Bitcoin Forum

Hi,

today in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1010473.0) we have raised again the discussion that iran wants to destroy israel and we have started to talk about the israelian & palestinian people.

Now I have opened this thread for ask you :

- what do you think of that situation? If your country would be invaded like Palestinan what would be your thought?

Thanks for the attention, and please don't turn this thread in a blame thread.

Have a great day.

Well simple is that isreal is the worst enemy of Muslims . You know too . if you see the passport of Pakistan you will see that the PAss port is valid for all countries expect Israel . however we will see a war soon . some people said that USA is also involed too but i dont know . they say that israel like countries (the enemies of Muslims ) wants to create fight among muslims . so they die fighting between . we see some fights between sunni and shia . the reason behind the fight is too obvious . however some peoples misguide the sunni about shia and shia about sunni . here is a screenshot .i found this on google . on the rigt side is shia and on the left sid is sunni and you see two hands coming behind both of them .

https://i.imgur.com/qYFapoO.jpg

the zionists must be the only people on earth who could settle in someone else's country and create a jewish majority country by expelling most of the original inhabitants and successfully fool much of the civilized world into calling those people terrorists when they try and defend themselves

Lol, no they aren't the only ones. The United States, Canada, Australia, and in part South Africa did the same. : /

@redsn0w it's hard to blame them but it would be better if the Palestinians found a way to resist that didn't include violence.
And I think they are now moving more in that direction, by joining the ICC, etc. I hope they manage to have their own state or at least that they are accepted with equal rights into Israel.

I think it's impossible for there to be peace. Both sides claim the land, both sides are willing to kill to have it, and both sides claim their right to the land is from their god. The problem is, there were people living there before Judaism and Islam became prominent, so I don't recognize either of them as having a more legitimate claim to the land over the other, and even less so when their justification is "because my god said so."

I don't think the problem is they claim the right to the land comes from somewhere else.
The problem is people already live in the land of the occupied territories and Israel keeps building more settlements there and expelling the Palestinians.
And I think the official position of the Palestinians is they accept the two state solution, but Israel doesn't and doesn't give any alternative. They just say they are negotiating, and keep on building more settlements and making the situation worse. : /

Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding was that Israel was "the promised land" that their god promised his "chosen people." That is how they justify the expelling of the Palestinians in 1947. Correct me if I do not have this correct.

not the same because colonists in those places eventually granted the natives their rights whereas israel continues to disenfranchise arabs while portraying itself as a victim.

most of the zionist founders weren't religious and israel has never officially recognised that any expulsion of palestinians took place let alone attempted to justify it. it maintains that they left of their own accord after invading arab armies told them to get out of the way and people actually believed this until the late 80s.

^ lol and how many centuries later was that? xD
Israel still has a lot of time then if that is your view.


Maybe that is the way they justified it at the time, but the truth is they also need a land to live in, and they have other concerns too like security.
I don't think it means there can't be peace and that someone must be expelled, but I think other problems are the source and not religion.

So how can they resist to that oppression? Because we can agree ... it is an unnecessary oppression. This was the first division (1974):

http://socialtextjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/palestine_category.jpeg

 ::)

---

Now I don't want to talk about the zionist, but I know there are some israeli that are against the oppression to Palestine.

They were all living some place before they came back and carved Israel out of Palestine. It doesn't have to be where it is now, but it is because they believe their god promised this land to them. Religion is the root cause. They don't want to live anywhere, they want to live on the magic land.

But they can live (the two population) in one land, the problem is they want to "find" common rules for live together in that land (call you as you like, palestine or israel). All we are world citizen, or am I wrong?

My general impression is that the people who enjoy discussing this topic the most know the least about the long and complicated history. Here's a good resource:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/ (http://www.palestinefacts.org/)

Ask yourself a few questions and be honest with yourself about whether or not you know the answers:

When was Palestine a country?

Who controlled the terroritory before WWI?

Who controlled the terroritory after WWI? How did this change come about? What agreements were made and between what parties?

Why did the UN recognize Israel as an independent nation, but not Palestine? [This is a trick question.]

Many Palestinians evacuated Israel after Israel declared its nationhood. How many were forced out and how many followed the advice of neighboring Arab countries who clearly said they were going to invade Israel? Did those countries declare war on Israel? How many wars have Israel's neighbors waged on her?

Did Jews have equal rights living in Arab countries at the time? Were Jews pushed out of those countries after the establishment of Israel? If so, do they have a right to return to those countries?

Do Jews have equal rights living in Arab countries today?

People refer to the "occupied territories" -- but this presupposes a certain view. Hamas believes all the land is occupied not just the "West Bank" and "Gaza." Regarding settlements being the problem, that argument would hold more weight if we didn't have the clear example of what happens when all the settlements are removed by Israel. This happened in Gaza. The reaction of the Palestinians was to elect Hamas, have an incredibly bloody civil war and then engage in years of rocket attacks into Israel. All while receiving sympathy and aid from around the world.

Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?

Is Constantinople occupied by the Turks?

Why does a map showing a population shifting towards having more Jews indicate something nefarious, but maps showing other population growths do not? Has there been a growth in Muslim population in Europe in the past 40 years? Is there a problem with that?

There's a reason why there's a standard to which Jews and only Jews are held. It's something deep down. Something that survives centuries as a mental virus. It's the same thing that means there can be a thread with a participant as a swastika and the following signature:


and it bothers no one. I give saddampduh credit though. He's honest about what he is.

But one thing, saddam, I am a living contradiction to your signature. Call me a Jew all you want. I have never denied it. I also wouldn't deny being black or gay, as there's nothing wrong with any of these things.

Even if people came to different conclusions than the ones I have, I just wish people would take some time to learn the basic history.

none of the former european colonial possessions could be considered countries in the sense you're thinking of. this usually isn't used to justify denying people self determination in 2015.

we took it from the turks and promised the jews a homeland there on the condition that nothing would be done to violate the rights of palestine's non jewish population. this commitment wasn't held to.

the palestinians rejected partition which they knew would result in the expulsion and/or disenfranchisement of a large part of their population. same reason they rioted a decade earlier when the peel commission decided some 200k of them would need to be deported for a zionist state to work

what zionist apologists never tell us is how a jewish state was supposed to be viable in 1947 with a 40% arab population when such a thing was understood to be impossible in 1937 and also in the present day where the large arab population on the west bank is cited as the reason there can't be a one state solution

the question of how many refugees were directly driven out by zionist bullets and mortars and how many left to escape fighting after the arab armies invaded has no bearing on their right to return to their homes once the fighting is done.

if israel agrees to live within its proper borders and still gets attacked maybe someone somewhere outside right wing evangelical christian non passport owning america will feel sorry for it

pushed out after a wave of antisemitism swept the middle east which is just what the zionist leadership wanted. antisemitism has always been an essential component of zionism.

a right morally, possibly yes, but not happening just as the palestinian right of return isnt happening.

had barak dismantled the settlements when he was supposed to hamas wouldn't exist. polls consistently show a majority of palestinians would grudgingly live alongside israel within its internationally recognised borders despite the undeniable truth that all of palestine *is* occupied territory

the wrong side won ww2 and i'm half greek so not gonna bother with this one

the ratio of jews to arabs in historic palestine west of the river hasn't shifted which is why there's this weird semi apartheid system where palestinians inside israel itself enjoy some rights but the ones in israeli owned gaza and the west bank don't, and are at the same time denied the right to form their own state because more of their land might be needed for european and north american settlers. israel wants the land but not the people.

the muslim minority population in europe has become a problem now that it threatens to stop being a minority and actually overtake the host countries

any normal person after being persecuted and expelled from 50 or whatever countries over centuries would eventually ask himself what he had done to be so disliked. for the jews and their supporters the answer is that the rest of the world must be mentally ill.

you're right about jews being held to a different standard to everyone else. they are allowed to talk openly about the need to preserve a jewish majority in their country, but when europeans talk about keeping britain british or france french we are evil racists who want to holocaust millions of brown people in poison gas showers

Read the fucking bible. That shitty book talks about history and future. History repeats itself.

Have a read on 4 blood moons.

Zion is going down.

Hmm... it is not the only country.... The winners of the war decides on which ethnic groups should be allowed to live in their territories and which ethnic groups should be expelled / exterminated. After the WW2, almost the entire ethnic German population in Eastern Europe was exterminated or deported to the present-day Germany. This has happened ever since AD 1492, when the Spaniards exterminated the Tainos / Ciboneys / Caribs and replaced them with migrants from Iberia.

Ask yourself, when/how/why was America discovered?
All hail Elisabeth.

Ah, but you see? You and I might agree we are all world citizens, but we have a different viewpoint. We may identify as humans first, the same as all others. Tribal identity clouds this. People who identify with a tribe create barriers to differentiate themselves with other people. "American" "British" "Russian" "Israeli" "Palestinian" "Arab" "Jew" "Christian" "Muslim"... all of these are classifications someone might identify with first, to differentiate themselves from anyone who is not part of their tribe. Tribal identity allows people to commit terrible acts, because you're not harming people like YOU, they're different or inferior, or any other mental gymnastics you have to do to justify terrible treatment to fellow human beings.

And speaking as an outsider, I can't understand the animosity and centuries worth of tensions that run between these two groups. It's different for me to look at this conflict and say "it looks stupid and why don't they all just stop killing." That's my stance, but it comes from being on the outside.

interesting topic. btw, i am just adding my two cents. so not offending anyone. One of my best friends is jewish, but also doesn't like whats happening in the world. I always say, this has nothing to do with religion. It s pure poltics (the worst whore as she ficks with just everyone), and politics/politicians are just a method for controlling the society, economy and military by very rich and powerful/influential families/persons. Again this is just my point of view. NO OFFENSE.

isr. didn't exist thats true. And the worst thing (if you check "recent" progress in middle east), look at the golan heights, which are also aneccted by israel, and now (2010) officially "sold" under license agreement from ISR to J. Rothsch.. and Rupert Murd... company Genie Energy (check wikipedia, google and co.)... So as Isr. wasn't allowed to produce oil/gas from the (illegaly annected) golan heights, which OFFICIALLY belong(ed) to Syria (Bashar al Assad), they just sold the "rights for producing gas/oil" to the that "company" in 2010. (they were really clever in financial trading, for example they once (in the 19th century) held +50% of ALL existing shares in london..) Ahh, did i mention: ISR was only able to do this (anect palest. & golan h.) initially "because" of UK.. I just think the whole thing is very fishy, maybe as fishy as the accidentially gun-deliveries to ISIS by us airplanes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2803410/Turkish-president-says-American-weapons-drop-Kurdish-fighters-wrong-supplies-end-hands-ISIS-fighters.html). anyway, i think we will face a (short and fast) WW3 very soon.. i think its already happening behind the scences.. soon they ll press the red button and and a lot of civilians will be dead... :(

Check also this site: http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro

<< What are Israel and Palestine? Why are they fighting?

