. The problem with solution 1 is that a majority of Jews in Israel want no part in perpetrating such a deadly solution.

So that leaves only another solution which is not really a solution: maintenance of the status quo.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Those pictured are a few frustrated people who have been sickened by seeing or reading about innocent Israelis blown up or otherwise murdered over the last 60 or 70 years. Of course, the military leadership runs the most humane military ever seen.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Following an attack on an Israeli elementary school, I heard a news conference from the WB in which a Pal leader said it is proper to kill Israeli kids because they would otherwise grow up to be soldiers.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

When will you tell us about the war crimes carried out by the Pal leaders who arranged for attacks on buses, bingo halls, pizza parlors, etc.?

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Following an attack on an Israeli elementary school, I heard a news conference from the WB in which a Pal leader said it is proper to kill Israeli kids because they would otherwise grow up to be soldiers.

Not particularly original that. The same idea was expressed on some of the Israeli tee shirts posted here and on other threads.

Even several century's ago Oliver Cromwell said, concerning his harsh supression of rebelion in Ireland and the slaughter of innocents that attended it, "Gnats will becomme flies".

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree. You cannot interchange the words and come out with anything accurate. Israel has agreed to numerous plans and proposals for peace since the very first UN solution. On the rare occasion that the Palestinian leadership has agreed to anything, they subsequently violated their own agreement. A cease fire to the Palestinians seems to be interpreted as an interval in which they can regroup and resupply their rocket launchers, plot more kidnappings, recruit more suicide bombers.

Again, if it is your kids who are awakened terrified most morning by the wail of the air raid siren, who run for their lives to the bomb shelter, who cannot safely play outdoors, or your wife who cannot go to the market because too many rockets are falling that day, what do you deem the appropriate response of your country?

I believe you are dead wrong here. Israel has agreed to several cease fires, a peace with Egypt, and a protocol for the negotiated establishment of a Palestinian state, but nothing else. Israel has never offered the Palestiunians anything more than about 45% of the territory of the West Bank in those negotiations and that broken up into multiple distinct and often unconnected cantonments each completely surrounded by Israeli territory. Such an arrangement would leave no possibility of a real Palestinian state - it would simply be the legitimization of contemporary "bantustands" for Palestinians comparable to those of happily departed Apartheidt state in South Africa. During the Clinton Administration this turd was deceptively described as "95% of the West Bank territory), when in fact it was simply 95 % of what the Israelis unilaterally considered as negotiable. Accepting it would involve accepting as legal all of the settlements that israel has created in the West Bank in direct defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.

It suits Israel to portray the Palestinians as implaccable opponents - indeed Israel has vastly expanded the territory its citizens occupy under the guise of this deception. The truth is that Israel has never offered the Palestinians anything that could enable them to escape servitude to a master Jewish state. Given all this can you seriously assert that Israel has made a serious effort to do justice to the Palestinians?

I believe we have now come to a point at which there are only two feasible solutions: either the complete annihilation of the Palestinain people or the creation of a single state able to accomodate both.

We all have only one life. Claims based on the sufferings of one's ancestors do not constitute justice in the present world.

So why did not the Palestinians set up their free and independent state when they had complete control of the West Bank and there were no Jewish settlements there? And what incentive have the Palestinians given Israel to release the land taken as a result of armed conflict by the Arabs initiated against the Jews?

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

· In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. The Arabs weren't interested.

· In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of an Arab state alone, but the Arabs rejected the plan.

· In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

· The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

· The Oslo process that began in 1993 was leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated their commitments and scuttled the agreements.

· In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal.

In addition, from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians

Again, if it was your kids and family who awakened terrified day after day to the sound of air raid sirens, who had to run for their lives to the bomb shelters, who could not conduct any kind of normal life for fear of being blown to smithereens, what would you consider appropriate by your government to deal with that?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

As I mentioned, no Pal (or Arab, for that matter) leader would sign a peace agreement with Israel. He or she would know that death would come quickly.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

I have a tough time believing that Advocate, given the high profile and broadly covered talks most recently instigated by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. A high profile Palestinian leader has considerable leverage in making policy for his people.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

As I mentioned, no Pal (or Arab, for that matter) leader would sign a peace agreement with Israel. He or she would know that death would come quickly.