Israel is the world's only Jewish state, located just east of the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinians, the Arab population that hails from the land Israel now controls, refer to the territory as Palestine, and want to establish a state by that name on all or part of the same land. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is over who gets what land and how it's controlled. >>

I think the biggest problem is that palestine is not a real state now. Change this and it would not be allowed anymore what israel is doing.

Unfortunately im not sure that it would end well because the hate in palestine is too big. But stopping the ongoing feelings of injustice, coming from such deeds, is crucial to not create more and more fighters.

I have a hunch US is involved in this especially because of UN's "mum"?

Even if Palestine is declared as a separate state, comprising of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the conflict will not end. There are a lot of other issues, such as the return of Arab refugees of 1948, and the status of Jewish settlements inside West Bank.

I was in Palestine and Israel a couple of months ago. It did not look so complicated. Two things people don't like:
1. Having their land stolen out from under them.
2. Having rockets fall on their kids.

At the end there are some people that want the "peace" and other that want the "war and the continue of the conflict". I think if they want to resolve all this situation the can do it in less than 1 week. The problem here is that no one has respected this division:

http://socialtextjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/palestine_category.jpeg

In the current situation the only chance for palestinians if they can manage to integrate into Israel and give birth to children on a much faster rate than the jewish population. (What is actually happening as far as I know.)

They are doing it already.
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/1-israeli-palestinian-images/arab-jewish-population-in-israel-palestine-1914-to-2005.gif

Muslims are also integrating into other societies.
https://themuslimissue.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/demographics_pew.gif?w=290&h=390

^^^^ For the past 10-15 years, the Muslim birth rate has been declining sharply in Israel, and the Jewish birth rate have been surging upward. Right now, the difference between the two is insignificant.

I agree. I only think living on land that is in a rightless status because its not a state and many international rulings dont apply then. I mean if you have a house with a garden, you life there all along and your neighbour takes his fence again and again a bit more in your garden then its a really displeasing feeling. Only because he has a regular status and you dont because you arent accepted by others. Unjustice. I can understand that one stands up against this, even though i have no understanding for violence.

I think Palestinians who go the violence route are really stupid. They will never win that way. Thats a fact. But they will lose. They lose the support of the world with it. But they win support when they show they are the poor victims, if true in that case. Without violence. Because people with empathy can feel unjustice too.

Unfortunately Hamas is more of a organized crime organization. They earn money with what they are doing. Similar to ISIS. There are enough stupid persons who donate to those guys because they think its the right thing to do.

Thinking about that brings no good result. Some problems in the world maybe dont have a solution that can be seen yet.

Regarding dissolve Palestine to make it a whole israel... i wonder if palestines feel like native americans felt when they hear such suggestion.

Hamas receives funding from rich Arab businessman and sympathizers in the larger Muslim world. But they misuse these funds by firing rockets to Israeli villages, rather than using it to feed the starving Palestinian children.

There is no historical evidence that the arabs there respond to concessions with anything but hatred and violence. If palestine becomes a recognized state, they'll do the same thing they're doing now. Fire rockets into Israel and have plays in which preschoolers pretend to behead Jews while chanting Islamic slogans.

Well, reasonable people don't like having rockets fall on their kids. That's why Israel keeps needing to respond to people firing rockets at them.

Palestinians seem to love it when rockets fall on their kids. Maybe that's why they always keep their rockets and their kids in the same places. School and hospitals ftw.

Palestinians have been using violence for decades, and support for them has only grown. They've made mistakes at times by killing an occasional non-Jew, but the more Jews the kill, the more the rest of the world loves them and sends them money.

People love dead Jews.

saddampbuh is probably the most informed person on this thread, and grudgingly I must say I respect his honesty.

The rest of you who think Israel is the primary cause of the conflict should look into the Golden Dawn Neo-Nazis. You might find out you have more in common with them than you expect!

Hey, I just noticed the OP capitalized "Palestine" but not "israel." Bitcoiners are such fucking nazis.

If you misspell Israel, then you automatically become a Nazi? Are you from the Mossad?

Israel is nothing special. Israel is just a normal country like all others. Don't be too arrogant. Arrogance will ultimately lead to the destruction of Israel and very few people in the world would even mourn them.

Oh, I wasn't being too serious about the "Palestine" vs. "israel" thing. Don't worry. I'm not Mossad. If the OP just randomly capitalized one and not the other, then it's no big deal. If he purposefully did it, then -- yes -- he's a Nazi and should die in a fire.

I say "die in a fire" with a purpose. Near the end of WW2 the Allies fire bombed Dresden. Many modern Neo-Nazis use this as evidence that the Allies were just as bad as the Nazis. My only problem with the fire bombing of Dresden is not enough fucking Nazis died in a fire, but hey, maybe I'm in a minority on that here. I'm sure the Nazis on this thread can give a different perspective.

I'm not sure "arrogance" is what will lead to the destruction of Israel. I think it's more likely to be Jihadis with nuclear weapons funded by Westerners who have a problem with Jews. Maybe it's a language issue and that's how you define "arrogance."

About whether or not the Jews in Israel would be mourned by very few people in the world if that happened, I expect you're right about that. The culture has been priming them to celebrate this possibility for decades. Even that piece of shit Obama said something like that some time ago...like it'll be Israel's own fault if they get nuked because they would just never give those poor Palestinians what they wanted (all the Jews dead) and so everyone turned on them and as a result...all the Jews are dead.

We are living in a time when Jews are being slaughtered in Europe -- on a small scale for now, but the signs are clear. Swastikas are showing up in descrated Jewish graveyards. After the Jews were ("randomly" to quote that goddamn Nazi Obama) in Paris, a Jewish woman living in Paris wrote that her neighbors had asked her to please remove any sign she was Jewish, to avoid trouble in the building.

If .., when all this is going on ... when we are living in a time very similar to the 1930s ... if now you are someone who is spending more time focusing on Israel's actions than the the violence and hatred directed at Jews, if you are one of these people, then yes: you are a Nazi. And I hope you die in a fire. Clutching your children while crying to your g*d for mercy. And none is shown.

Wow!


Justifying one of the most heinous war crimes ever recorded in history. Excellent!


Are you referring to ISIS? I don't think they are having nukes. BTW... Israel carried out air strikes in Syria to help ISIS against Assad's forces.


Just accept the fact. Israel is having dozens of nuclear weapons. None of their enemies are having nukes. Even if they had, Israel is much likely to use the nukes first.


European Jews were one of the strongest supporters of uncontrolled immigration from the third world countries. Now when these same immigrants show their true color, you are crying foul?  ;D


If opposing the arrogance of Israel makes me a Nazi, then let it be. I'll take that as a compliment.

That is a message I am down with also. The days of thinking of Israel as a victim are over for me. They are stealing land and refuse to recognize that as a blatant criminal act. Not that I'm a Hamas supporter, but Israel has created an apartheid state and can blame itself as much as anyone for it's problems. 

the arrogance of ignoring the world's demand that it return to its legitimate borders and of assuming this state of affairs will continue forever. israel can dismantle its settlements and ensure its long term survival as a jewish majority country or hang on for a bit longer until a single state solution is imposed upon it from outside when global public opinion finally turns against it and there's nobody left to buy its goods, no more american weapons, no more reparations from germany. think south africa. tens of thousands of whites murdered and raped by blacks since the end of apartheid and countless more forced to emigrate.

I completely agree.

J. J. Phillips, you can't just dismiss all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. Like it or not, Israelis have to take a long, hard look at what they're doing - the alternative is, as saddampbuh described above, they will eventually find themselves isolated and under sanctions, much like South Africa under Apartheid.

I didn't criticized Israel even when they built the apartheid wall around West Bank. But for me, the line was crossed when they bombed the Syrian army positions to support the ISIS. Syria is a sovereign nation and Israel is having no right to conduct air raids within the Syrian territory.

Is there any problem if I "capitalize" Palestine and not israel? I am not nazi I'm only realist and if you open your eyes, you will see the truth. I have also few jew friends, so where is the problem?


Read the additional rule of this thread:

They should stop to thinking "we are the victim here" the arab aren't who have killed that number of Jew people in germany and other country during the second worldwide war. Also hamas are not doing the right thing, because the war isn't the correct solution for a problem.

If someone looked around the world at different cultures in different countries and examined how they treat their religious minorities including what kinds of violence has occurred, there is no way to believe Israel is even high on the list of offenders. Yet the people here are clearly OK with the idea of it being destroyed (meaning the extermination, again, of 6 million Jews). The reason is simple: Israel is held to a different standard. The reason for that is also simple: Israel is Jewish. The reason many people hold Jews to a different standard is simple: many people are Nazis.

Now, let's suppose you decided to (temporarily) stop holding Jews/Israel to a different standard and looked around the world. Let's say with your newfound objectivity you noticed, wow, most of these people are far worse (more discriminatory/more violent) than the Israelis! At that point you could go in one of three directions: (1) go back to holding Jews to a different standard because it's comfortable for you, (2) decide that maybe the Israelis aren't being as unreasonable as you thought and maybe 6 million Jews don't need to die again, or (3) decide that the human species generally is not worth sympathy and be OK with the idea of the extinction of the species.

You guys have made a clear case for human extinction, I'll give you that. In fact, let me make this promise. If Israel is destroyed, I will devote the rest of my life to the extermination of the human species. Any species that goes down this road again less than 100 years after the holocaust needs to be fucking wiped out.

And about the "apartheid wall", the Vatican has a wall around it. Why is that not an "apartheid wall"?

And what the fuck does Israel owe Syria? Does Syria respect Israel as a "sovereign nation"? What legitimacy does Assad have? Syria's attacked Israel multiple times. But that's different I suppose since you consider Syria legitimate (non-Jewish) and Israel illegitmate (Jewish).

If Syria wipes out a million jihadis in ISIS, people will blame Israel. If ISIS jihadis kill a million Syrians, people will blame Israel. You have to be blind not to see the reason.

There's a problem if you're a Nazi. And you are. And your Jewish friends are friends with a Nazi.

Read again the question (please) it seems you are too angry and maybe you didn't understand it. I don't hate jew people, I hate the israeli politics .... this is a huge difference. Thanks for your attention, it is very useful to learn a new thing every day.

Have a great day, and I will be happy if you will reply to my post!

redsn0w, you are the man! You showed whole world what is humanity. Even though you are a Nazi, you are generous and is friends with Jews. A marvelous twist in history! This should be a news and you will change how the people(Nazis) "think". ;)

The Palestinians were allied with Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

And regarding capitalization, maybe I wasn't clear. If it were a typo, it wouldn't be a big deal. The fact that it hasn't been corrected means it isn't a typo. It's done for a reason. That reason is a big fucking deal to me. Maybe not to you, but it is to me.

You're not a "realist". You've demonstrated no knowledge of the history or the current situation. At least saddampbuh knows enough to know he's a Nazi.

That is up to you.

Have you ever consulted a psychiatrist? It seems that your mind is seriously f*cked up. Too many weeds or mushrooms? Consider self-extermination.

Back at you. Unless you have kids. In that case make sure to follow Goebbels example and kill your kids first.

Don't fight here. Can't you even read the title? "What do you think about that situation?".

You Sir/Madam are the most hateful person here - which is saying a lot, considering we apparently do have a Nazi sympathizer in this thread. If you are representative of Israeli society in any significant way, Israel is in deep, deep trouble. By the way, if you think this is helping promote Israel's image in the world, think again. :(

Well, then let me clear something up. I'm Canadian. I've never even visited Israel. I'm neither ethnically nor religiously Jewish. I never said I was Israeli or Jewish, but people on an earlier thread assumed it because I defended a Jew's right to walk through Paris unmolested. Clearly only a Jew would have such an opinion.

You're right that I'm very hateful though. I have a visceral hatred of Nazis. It bothers me intensely that people pretend to believe the Nazis were evil on a surface level while continuing to advance their beliefs. And most people are too fucking stupid to know they're doing it.

Israel and Palestine. Long long lost cousins that started as enemies thousands of years ago and then become neighbours. Eventually some left and some stayed. then the world was in a great turmoil and many decided to go back and settle. Greedy men on both sides wanted more and more power, Blood was shed, and it still is. The people are okay with eachother. Governments are not and will never be. Until then. Blood will still flow there.

Please guy can we have a "pacific discussion"? Read the thread rule :




So I am the nazi and you are the salubrious or normal here? I suggest you to abandon this thread, reflect 5-10 minutes and after re-open it and write your thought "in a pacific way".

Right. But if they would use it for food then they wouldnt get so much money anymore. I think they get most of the money because they do what they do. Hamas is some group who is connected to Muslim Brotherhood and funded by them too. At least as far as i know.


I wanted to write that youre a racist because you write "the arabs" do this. Since you clearly know its individuals who decide what they do. So saying "the arabs" there are this way is exactly as stupid as being proud to be born white. You didnt do anything to achieve this. And the same way youre a racist if you put all "arabs there" into the same box.


And here i realized what you are. A simple anti german. And i doubt you somehow got this way outside of germany.

Explaination to the ones that didnt meet one. Its some group of radicals in germany who see the world simply black and white. You say the same things they say or you are a nazi.

Be prepared that everyone will be a nazi who doesnt say that he is right on everything. Thats how they work. Those persons once infiltrated the german Pirate party and made big damage because they did want to do their own thing and misuse the pirate party as vehicle. They were practically thrown out when their leaders were voted out. But the pirate party is still recovering from them.

And this dresden shit... thats one of those incidents. An anti german girl, who was part of the pirate party, showed their bare breasts to a nazi demo with the slogan "Do it again bomber harris". Bomber Harris was the person who bomded Dresden.

Of course only anti german logic can comprehend why its fine to blame all citizens of german to be nazis. Probably because they are germans, you know... anti german. There died enough children or persons who did not like the nazis. But, like i said, the world is black and white for anti germans.

I doubt i will discuss with this person since i already lost enough time with that type of racist scums. You wont convince them in their own bubble of the view to the world. If you like then you can observe the working of these persons. Might even be that he calls his friends claiming here are nazis. You know... everyone who isnt thinking exactly as them is a nazi.  ::)

I will set him on ignore simply.

Thanks for your useful post and I hope (that now) J. J. Phillips understood that in this thread we aren't talking about Arab (Muslim & not) and Jewish. I've opened this thread only to see what are the people (in this forum) thinking about the general Palestine and israel situation.

I hope your words are wrong but it seems that is what will happen between Palestine and Israel. No one want to resolve their internal conflic, also the UN.

You're trolling me by continuing to write "israel". That's funny. Nazis aren't usually known for their sense of humor.

Anyone who reads through this thread can clearly see there's been hardly any discussion of the conflict. Maybe part of the problem is that people don't even know how such a discussion would look.

Let's suppose we were discussing a car. I said, "That car is blue." You said, "That car is red." These are statements that can be true or false. How do we determine which is true? Can they both be true? Can they both be false? What are the dependencies? Some other statements are not "true or false" statements, like "Have a great day."

Now maybe I say the car is blue and you say the car is red because we're pointing at different cars. In that case there's just a misunderstanding that can be cleared up as part of the discussion. Or maybe we're pointing at the same car but we have different definitions of "red" and "blue." In that case the car could be both JJ-blue and sn0w-red but not JJ-red and not sn0w-blue. In that case we're disagreeing about the use of language, but not about the state of the world. Finally it could be that we're pointing at the same car, have the same definitions of colors, and yet still disagree. In that case, we would start considering other relevant statements.

Other relevant statements would again be of the true or false variety, but would be relevant because they could provide evidence about the color of the car.

My first post on this thread contained a sequence of questions and a link at which a reader who wished to be better informed could learn more. The only person who responded to this was the out-of-the-closet Nazi.

My primary assertions in this thread have been:
(1) The reason Israel is so criticized is that it is held to a different standard than other countries/peoples.
(2) The reason Israel is held to a different standard is because it is Jewish and people have a problem with Jews.

The out-of-the-closet Nazi gave good, informed responses to the questions I posed, but this only reinforces my assertions (1) and (2). Why? Because the out-of-the-closet Nazi openly says he holds Jews to a different standard and that he has a problem with Jews. (He believes this attitude is appropriate because of some historic problems he has with Jewish people.)

Now maybe all of you believe (1) and (2) but you think you would look bad admitting it, or maybe you don't know how to argue against it. It should be clear to anyone paying the least amount of attention to the world that for every "bad" thing Israel has done there is some other nation that has done something far worse. Why the focus on Israel? Well, because of (1) and (2), obviously.

There have been very few meaningful true-or-false style assertions in this thread, but one was this:


The term "worst enemy of Muslims" is a property, like a car being red or blue. Now, how can we determine if something is the "worst enemy of Muslims"? Probably we have different criteria, and it's not something I'd like to spend a lot of time thinking about. To be honest, I'd think the "worst enemy of Muslims" is anyone who presents information leading to the conclusion that Muhammed was not a prophet, as the undermines the fundamentals of their religion. I'm not aware of Israel going on a campaign of undermining the idea that Muhammed was a prophet. (To my dismay, Israeli spokesmen never defend cartoonists who even draw Muhammed.)

But, let's take a different criteria. Let's say the "worst enemy of Muslims" is a title that belongs to the group that kills the most Muslims. Do any of you seriously think that if we count the dead Israel will even be in the top 10? Look at ISIS. Look at various civil wars. Look at how Jordan dealt with Black September. The only way to get Israel to the top of that list is to consider Israel to be the "real cause" of the deaths. For example, ISIS is killing lots of Muslims, but someone could say the reason ISIS is killing so many Muslims is because of something Israel did or didn't do (or both). So then the blame gets shifted to Israel. This kind of blame-shifting happens when the topic actually gets discussed, but for the most part what's happening is a social phenomenon.

Someone says:
The purpose of this statement is not to be examined as something true or false. The purpose is to communicate to the board: this is what our bitcointalk politics subforum believes. Adopt these beliefs or leave. It's a lot like religion that way. Well, except bitcointalk can remove your account while religious fanatics cut your fucking head off, so it's a little different.

Now let's go all the way back to the OP which contained this question:


I'm assuming "like Palestinan" is intended to be "like Palestine." You have a presupposition in this question. It's subtle. The presupposition is that Israel invaded a country called Palestine. The first of my many questions in my first post was this one:

When was Palestine a country?

The out-of-the-closet Nazi confirmed that it was never a country in the sense the term is used today. Now maybe you think it was a country in some other sense and at some time in the past. If so, what is that sense and what was that time period? If someone were to give a new definition of "being a country", then we could also apply it to other regions at other times in the past. It might have consequences you don't intend. It might mean Kurdistan was/is a country and that certain Muslim groups/countries have spent years invading them and stealing their land. It might even imply Israel was a country at some time in the past and was invaded and its land was stolen. What a wrench in the works that would cause!

Fortunately you don't have to think about any of these issues deeply. Just signal that you're anti-Israel so you're accepted.

TLDR: You're not talking about the conflict. You're confirming to each other that you're against Israel so everyone knows you "belong". Your statements are intended to signal this "belonging" rather than be "true or false." You're all ignorant of history and happily so. And you're all Nazis (in or out of closets) who should die in a fire.