List of Israeli leaders assassinated by Israeli extremists for signing agreements with Palestinians:

- Yitzhak Rabin

List of Palestinian leaders assassinated by Palestinian extremists for signing agreements with Israel:

0 Replies

Number of countries Israel has declared should be wiped off the face of the Earth. Zero

Number of countries the Palestinians have declared should be wiped off the face of the Earth? At least one. Israel.

Number of suicide bombers Israel has sent into Palestine. Zero.
Number of suicide bombers the Palestinians have sent into Israel? ? Want to venture a guess?

Number of Palestinians kidnapped and murdered or held for ransom by Israel? Zero.

Number of Israelis kidnapped by Palestinians and murdered or held for ransom? I lost count.

Number of rockets Israel has fired randomly into Palestine hoping to kill or maim kids, women, old men, whomever. Zero.

Number of rockets the Palestinians have fired into Israel hoping to kill anybody they might be able to hit? I lost count but it is into the tens of thousands now.

Number of people modern Israel or Jews anywhere have attempted to or managed to kill or demanded death for insulting their God, or failing to embrace Judaism - Zero.

Number of people Islamic Arabs have attempted to or managed to kill or demanded death for insulting their prophet or failing to embrace Islam? Oh....pick a number.

1981. . . .

Quote:

Reaction to President's Sadat's death has been mixed.

President Reagan condemned Anwar Sadat's death as an act of infamy. Her said: "America has lost a great friend, the world has lost a great statesman, and mankind has lost a champion of peace."

But many have been celebrating the news. In Libya, Tripoli radio said every tyrant has an end, as thousands took to the streets of the capital in jubilation.

Neither has the Palestinian Liberation Organisation condemned the assassination. Nabil Ramlawi, a PLO official, said: "We were expecting this end of President Sadat because we are sure he was against the interests of his people, the Arab nations and the Palestinian people."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/6/newsid_2515000/2515841.stm

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Oh, fun! Let's bring up some completely unrelated numbers just to make the point that Palestinians are evil savages, whereas Israelis are the most moral people in the world!

We could, for example, compare the number of civilian victims on both sides, or at the territory annexed from the other side, or the humanitarian help withheld from the other side, or the fortified settlements illegally built on the territory of the other side....

No, wait... that would actually undermine the point.

I'm sorry.

Carry on.

2 Replies

@old europe,

oe, As can be seen, all those Israel apologists are blinded by their one-sided view. They can see all the atrocities by the Palestinians (mostly Hamas now), but can't see all the innocent men, women and children killed by the Israelis. With that kind of blinders on, there is no way to show them how the Jews keep reminding everybody about the holocaust while they do the same to the Palestinians of Israel. They truly believe Palestinians have all the legal and equal rights as do all the Jews - as they continue to expand their settlements on the West Bank. It seems the numbers of innocent Palestinians killed vs Israelis killed are justified because they on only defending themselves. No other country with any sense of justice could believe such; least of all, true Americans.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Oh, fun! Let's bring up some completely unrelated numbers just to make the point that Palestinians are evil savages, whereas Israelis are the most moral people in the world!

We could, for example, compare the number of civilian victims on both sides, or at the territory annexed from the other side, or the humanitarian help withheld from the other side, or the fortified settlements illegally built on the territory of the other side....

No, wait... that would actually undermine the point.

I'm sorry.

Carry on.

And your comment re Rabin was relevant how if my 'made up' numbers are irrelevant to the discussion?

We could also discuss how many Palestinian casualties or Israeli casualties there would be if the Palestinians/Arabs had no declared or conducted war against Israel. We could discuss how many Palestinians casualties or Israeli casualties there would be if the Palestinians had made any effort of any kind to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and had settled their own nation instead of demanding it all. We could discuss how many Palestinian and Israel casualties there would be if the Palestinians didn't place their weapons and ammunition among the civilians intentionally drawing fire to those civilians. We could discuss how much of the Palestinian land that Israel would have annexed if the Palestinians/Arabs/Egyptians had not attempted to drive Israel out.