PS: I thought some more about how to bring about the extinction of the Nazi human species. There could be a chemical introduced into the ecosystem which causes chemical castration so that humans cannot effectively reproduce. Surely someone's done some work on this before. Maybe someone can point me towards it. Thanks! If such a chemical castration idea worked, we could finally have Peace in our Time!

A "presupposition" of a question is an implicit (unstated) true-or-false statement which must be accepted for the question to make sense. A famous example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" The presupposition is that you used to beat your wife.

Also, if by "worst enemy of Muslims" we mean someone who undermines the fundamentals of the faith, I'd nominate whoever made these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJdu4HV-Ng (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJdu4HV-Ng)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiaTHfoyJow)

Funny stuff. Unless you believe bullshit.

US indirectly controls UN. So when it comes about UN and few other things, I think Israel is being helped by US. Any comments on this?

You can find something from this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+helped+by+US

True-or-false statement:

(USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN.

Fact: The US has veto power on the security council, as do 4 other nations. The US "controls" the UN in the same sense as Russia, Britain, France and China. The US has no veto power over the general assembly and they regularly vote for resolutions against Israel. So, the US does not control the UN.
Status: (USUN) is false.

It doesn't matter anyway, since the UN has very little power (fortunately).

True-or-false statement:

(IUS) Israel is being helped by the US.

Fact: Israel and the US have been allies for many decades. They have worked together for many years on many different things, including militarily. I don't think anyone denies this. (Someone could argue against it by pointing to cases where the US has helped Israel's enemies, but it's clear that the US often "helps" both sides in a conflict. The US has had its fingers in a lot of pies since WW2.)
Status: (IUS) is true.

A little problem though, by saying the US is helping Israel, you may have shifted the "worst enemy of Muslims" status from Israel to the US. Maybe you guys should debate which one you want to have the status. Just to keep things simple.

As a social statement, you have confirmed that you are anti-Israel and anti-US. You are allowed to remain part of the in-group. Congratulations!

Nope. US has a lot of money. If US goes from UN, it will be hard for UN to stand in financial things.


I ain't anti-Israel or anti-US. I have friends from that country(ies) too. So what about your anti-German?

However, just my 2 satoshis.

agreee. And ISR controls US. So the hierarchy of worldcontrol should be clear. NOBODY will EVER do/say something against ISR, as it would be either interpreted as antisemitic or as "against the goals of the global community"....

Very good! Now, does everyone see what happened here? There was a clear statement that can be true or false: (USUN) The US indirectly controls the UN.

I presented two other true-or-false style statements as evidence that the US does not control the UN. (See my response above.) While MZ has ignored my two statements (naughty!), he has advanced the argument by offering different statements as evidence that the US actually does control the UN. The two statements are:

(US$UN) The US gives a lot of money to the UN.
(UNUS$) The UN wants the US to keep giving the UN a lot of money.

(First of all, please notice that instead of ignoring his statements, I am responding to them. That's what happens in a discussion. I thought I should point that out since it seems to be unfamiliar territory for many of you. Or if that's too controversial we could call it disputed territory.)

Now, it's not clear just from the statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$) what this has to do with Israel, but let me make the following statement that I suspect is supposed to be implied by the two explicit statements (US$UN) and (UNUS$).

(UNUS$ISR) The UN makes some of its decisions with respect to the Middle East conflict so that the US continues to give the UN a lot of money.

Is that what you're asserting MZ? I'll assume for now it is.

Now, I haven't checked (US$UN) in a long time, but I read some years ago that in fact the US is one of the major financial backers of the UN. (It's one of the reason many Americans on the right complain about the UN.) Without objection then:

(US$UN) Status: True.

It's also clear enough to me that the UN would be very unhappy if the US stopped giving it money (and especially if New York made it pay for the real estate it uses!). So let's also concede this:

(UNUS$) Status: True.

However, neither of these necessarily imply (UNUS$ISR). Consider the following two statements:

(UNGA) The UN general assembly has passed many resolutions against Israel.
(UNHMR) The UN human rights council is notoriously anti-Israel.

This is counterevidence against (UNUS$ISR). In other words, I present those two statements as evidence that (UNUS$ISR) is false. If the UN were making decisions based on US dollars, why would the general assembly and the human rights council behave this way? Aren't they afraid of losing those precious dollars?

Evidence of (UNUS$ISR) being true would be of the following form:

There is an action A which is relevant to the conflict. The US is threatening to withdraw funding for action A if the UN takes action A.

Simply say what action A is. I've never heard of the US government seriously threatening to withdraw funding from the UN (as much as many American taxpayers would love it), but I'll be open-minded that it could be quietly happening behind the scenes.

What is this action A the UN is unwilling to take out of fear of losing US dollars?

In case it isn't clear, I'm asking for what the action A is. So in your respond you should say an action A. It should be such that the UN could take it but is unwilling to do so because of US dollars. It should also be related to the conflict under discussion. And it should be an action. It might help if you start the sentence with "The action A I have in mind is..."

The only kinds of actions I can imagine (though I see no connection to US$) is the vetoing of Security Council resolutions. Here's a Wikipedia page about the related Negroponte Doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroponte_doctrine)

However, the passing or veto of a UN Security Council seems like an irrelevant action. It doesn't change anything about the facts of the conflict. Are you wanting the UN to send some troops to fight Israel?

As an aside since you brought it up: I'm not anti-German (not that I've met many Germans). I'm anti-Nazi. Nazis come from many nationalities, as this thread makes clear. The German people in the 1930s and 1940s were not generally innocent though. It's a bit of an oversimplification that the Germans "voted for" the Nazis, but it's largely true. To relate it to the topic, I'll note that Hamas is by many measures worse than the Nazis and the Palestinians voted for them more clearly than the Germans voted for the Nazis. In a Palestinian election adopting the nickname "Hitler" helps you win an election. (I didn't make that up. It happened.)

In case it's not clear to anyone, Darkblock has introduced a new statement:

(ISRUS) Israel controls the US.

Also, there is a second implied statement that ("should be clear"):

(JRW) Jews rule the world.

I can offer counterevidence to this if anyone is interested. For now I'll just say it's the kind of thing Nazis believe, so I'm not surprised to see it in this thread. The Nazis represented the Jewish control over the world as an octopus. You've probably seen similar drawings. Some loonies these days refer to "ZOG" ("Zionist Occupied Government"). It's basically a run of the mill conspiracy theory. Like that mossad was behind 9/11 or a secret race of reptilians rule the world.

Israel doesn't "control" the US. (If they did, why the fuck would Obama be President of the US?) The evidence clearly supports the following conclusion:

(IUS) Idiots control the US.

I can back that up with a hell of a lot of evidence.

The United States contribute close to 22% of the United Nations budget ($532 million in 2010). That is a very significant amount, but nothing like unavoidable. Some other country, such as China or India might be able to make up that amount. China is having forex reserves worth trillions of dollars. Half a billion dollars is not a very big amount for them.

assume this refers to me. how's telling israel to stop building settlements on land the whole world says belongs to someone else and return to its internationally recognised borders holding it to a different standard?

Yes, it refers to you. Everytime you post I think of an old David Bowie song. I'm closer to the Golden Dawn...

I made three separate statements in what you quoted:

(1) You openly say you hold Jews to a different standard.
(2) You have a problem with Jews.
(3) You believe this attitude is justified historically.

I was basing this on an earlier statement of yours, but when I went back to requote it, I think it only justifies (2) and (3), which you probably don't disagree with. (If you don't have a problem with Jews and you don't think having a problem with Jews is historically justifiable, then you're seriously miscommunicating. Your signature and avatar are pretty fucking clear.) Here's the quote from you:


I didn't remember that in the second paragraph where you admit that Jews are held to a different standard, it's a sarcastic admission to say that the world allows them uniquely to be evil racists.

By the way, I'm planning to visit Mecca next year. Do you want me to bring you anything? Oh, right. I'm not allowed there. If the world didn't have double standards, wouldn't that fact (among many others) make Saudi Arabia an "apartheid state"? Doesn't really matter. The whole world knows Mecca belongs to the pagans.

To address your point in this message though, the "whole world" doesn't say certain land belongs to "someone else." It's disputed territory. The reason it's disputed is because the borders have never been agreed upon. There are no internationally recognized borders (if such a concept even has a meaning). The closest possibilities were the UN partition plan in 1947 and the almost-deal in 2000. Both times the Palestinians said no.

Let's analyze this "whole world."

There's the Muslim world. That's a huge chunk. (The Islamic world controls everything in the UN except the Security Council, in case anyone's trying to figure out the UN issue.) Of course Muslims believe all of Israel should be under Islamic rule. Muslims believe any land that was ever under Islamic rule at some point in the past is "stolen" from them. (There's sometimes a push to restore Islamic rule to Spain, i.e., al-Andalus. Is Spain "stolen land"? How long before "the whole world agrees" it is.) And, of course, the problems Muslims have with Jews date back to the time of Muhammad.

European countries tend to support the Palestinians. This is due to a combination of factors, with latent Jew-hatred playing an important role. More practical concerns are that they've dealt with Palestinian terrorism (e.g., Black September in Munich) and found it easier to just appease the terrorists. This has been amplified over the decades due to the rapid influx/increase in the Muslim population in Europe and the desire of leftist parties to get these populations into their political coalitions.  The Arab oil embargo in the 70s also played a role. It happened over time. Europe tended to support Israel the first decades after WW2. Well, what remained of Europe. The book Eurabia from some years ago gives a lot of background about the European situation and how it developed.

The former Soviet block was often allied with Arab countries largely because the US was close to Israel. Plus the Soviets spent decades trying to get rid of their Jews. It's natural they wouldn't be sympathetic to Israel. (Many Israelis escaped persecution in Russia.)

Then there's subsaharan Africa. Just kidding. They've never heard of the issue.

I'm not sure what the situation is in South America. There was recently an issue where the Argentinian (leftist) leader had a prosecuter killed because he was investigating Iranian ties to a massacre of Jews in Argentina some years ago. Plus lots of Nazis escaped to that region. But, like I say, it's not something I've looked deeply into.