But no, let's don't discuss that. It's all irrelevant right?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

A couple of comparisons:

Quote:

January 17, 2008 at 7:49 am (Genocide, Palestine)

How many deaths does it take to qualify as a holocaust? I tried to look up a definition for the word holocaust but all were preceded by the word the. If we look at our history books we clearly see that there was more than one of these tragedies, but for some reason the one in Eastern Europe is the only one called that.
So what is going on in Palestine, Gaza in particular, does not qualify as a holocaust according to Mr. Webster and his associates… does that make the murders of these innocent people more acceptable in the eyes of the world?
Over 150 people had their lives taken away by the zionist beast in just over a month… Since 1948 there have been over 2 million Palestinian deaths (according to Yahoo) but is anyone keeping count? Does anyone care?? Perhaps the world is accepting the zionist’s response of ‘ those were accidental fatalities’…. does that make what we are witnessing an accidental holocaust? Does the number have to reach 6 million to get into Webster’s?
Fresh Gaza air strike kills three

Relatives of air strike victims at Gaza hospital
The victims of the bombing came from the same family, medics say

Israeli forces have carried out further raids on the Gaza Strip, killing three Palestinian civilians in an air strike. Militant group Islamic Jihad said the air strike was aimed at its men, but missed the target.

The Israeli military says its raids are to stop rocket attacks by militants. It said the civilians were killed by mistake and it is investigating.

The latest attack takes the number of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza to more than 20 in the past two days.

Medical workers said those killed on Wednesday afternoon were all from the same family and included a teenage boy.

Earlier, Israeli troops in the West Bank killed a senior figure in Islamic Jihad’s military wing.

Palestinian blood being spilt by [Israel] will be [Israel's] curse. It will not bring you security
Hamas leader Khaled Meshal

Hamas, the radical Islamist group which is Gaza’s de facto ruler, said Israeli military actions in the last two days have scuppered a possible prisoner exchange between an Israeli soldier held by Hamas and Palestinians held by Israel.

Its Damascus-based leader in exile, Khaled Meshal, said it also jeopardised an informal ceasefire Hamas has adopted since 2005.

“I tell the… enemy: What you are committing will deprive you of anything you’re betting on. There will be no exchange involving Gilad Shalit, no calm or nothing of this sort,” Mr Meshal said at a news conference.

“Palestinian blood being spilt by you will be your curse. It will not bring you security. It will not prolong the existence of your entity,” he added.

The Israeli casualties:

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/TOTAL%20TERRORIST%20FATALITIES%202000-2008.JPG

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And your comment re Rabin was relevant how

Advocate made a comment saying that a Palestinian leader couldn't possibly sign a peace agreement with Israel, because his death, supposedly at the hands of radical Palestinians who are opposing any kind of agreement with Israel, "would come quickly".

I made a comment about an Israeli leader who had signed a peace agreement with the Palestinians and whose death, at the hands of an Israeli extremist who are opposed any kind of agreement with the Palestinians, came rather quickly.

Foxfyre wrote:

if my 'made up' numbers are irrelevant to the discussion?

I didn't say you "made up" numbers, I said you "brought up" numbers. English is not my first language, but I think that's a difference.

Look, you brought up all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with leaders of one or the other side being assassinated by extremists of their own side for signing an agreement with the other side. I think it's not too much of a stretch to call stuff that's not really related to the topic being discussed "unrelated".

Which doesn't mean that it's "irrelevant" (oh, wait, I didn't say "irrelevant" either) to the discussion. It's just unrelated to what is being discussed.