Finally let's consider the two big players: Israel and the US. Whether or not some of the disputed territory actually "belongs" to the Palestinians in any meaningful metaphysical sense, it's clear that the leaders in Israel and the US have demonstrated a willingness to cede control over some of the land if it leads to a lasting peace agreement. I think the idea of Palestinians living in peace next to a secure Israel is laughable, but Israel's made several peace deals with neighbors before.

You know, it's strange that since Jews control the power structure of the world that this issue is such a big deal. It seems like they would use their Jew power to make people focus on other things. Or maybe I don't see the brilliance of their Jew plan. /s  (The slash s indicates I'm being sarcastic in the paragraph. That means I'm pretending to have different beliefs that I have in order to show how silly the beliefs are.)

its (1) i am disagreeing with, the part where you accused me of holding them to a higher standard. i don't.

possibly not unique in the world but certainly unique among the supposedly civilised countries we think of as western. david cameron could never get away with saying he wants to preserve britain as a white majority country but when bibi says the same thing about israel and jews no one bats an eyelid.

israel must be preserved as a jewish country at all costs but for europeans americans and australians race is a social construct and we are told by politicians of all stripes that the flooding of our countries with third world immigrants who bring only poverty and crime is progress

because jews are special. because the holohoax. because iran is hitler.

no country on earth recognises the legitimacy of israeli settlements beyond the green line so yes, the whole world.

saudi isn't occupied territory and neither is the vatican or any other bullshit irrelevant example you're going to come up with.

have no interest in getting into a back and forth about how mean other countries are and why does everyone pick on poor israel. these other countries aren't getting billions of dollars worth of weapons from america and germany along with diplomatic cover at the un nor do they have superpowers going to war on their behalf.

every deal the israelis have offered the palestinians involve israel keeping a fifth to a quarter of the west bank and virtually all of the illegal settlements and having control of the roads leading to those settlements and the borders and the sea ports and the airspace forever. that's not a state its a bantustan.

You're saying they're unique among the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western." This clearly implies you have one standard for the "supposedly civilised countries we think of as western" and another standard for those who aren't. That's a double standard.

There's no clear standard by which the West Bank and Gaza are occupied but Saudi Arabia is not. The people who control Saudi Arabia gained that control by conquest. In addition, the ancestors of those who control Saudi Arabia today destroyed the religions of those who lived there before.

No one wants else wants to try to answer this? Is it because you all agree Palestine never was a country?

"We discovered it! How the fsck can you discover something when another mufa is already living there??"

- Eddie Griffen

Palestine was always a country. Ever heard about Mandatory Palestine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

After the Ottomans were driven out of the Levant, Palestine was administrated as a British mandate. Also, notice that the name is "Palestine" and not Israel.

Yes it is obvious than Palestine was a country, read Wikipedia page (if you want). 


Now I really should want to know what J. J. Phillips will say regard this "incredible" news for him, do you know that israel is still invading the Palestine lands or not? I don't like the israeli politic about this fact.

no. israel gets away with its crimes. uncivilised third world savages get called out on their savagery.
when the third world savages act up we put sanctions on their countries and/or warrants out for their leaders arrests or at bare minimum tell them we disapprove of what they're doing. with israel nothing is done to bring it into line. bibi gets to spit in the eye of the american president and other world leaders and there will be no un sanctions, the aid will not be cut and the kenyan ape will still show up grovelling at the next aipac conference.
the clear standard is the right to self determination. all saudi citizens have rights in their country. most palestinians living under israeli rule don't.

depends what definition of the world you're using but it wasn't a self governing entity with a distinct national identity separating its people from other arabs which is what you're obviously getting at. it did have borders and legislature and passports and currency and its citizens weren't turfed out by the rulers to make way for hook nosed brooklyn shlomos with m16s.

I would strongly oppose to that. For starters you just called them "Saudi" which literally reference the ownership of them by the oppressor of the same name.

At least someone finally made an assertion. Did any of you read even the first sentence of the linked wikipedia page?


Why does it say "geopolitical entity" instead of "country" or "nation" or "state"? Strange, yes? If you read more you'll find it's clear why. Because it was not a country (in the sense of a "nation" or "state") during the post WW1 period. It was a territory under British rule. It's like saying the U.S. was a country before 1776. Or, even better, like saying Israel was a country when it was under Assyrian or Roman rule. Or maybe you believe those things.

Anyway, let's make the progress clear. Here's the assertion:

(PC19201948) Palestine was a country during the period from 1920 to 1948.

nazisn0w and bryant gumble declare this to be "true". I declare it to be "false". So at least we finally know one assertion we're disagreeing about.

I suppose I could think of examples where X was a country in Year 1, X was occupied by an external force during Year 2, and then X threw out the occupiers in Year 3. In that case, it's unclear whether X was a country during Year 2.

Here we have a case, however, where X was under the rule of an external force, then was under the rule of a different external force. In this case it's hard for me to see how X was a country at all. I assume you don't think a necessary criteria for something to be a country is that it was ever under independent self-rule.

This, of course, may be simply a difference in language. Maybe it was a sn0w-country but not a JJ-country. Let's try to clarify this by considering the following assertion.

(ISSYR) Israel was a country during the period from 720BCE to 605BCE.

The dates are chosen because 720BCE is when a certain Kingdom of Israel in that region was destroyed by the Assyrian empire, which itself fell in 605BCE. I assume your answer is probably no, because goddamn Jews.

(PCSR) Palestine has never been under independent self rule.

Can we at least agree on that?

I just want to congratulate all of you for having this guy on your side of the argument. I'm starting to think calling you guys Nazis is unfair to the Nazis. The Nazis had a fucked up ideology, but at least they had thought their fucked up ideology through. You guys can't even read the first fucking sentence of a Wikipedia article you link to.

PS: saddampduh, I'm laughing my ass off at what's happening to Greece. Keep fucking that chicken!

Oh really? You want to go that far in the past?? So who exactly was living there and what did the jews coming from egypt do to them according to the old testament? Or you want to hash that out?

I assume you're referring to (ISSYR), though both statements are about the past. The purpose of (ISSYR) is to help determine how different people are using the word "country". By your response, I think you mean you wouldn't use "country" to refer to any "geopolitical entity" that existed before Year Y, where year Y is sometime after 605BCE. Correct?

Just because you say something doesn't make it a "fact".

Like, I could say I'm fucking your mother's corpse. It wouldn't make it a fact.

So are you saying that israelis are not (continuing) invading the Palestine lands? Then 'I am out"  ::) it is really impossible to make a pacific conversation with you. Have a nice day and I don't want to put you in my ignore list (I prefer to read all the comment made by you). An ultimate thing: Here I'm not the nazi, maybe someone else... but not me ;).

I am not joking, your family must be really proud of you.


I am not a big fan of Saudi Arabia. But you can't compare Israel with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis never kicked out anyone and invaded their land.

Israelis didn't "invade," but keep fucking that corpse. Maybe someday we can have a "pacific" conversation when you're drowning in the Pacific Ocean.

Are you really serious? Or just kidding?

http://socialtextjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/palestine_category.jpeg

Hey, don't bring my family into this!


The worshippers of hundreds of preIslamic Arabian gods who were forced to convert to Islam when Mecca was invaded. Their idols were ejected from the Kaaba and destroyed in one of those famously peaceful acts of multicultural tolerance Muslims are famous for. The occupation continues to this day.

Do those maps show an invading army or does it show the result of immigration? [Hint: It's immigration.] Why do you hate immigrants? Are you one of those people who thinks the Muslims are invading Western countries today just because they want to move there and live a better life? Not very pacific of you.

http://s14.postimg.org/jzqvx4mcx/Screenshot_from_2015_04_10_12_41_51.png

Here's a map with the Muslim population of England in 2011 I found at Wikipedia. I could easily make similar maps for 1947 and 1967. We know what it will look like. Is it an invasion of England? At what pacific point will it qualify as an "invasion"?

Here's some stats on the cities in Europe with large Muslim populations. Are any of them being invaded based on your criteria?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population)

Amsterdam     Netherlands    14%,[8] 24%[7]
Antwerp     Belgium    16.9%[9]
Barcelona     Spain    
Berlin     Germany    6%,[10] 9%,[11]
Birmingham     UK    14.3%,[7] 15%,[4][5][12] 26.9%[13]
Blackburn     UK    28.4%[13]
Bradford     UK    15%,[12] 32.4%[13]
Brussels     Belgium    15%,[4][5][12] 17%,[7][14] 25.5%[15]
Cologne     Germany    12%[16][17][18]
Copenhagen     Denmark    7%[4][5][12]
Frankfurt     Germany    11.8%[19]
Haskovo     Bulgaria    20%
Leicester     UK    18.6%[13]
London     UK    8.3%,[20] 8.5%,[7] 10%,[4][5][12] 13.1%[13]
Luton     UK    24.6%[21]
Malmö     Sweden    20%[4][12]
Manchester     UK    15.8%[13]
Marseille     France    20%,[7][12] 25%,[4][5][22] 35%[23]
Milan     Italy    7% - 10%
Paris     France    10%,[4] 15%[5][12] (10-15% in metro area)[7][22]
Rotterdam     Netherlands    13%[7] 25%[4]
Roubaix     France    20%[24]
Slough     UK    23.3%[13]
Stockholm     Sweden    20%
The Hague     Netherlands    14.2%
Utrecht     Netherlands    13.2%
Vienna     Austria    8%[7] 10%[4]

One photo worth more than thousand words :

Well, that is a good point. The Palestinians are well known for relying on video cameras instead of violence. The fact that they're teaching their children to resist peacefully provides hope that peace may yet come if only the Israelis will put down their evil Jew guns and welcome their pacific Palestinian brothers.

http://s22.postimg.org/rig4y5x35/gaza_hamas_children.jpg

Hamas Charter: For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”

hamas doesn't represent all the palestinien, like jews does not represent all the israelien. "Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”  Can you give me the link when you copied this two lines?

Hamas won an election. (One man! One vote! One time!) They're certainly not a fringe group.

Here's the link to the Hamas Charter:

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397

It's at the end of the Introduction. Let me know if you dispute that this is or was the Hamas Charter.