Foxfyre wrote:

We could also discuss how many Palestinian casualties or Israeli casualties there would be if the Palestinians/Arabs had no declared or conducted war against Israel. We could discuss how many Palestinians casualties or Israeli casualties there would be if the Palestinians had made any effort of any kind to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and had settled their own nation instead of demanding it all. We could discuss how many Palestinian and Israel casualties there would be if the Palestinians didn't place their weapons and ammunition among the civilians intentionally drawing fire to those civilians. We could discuss how much of the Palestinian land that Israel would have annexed if the Palestinians/Arabs/Egyptians had not attempted to drive Israel out.

Yes, we could.

Foxfyre wrote:

But no, let's don't discuss that. It's all irrelevant right?

No, it isn't. I never said that.

If you get on your high horse of moral superiority, make sure you criticise people at least for what they actually said, not for what you want them to have said.

1 Reply

@old europe,

If I misrepresented your intent or misquoted you, I profoundly apologize. I do try not to do that, but I am a bit short on the perfection meter most days and sometimes miss my own goals.

My intent, however, was to expand the illustration since you seemed to think that Rabin's assassination made a point despite all the Israeli leaders who have entered into peace talks and agreements and who have not been assassinated. The action of one crazed student and/or small group is not a reflection on the mindset or policy of Israel any more than has the assassination of our own leaders been indicative of the mindset or policy of America.

The numbers I introduced I thought to be far more pertinant to the discussion here.

You probably disagree but that is your prerogative. I understand how uncomfortable it is to acknowledge such numbers or include them in the discussion for those who are pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I understand how uncomfortable it is to acknowledge such numbers or include them in the discussion for those who are pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel.

I'm sure you do. As you've said a while ago, you've picked the side that you believe is right. Now you're rooting for it. If somebody points out that the way Israel is handling matters isn't quite as pure as the driven snow, you perceive it as an attack on "your" side.

1 Reply

@old europe,

You won't be able to support that 'snotty remark' with anything that I have ever written re Israel. I have never held Israel up as the Saints nor have I ever claimed they deserve nothing but accolades for virtue. I have not attempted to defend everything they do nor sugarcoat bad behavior.

But I do think intellectual honesty requires looking at it with an open mind from the Israeli point of view as well as the Palestinians. And I do think every one of those questions with numbers is very valid.

Yes, I have taken sides because looking at all the facts, I believe Israel to be the more justified in adopted the policy that they have. I have given very specific reasons for why I look at it that way. I know that many on both sides of the political aisle disagree with me about that. I have also spelled out what I would consider a reasonable approach for the Palestinians to take to resolve the issue, and, if Israel rejected that reasonable approach, then I would be squarely on the Palestinians side.

That's what a debate is supposed to be all about isn't it? Dissecting and exploring and researching and presenting the best possible argument for two points of view?

But for you to say this:

Quote:

I'm sure you do. As you've said a while ago, you've picked the side that you believe is right. Now you're rooting for it. If somebody points out that the way Israel is handling matters isn't quite as pure as the driven snow, you perceive it as an attack on "your" side.

is not only ad hominem but blatantly dishonest.

I would be much encouraged if you pro-Palestinian folks would honestly discuss those numbers just as I presented them. That would make for a fascinating discussion.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But for you to say this:

Quote:
I'm sure you do. As you've said a while ago, you've picked the side that you believe is right. Now you're rooting for it. If somebody points out that the way Israel is handling matters isn't quite as pure as the driven snow, you perceive it as an attack on "your" side.

is not only ad hominem but blatantly dishonest.

I would be much encouraged if you pro-Palestinian folks would honestly discuss those numbers just as I presented them. That would make for a fascinating discussion.

What makes you think I'm "pro-Palestinian"? Because when I point out a shortcoming on the Israeli side without simultaneously condemning the Palestinian side, I must have picked a side, just like you? Because when I reply to a post by somebody who's attacking all Palestinians by making unwarranted blanket statements, I must have picked the Palestinian side?

See, in the post where I replied to Advocate, I just pointed out that the only leader, Palestinian or Israeli, that has ever been assassinated by an extremist from his own side for signing an agreement with the other side was an Israeli.

Which struck me as ironic, as Advocate essentially made the point that only Palestinians would be capable of doing something like that.

---

You, however, seem to interpret this as "anti-Israel".

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know