Now, see everyone. When someone asks a question or makes a specific point, I tend to respond to that question or point. Strange isn't it? Maybe you should see if you detect a pattern in the nature of my responses. Like, maybe if someone's just trolling by ignoring everything I write and just repeating the same "isreal invadud Palistinan!" bullshit, I think they're not worth responding to respectfully, like they're gelatinous mass incapable of coherent thought.

I don't want to intrude this topic, however, just clarifying this part. If you want, it can be discussed further in Wilikon's thread about Islam.

Thanks for confirming this is what happened.

They've been going on for what seems forever now. This subject has reached a point that it only leaves me with an headache and wanting go out for a relaxing walk as I soak some sun.

in the interests of balance:

https://i.imgur.com/c5RYg9m.png
https://i.imgur.com/vGkMNBx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4xm3dUe.png
https://i.imgur.com/EJSiqP6.png
https://i.imgur.com/5vfM1pM.jpg

Yes. Both the Arabs and the Jews have weapons and are willing to use them. This is a balanced view.

I posted the Hamas picture because the previous picture showed an Jew pointing a gun at a defiant Arab with armed only with a camera. That is an unbalanced view. It's a false narrative that much of the world wants to push, for reasons already made clear.

So... can I ask you only one thing? Who is in the side of the truth (in your point of view)? The actual (oppressed) Palestinian people or israeli ones? I want to say another time that I don't support the israeli government (aka politics). Thanks for your attention.

Do you know "Stone generation"?

I didn't noticed that phrase: do you mean something like that?

http://www.bintjbeil.com/images/slide/020705_deheishe_boy.jpg

 but one day I really want to say something like that:

https://behebekfalasteen.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/peace1.jpg

Taking a small part from it? It was built for praying to ONE God. Do you think changing the real purpose of it is good? What is your view if you built a place and others take it away for a contradicting purpose?

Your question is: "Who is in the side of the truth (in your point of view)?"

As mentioned before, truth is a property of statements. If a statement is formulated clearly and all ambiguity is removed, then one can consider whether it is true or false. Truth is not a property of people or population groups or countries. As a consequence, your question literally makes as much sense as this:

"Which is more on the side of the truth? A Honda or a Toyota?"

How would you answer such a question?

In spite of the obvious communication problems, I want to assure you that everyone knows you oppose the Israeli government and their policies. If you're worried that your opinion about this isn't coming through, I assure you that this position has been clear from all your posts.

I will say these two things:

(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them. My evidence for this is Israel's history of making peace deals with neighbors and offering peace deals to various Palestinian representatives.

(2) I believe most Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the utter destruction of Israel. My evidence for this is the history of intafadas, the creation and election of Hamas (who are explicit about their genocidal desires), suicide bombings, and rocket attacks. I think it will be extremely difficult for most Palestinians to ever accept Israel as a nation. If you want to get a sense of how difficult it would be, just notice how difficult it is for you to accept Israel as a proper noun.

Given these two beliefs, it is not surprising I defend Israel, and I defend Israel's right to defend herself. Probably most of you don't believe (1) or (2). I won't ask because I've already asked a lot of questions in previous posts and almost everyone ignores almost every one of them. This is not the way to advance any understanding of our positions. In the future, I reserve the right to reply to questions directed at me by repeating one of my previous questions that got ignored.

I still don't have information about the way you use the word "country". Was it correct that you have a Year Y? If so, what is Y?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mosques_converted_from_churches_in_Istanbul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mosques_converted_from_churches_in_Istanbul)

Even better: The Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem is built on the Temple Mount. By your own logic, wouldn't it be OK for the Israelis to tear it down and rebuild the Jewish Temple (the original purpose of the site)? Why haven't the Israelis already done this?

Oh, those are fun questions to repeat while no one answers them.

Hey. Since you like that immigration map so much, I thought I'd make one of my own. In your honor I used your capitalization rules.

http://s24.postimg.org/5jlawsnc5/Invasion_Amsterdam.png

It seems that you have "transformed" this thread into a blame thread but I don't want to argue with you (it is not a personal thing, here or am I wrong Wink?). Yes that (the example) is a type of invasion as you can read here:

• An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force
• An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity
• An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/invasion

Thanks for respect the thread rule  ::).

Look! the Israeli immigrants! just like England and Amsterdam! So wow much similarities!

if the point here is supposed to be that israelis are violent whereas muslim immigrant invaders in europe are peaceful i have a gas chamber in my apartment i'd like you to come stand in while i go take a shower

third world savage immigrants don't look a lot like israelis with their guns and tanks but they have more in common than you think. unwanted foreign elements sneaking in somewhere where they aren't wanted as the authorities turn a blind eye, becoming the majority in certain areas creating no-go areas for natives first in a few towns and cities, eventually everywhere.

we need to start sinking these fucking boats in the med

https://i.imgur.com/IlFpIgm.png

No, My point is at a point you can stop calling them immigrants and start calling them invaders and it will become an insult when you compare them to immigrant communities in other countries. When those "immigrants" come to you fully geared from head to toe in an organized militia manner and tell you that you have 48 to vacate "how humane!", Then come after that period  to level your home to the ground regardless of any family members trapped inside. Indeed the similarities are uncanny between them and other immigrants.

(1) - Oh, is that so? Well, let's see - Israel has just recently had an election, which has seen Netanyahu and his Likud party retain power - so, what options has Israel actually been pursuing these last few years in order to obtain peace? It certainly isn't the one state solution. Is it the two states solution, as you claim? Netanyahu seems to disagree with you; during the campaign, he stated: "I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel, [...] The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand", and later, during that same interview, he added that, was the Zionist Union to win the elections, "'it would attach itself to the international community and do their bidding', including freezing construction in West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, and cooperate with international initiatives to return Israel's borders to the 1967 lines". I should add that this was not the first time he expressed these views. In fact, and to be more accurate, since as far back as 1977, the Likud party's position has always been the denial of the right of a Palestinian state to exist - with only occasional divergence.

So, what exactly is the plan here? Because, as far as I can see, the only plan that has ever been put in place is the never ending stalling of negotiations, and the advancement of the illegal settlement activity - activity which is fully funded by the Israeli state, by the way, since the settlers are actually paid to move to, and live in the occupied territories. Nothing here shows actions conductive to a two state solution - that is, assuming the objective of the two state solution is the creation of two viable, independent and autonomous states, and not the creation of one state, alongside several South African style Bantustans.

Further, how can an independent Palestinian state (you claim Israel wants) exist alongside the crushing sanctions and blockade imposed on the occupied territories? As Israeli officials themselves put it at one point, they wanted Gaza's economy, and the over 1.5 million inhabitants "on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge", and "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis". At one point, among the items denied entry into the occupied territory were crayons, paper, books, clothing, newspapers, baby formula and a variety of other food products, and so on - what possible justification could they have had to deny entry of any of those items? Where do you cross the line into pure and simple collective punishment of one and a half million people?


(2) - Actually, the PLO explicitly recognized Israel's legitimacy, and the two state solution as viable since 1993, and had implicitly done so to some degree years before then. Hamas, on the other hand, has tacitly accepted the right of Israel to exist since the 2006 elections (at least), and explicitly so since 2008. In fact, ever since 2006, Hamas has clearly stated that the issue of recognizing Israel wasn't their responsibility, but rather, to be left up to popular vote - a vote which they would abide by, even if the results went against their beliefs.

Now, I'm not going to defend their use of violence here - it's wrong when Israel does it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it - but they hardly seem the irrational, genocidal actors you're trying to portrait most Palestinians to be; so, let's dig a little deeper...

The disengagement from Gaza you mentioned, in the second post I quoted, could use some more information; here's what the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser had to say about the plan, which goes to show its intent and predictable consequences: "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda", and "The disengagement is actually formaldehyde [...] It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians". Asked why the plan had been devised, he stated "Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. [...] Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]", and "You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did".

In other words, it was a way to separate Gaza and the West Bank into two distinct entities, physically and politically, discard the resource poor and unwanted land of the Gaza Strip, and concentrate on annexing territory in the richer areas of the West Bank - all the while being shielded from any real peace process, indefinitely. Tell me again how Israel really wants a two state solution? Further, despite removing settlers from Gaza, the territory was never not occupied - even if no constant military presence exists within, Israel controls: the borders, airspace, coastline, infrastructure, imports and exports, and so on.

Also, if the confidential documents published in 2008 by David Rose are to be believed, the "civil war" you mentioned, or coup, which saw Hamas gaining control of Gaza, was rather the result of the US and Israel (and a few others) training, arming and preparing Fatah to perform a coup on Hamas, which failed; or, as David Wurmser, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser, put it: "It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen".

By the way, you brought up the "creation of Hamas" - you do realize that Hamas was initially, in no small part, nurtured and allowed to grow, by Israel, right? At the time of the First Intifada, it was seen as a force that could be used to weaken the more secular and left-leaning PLO, and thus, divide the Palestinian population and its resistance to the Israeli occupation. And on the subject of the "history of the Intifadas" you also brought up as evidence of the Palestinian desire to destroy Israel, I have to ask: do you know how the First Intifada started - why the uprising started, and what the Israeli response was? Was it because of genocidal Palestinians trying to kill Israelis?

Finally, why is Israel opposed to the Palestinian move to seek international recognition, or even better, its efforts to join and seek legal action in the ICC? Surely, this is the right path: avoiding further violence, and seeking the punishment of war crimes - both Palestinian and Israeli war crimes. How is this a threat to Israel (assuming Israel does indeed want a two state solution as you had expressed above)?


(3) - Sure, everyone has the right to defend themselves; but it takes another step to show that they have the right to defend themselves by force, and that there are absolutely no peaceful alternatives that can be taken. Given what I have mentioned in the previous points - no peace plan, continued expansion of illegal settlements, the treatment of the Palestinian population, interference with the internal Palestinian political system, separation of the West Bank and Gaza, the blockade and sanctions regime - it is my opinion that Israel is far from having demonstrated a willingness to follow a peaceful alternative, but rather, seems more willing to avoid it.

To add insult to injury, when it does use force to "defend" itself, it often does so disproportionately, and sometimes even indiscriminately; the Dahiya doctrine is a clear example, unfortunately. Here is what a leaked cable from 2008 had to say about the military strategy - it includes some comments from Gadi Eizenkot himself (the current Chief of General Staff):
" 6. Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction." Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases." Eisenkot in this statement echoed earlier private statements made by IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said the next fight in Southern Lebanon would come at a much higher cost for both sides -- and that the IDF would not hold back."
" 7. (SBU) Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years."

How is this not state sponsored terrorism? And was this the real reason why the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza left over 2200 people dead, the great majority of which civilian, hundreds of thousands displaced, and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure - of which they still haven't recover to this day? Or why, in a previous incursion, Israel left close to 20% of Palestinian farmland destroyed, and a good amount of it completely unusable?



Again, please, don't take all criticism of Israel as ignorance, or antisemitism. You have to admit there are genuine issues that Israel needs to address, and that only it can address - and by that I don't mean Palestinians don't have their fair share of the blame in all this; of course they do. And again, the alternative to that is Israel will eventually find itself isolated and under sanctions; and despite what you might think, that is not something I want to see happen.

u9y42, Thank you for posting a thoughtful piece in this thread. I've been lurking here reading both sides, and posts of your quality have been in short supply.

JJ Philips, some of your posts have also been high quality (when you're drilling down to analyze bias that underlies assumptions), but the way you talk down to and belittle people you don't agree with undermines your message. I hope you will take U9's message without feeling attacked for the purpose of continuing a productive discussion, because I'm looking forward to reading both of your posts as you fall on directly opposite side, and are both clearly knowledgeable and articulate. I just hope both sides remain civil, because I'm hoping to learn more and this discussion becomes wildly unworthy of following when either side is lobbing insults or being condescending.

If someone and his words are right why should he rude and offend the other users? In my opinion they are invaders because they are using the force and destroy the Palestinian house and land and if you see here:

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/01285/israel_1285383g.jpg

You will understand better the difference between immigration and invasion.

Your image:

Well said, I think there is an abundance of evidence that supports u9y42 argument that to date Israel has been disingenuous in its attempts to find any meaningful settlement.

What amazes me is that Israel fails to see they are now guilty of the same atrocities they claim to be victims of, the holocaust and their exodus from egypt with moses. We are expected to recognise their injustices and suffering while the palestinians does not exist, that is schizophrenic.

      

Thank you jaysabi.

---

Definitely not; Israel is certainly on a bad path, but comparing what they are doing to the holocaust is taking it way too far. Palestinians are a nuisance, often times an obstacle to Israeli interests, and I think there are substantial reasons to believe Palestinian lives are of little consequence, as far as Israeli policy is concerned; but that's about it - despite the, often extreme rhetoric of right-wing, religious and fundamentalist madmen, it doesn't even begin to approximate the horror you're comparing this to.

That is, of course, no justification for the way Palestinians are treated. And accusations of antisemitism to stifle any and every dissenting opinion are dangerous, not only in the sense they make light of real antisemitism, but mainly because they hide the real issues - which need to be addressed, if the situation is to improve.

Moreover, and this is something I should have included above (and it deserves far more attention than I can give it in this post), I think J. J. Phillips is right in one important point, which he touched upon above: we should never forget the part other countries play in all this - the US being an obvious case, as Israel goes only as far as the US allows it (again, despite the rhetoric; and if you're American, remember that you're paying for a lot of it), but they're not alone - Europe is certainly complicit in a lot of this as well, for example, among many others.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Many of the Zionists that worked towards the creation of Israel were Socialists and Atheists. So no, the religious angle is not really relevant. Israel was founded as a secular state by a largely secular group of people.

And they didn't expel the Palestinians in 1947. The large wave of Palestinian refugees was created in 1948, when Arabs attacked Israel in an attempt to wipe it out.

Your comparisons fail for a number of reasons, but I will mention a couple here:

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.

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

Would you mind clarifying which militia you are referring to which is telling people to vacate in 48 hours?

Remember, plenty of Arabs migrated to Palestine as well (the Jews created a higher standard of living, which also attracted Arabs to those areas). Do you consider them to be unwanted immigrants too?

No of course I would not mind. חֵיפָה is one of many examples to cross my mind. April 1948. A city flattened on top of its thrown out civilians in every district. Do you want personal stories told by my best friend's grandfather?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa#Government

The funny thing is, you should read the Arabic version. It is like it s talking about a parallel universe where things went VERY much different. Yet because one group speaks the language you do, what they say is truth. Consider maybe the other side is either severely mouth-gagged or dead.

And yes your second statement is very much absurd and not true at all. Without diplomatic reasons there is a slight chance you can go there either for you getting blocked by Arabian governments or theirs.

Not sure I follow. Which militia are you referring to again? Haifa is a place, not a militia.

I don't understand Arabic or Hebrew. The truth is determined by facts. Are you saying that Wikipedia is factually wrong?

Would you mind elaborating? Why is my the statement absurd?

I think he wanted to say you should read and heard their version in the original language, because the translation it 'always' a little bit different than the one in the original language.

I'm not really interested in anyone's version. I'm interested in the facts.

It will be wrong to say that the Arabs were not expelled. Most of the migration was forced. But at the same time, I would say that the same would have been the fate of the Jews, had they lost the war.

Some Arabs were expelled during the 1948 war. Others left of their own free will, in order to make room for the Arab armies so that they could more easily kill Jews. Others ran away in fear of retaliation. There are many different reasons why all those Arabs left Israel during the 1948 war.

Of course there were clashes before the 1948 war as well. Through 1947 hostilities increased, and there were many cases of Jews being under siege and attack by Arabs, and Jewish militia moving in to aid them. This often meant removing Arabs that were standing between the militias and the Jews that were under siege or attack.

Yes. This happens frequently in warfare. As you say, there are many different reasons why all those Arabs left Israel. To their credit, the Jews can point out that some 20% of the Israeli population is still comprised of Arabs, while there are hardly any Jews in the Arab nations (before 1948, some 750,000 Jews used to live in these nations.

No my friend. Truth is determined by the victor. You still live in the smokescreen they made since it is still a relatively recent history. But your grand kids will see it clear as sunlight. Same as "Islamic expansions" and "The crusades", It eventually became clear how all those were about greed and bloodthirst. Many monstrosities came out and now they are public knowledge. Palestine is a neighbouring country. People that fled and died there are our own neighbours and flesh and blood. I am sad to tell you that yes, TV and wikipedia fed you shit for a long time. There is WAR there for the past 60-70 years.

Is it justified to wage war on other people because they were originally kicked out of Europe? Blood is blood and they are ALL guilty.

Aren't you interested to know the "source" in the original language? I'm also interested in the facts and I am still saying the israeli government invaded the palestinian land.



This is one of the fact that I am arguing here, there are a lot of other facts.

I agree that u9y42's post was very good, and I will respond to it (probably in multiple parts). It was a big relief to see someone write such a post. Instead of ignoring what I'd said, u9y42 took the statements I claimed as true and presented counterevidence. People on this thread have been unable or unwilling to do this so far (except, to some extent, the Golden Dawn guy). I understand this is a difficult thing for most people to do. u9y42 probably was able to do this because he's followed the issue for a while, reading from different sources and reading historical information. If the rest of you want to someday be able to write a post like that, please, start reading -- and not just the things that you agree with.

I have been talking down to people and belittling them. Why? Let me tell you. Jew-hatred has been a serious issue for a very long time. Less than a hundred years ago six mllion Jews were systematically exterminated in Europe. There are people on this thread who openly deny this, and I suspect others on the thread who believe it's exaggerated. Most people in Western countries believe it happened, as do I. I suspect most people of the Islamic world either have never heard of it, or have heard it's a lie. That's the world today.

Some of those Jews escaped, and in some cases they escaped to a territory under British controlled territory (formerly part of the Ottoman empire) called Palestine. Some Jews had always lived there. Many other Jews had already immigrated to this territory before Europe's troubles, partly because Britain had promised a homeland for the Jews in the region in the Balfour Declaration.

Now instead of being described as immigrants fleeing persecution, people are pretending they rode in on tanks and started demolishing houses of peaceful people. Does Israel have tanks now? Yes. But that's not how they got there. They got the tanks after they arrived and after it became clear so many neighboring countries were determined to destroy them. After the neighboring countries failed (on multiple occasions) to destroy Israel, those neighbors continued to use the Palestinians as proxies to attack Israel.

Now we have people comparing modern Israelis to the Nazis. People are spreading one-sided propaganda and a cartoonish view of the history and of the situation.

Why is this happening? I honestly believe this is happening because a majority of the world hates Jews. They are determined to undermine Israel as a legitimate country so that someday when Israel is destroyed people can accept it -- even celebrate it. The world hates Jews so much it is actively trying to bring about a second holocaust, and justify it preemptively.

I'm not trying to convince you -- or any one else -- of this. However, if you believed you were watching this happen, how would you behave towards the people trying to preemptively justify a second holocaust? Would you try to reason with them? Convince them they're wrong?

The OP could've just made a spelling error when he wrote "israel" instead of "Israel," but if that were the case it would've been corrected. It's perfectly clear to me (and should be to everyone) that he does it on purpose. Why? I submit that he purposefully writes "israel" to push the idea that it isn't a legitimate country. And he's doing it because he wants it destroyed. How should I react to someone like that? To someone who spends his time on a forum attempting to justify and bring about a second holocaust? Given this view of him, I've been extremely fucking polite, trust me.

And that's just one minor example.

It's frustrating. I wish I could stop a second holocaust, but obviously I can't. I think it'll probably happen, and we'll see video of Muslims around the world celebrating, the way Palestinians celebrated on September 11. Western leaders will say it was Israel's own fault for not coming to an agreement.

And I'll get to work on nanorobots that invade and deactivate the testicles of humans.

Yes, there is war. Did I say there wasn't? The point is that there are clear and objective facts, and those are of interest to me. Mere opinions are not very useful.

By the way, Palestine is not a country, and it never was.

You started to sound funny. You are so emotional about this cause. Are you of a Jewish heritage? Let me open your mind to your self refuting arguments. You condescending piece of shit. Yes that is the first time I openly insult someone like this on these forums. You openly belittle people on this thread and brag about it? Okay then I will throw your fucking argument back on your face.

No one here denies the Jews struggle in Europe, Not even the dead children and women in every invaded Palestinian village by the Jewish Army. I am here, one of the people who at least want to give the Palestanian peoples' struggle and ordeal some dignity and respect, Acknowledgement and understanding.

Put yourself in their shoes, any of them. For one second in your self-righteous life. A foreign entity put another foreign entity on their land and gave them guns and power. And they moved to take over the land by force. You ask people here to read? Have you read any? In fact, have you WATCHED any? This is something that happens every day for the past 70 years! and youtube is FULL of recent videos submitted by locals and news reporters. There stories are not from books and wikipedias. Those are our childhood friends and families and their sisters, fathers and mothers and relatives. I feel for every Jew back in europe at that time and understand thier struggle but that is not an excuse to drive a tank on my bedroom. Not an excuse to kill my child in my own hands (Mohammad Al Dorra - Video evidence everywhere as it was documented and broadcasted worldwide - ) The child was shot with his dad as they hugged on the street asking for bullets to stop. Israeli citizens march and march for a long time now asking the government to STOP

http://972mag.com/no-more-deaths-israelis-protest-the-gaza-war/94380/

Read, Even the Jewish people there recognise the massacres and injustices. You are literally what you mocked. You denied and ignored hundreds of thousands that were systematically exterminated. You openly deny their ordeal and suffering. You are pretending they brought flowers and asked nicely to improve the neighbourhood. why do some compare them to Nazis? Because the right to the land is thought to be a right given to them by god since the old testament and they are permitted to do that to ANY that are there. They use that as an excuse to drive a well trained well organized militia into villages and small towns for the past half a century. You are a hypocrite. Fuck you and wishing to stop another holocaust. We are wishing for all death and killing to stop, Not just for the Jews.

Many of the best people I am friends with are Jews, Even more are Palestanian. War is ugly and the people in power do not care in either sides. In the end only the weak suffers and buried

You are not on a higher moral or intellectual grounds, You are just another asshole. Shove "talking down to people and belittling them" and your reasons for that up your ass.

I agree with you and they should find the peace.



What about israel? If palestine wasn't a country then also isreal isn't a country.

Okay, Lets start from there. What would you consider a country. Also considering the existence of natives in an area. What is accepted for you for a minority to start a country and how to deal with the existent natives? Lets see if Israel is one.

Source for what?

It is more accurate to say that the Arabs (Palestinians) attacked and tried to invade Israel. As a response, Israel was forced to make use of military occupation. Israel didn't even want to touch the West Bank originally. It was only after Jordan annexed it and used it to stage attacks on Israel that Israel was forced to occupy it in order to defend itself.

It is not clear what you are arguing based on these maps. Care to elaborate? The facts behind the maps show that they are a result of Israel being forced to defend itself. You may notice how the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively as well. Another fact is that the map only shows part of the Palestine Mandate area. Why is Jordan not included? That is highly misleading, as it paints a false picture of how the area was divided. The Arabs already got the majority of the Palestine Mandate when Jordan was given to them a few years before Israel declared independence.

Any country on the planet in Israel's position would do the same thing. Or probably worse. Israel has shown amazing restraint at times. For example, they never even wanted to occupy the West Bank, but it then turned out that the area was key for attackers who wanted to destroy Israel. The Golan Heights even more so. Anyone who controls the Golan Heights will be able to target any part of Israel, and will put Israel at a huge strategic and military disadvantage.

It is funny how you expand by defending yourself. Epic logic. Especially calling this area of expansion "defending itself". Maybe the British colonization was also an act of self defend ;)

This is not true. Israel is a country - or an independent, sovereign state which gained independence in 1948.

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

At the time when Jewish immigration to Palestine started the area was sparsely population, and it was not an independent state. It was simply an area which was under administration by someone else. There was plenty of available land, and Jews took advantage of that and settled peacefully in available areas. Eventually the British defeated the Ottomans and took over administration of the area. They then decided to give the population there control of the area. And so they wanted to give Arabs some land and Jews some land.

The bottom line is that there was plenty of available land, and the area was to be divided into various independent states anyway. And unless one has racist attitudes, it is only just that the Jews get their own state as well, and not just the Arabs (who already got Jordan as well).

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.

The palestinian people tried to ask the independence to the UN but you know what is happen. They only want to oppress those people and you can't come here and say "Israel is a country - or an independent, sovereign state which gained independence in 1948." What the fu*k are you saying? Why they can't help them instead of kill them?

@u9y42: Great post and thanks for writing it. I can only respond to part of it now, and will likely respond to other parts later when I have more time. Who knows how buried it will be by then.


You make a compelling argument against the statement:

(IIPE) Israel wants an independent Palestinian state to exist.

But that's not what I asserted:

(1) I believe most Israelis would like to find a solution to live in peace next to an independent Palestinian state that does not attack them.

We're living in the aftermath of Arafat's rejection of the deal offered by Barak in 2000 and the subsequent launching of the Second Intifada. To be fair, the Second Intifada was launched as the result of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, so lots of people blame that on Sharon (Israel). To be even more fair, the Palestinians launched an Intifada resulting in thousands of deaths because a politician visited a site, which can be blamed on the Palestinians.

The lesson that should be learned is that Arafat missed a generational opportunity to end the conflict. After refusing to come to an agreement with Barak and then launching the Second Intifada, it's not surprising that a significant percentage of Israelis do not believe the Palestinians actually want to live in peace next to Israel. This is the view expressed by Netanyahu. That doesn't refute my assertion (1). It only means they don't currently believe the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances. A lot of evidence supports this idea. Maybe this will change, but it would take a cultural shift among Palestinian attitudes towards Israel. The way to refute (1) would be for us to have a hypothetical world in which Palestinians are not attacking Israel for a few years and are not teaching their children to hate Jews. In other words, (1) is really impossible to refute. Well, unless one believes Palestinians have not been attacking Israel or teaching their children to hate Jews.

I'll concede this: If there's a 5 year period when Palestinians are not attacking Israel and are not teaching their children to hate Jews, and Israel doesn't offer them a deal, then I'll start reconsidering my position.


I hope you'll forgive some skepticism, but I remember how people lied about the Turkish flotilla some years ago. Can you give me a source for these items being denied entry? Are they generally forbidden or are you referring to some specific shipment?


I'd like a source for this as well. It would surprise me if Hamas said this, but you seem well-informed. In any case, I think if such a vote among Palestinians to explicitly recognize Israel were held, it would fail in a landslide. If the Palestinians surprised me, I think we'd quickly find out Hamas was lying.


While I do think most Palestinians are irrational and genocidal (comes from the culture), I don't think their position on Israel is irrational. I think they want the Jews dead. Their methods of acheiving this seem likely to be effective. From that point of view they are behaving rationally.


First of all, the UN's Human Rights Council clearly shows how much "objectivity" Israel can expect from international bodies. I had a post earlier that outlined how different regions of the world have a history of Jew-hatred. I expect the ICC to reflect that. The UN refuses to condemn Palestinian actions, but is always ready to condemn Israel (e.g., "Zionism is racism.") The only power the US has at the UN is the ability to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council (see Negroponte Doctrine).

To put it bluntly: whenever Jews rely on non-Jews to protect them, the result is always a lot of dead Jews. Even in WW2 the Allies kept the holocaust secret because they didn't want their soldiers to think they were fighting to help Jews.


I don't think all criticism of Israel is based in ignorance or Jew-hatred*, but I think Jew-hatred plays a huge role.

If there were very little Jew-hatred in the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict would be considered about as important as the dispute over Kashmir or Cyprus.

* I tend to say "Jew-hatred" instead of antisemitism. Some years ago I found people were responding quickly to my use of the word "antisemitism" with the rote phrase "You know, the Palestinians are also semitic!" Then I read that "antisemitism" was a term devised by Germans to be a sterile scientific version of "Judenhass" (Jew-hatred).

Again, thanks for the post and I may respond to more of the specifics at a later time. One of the things I've tried to do in some of my posts is make some labelled clear unambigious statements that people could argue for or against. Thanks for doing this.

No, but everyone thinks this when I defend Israel. That's how deep the Jew-hatred goes. Most people think only a Jew could possibly defend Jews.


Are you asserting that Israel has killed "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians? Or am I misunderstanding this?


OK, I'll be sure to do that. And if you ever get a time machine, please travel back to Dresden in mid-February 1945. I think you'd like the people there and I heard it was surprisingly warm for Wintertime.

The UN had a partition plan in 1947. The Palestinians rejected it.

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.

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 :)

people who support zionism are zionists, its not difficult

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.

everyone living there, mostly non je ws

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.

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


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

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.

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

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

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 (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.

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.


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):

 https://i.imgur.com/vj1ZJ18.png

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 (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.

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




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

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 (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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.



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.

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.

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).

May be we should give more importance to either GDP or the total population. Giving 1 vote each to Monaco (which is having a population of 30,000) and China (population of 1.3 billion) is not fair either. The US is able to get dozens of votes by default, from its minuscule vassal states such as Micronesia and Marshall Islands, which puts it in an advantage when compared to the others.

Yes of course, but they cannot stop the action with the VETO. it should be removed, because 5 nations can't 'decide' to all the others. I can say at 99% that USA doesn't want to help the Palestinian people instead I can say they want help 'only' the israeli government.

Waiting a reply from J. J. Phillips  (if you want ;)) without any sort of blame or offense by you, thanks.

Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

1. I want to drink fresh white wine (isn't it too racist?)
2. I want to smoke weed (a plant of the Creation)
3. I want to do it looking at ... (privacy)

1+2+3=I want.

I want = opposition is illusory.

the admin of b.o. (or others idiots, low life, low what ever, from where ever) can say (only lies so who cares), think, do, attempt, or even attack Tsahal^tm (be ready such low lifes will do it (not iran, to be clear)).

premise: the b.o. admin past and present (and future) hates Judaism, simple only the POTUS must be trusted.

conclusion: it may be the last fight (ie real total, no mercy, etc).

even if it's radiated from fukushima (thx Japan).

Bitmos

(this isn't an endorsement of any israeli gov, just stating the fact that I feel better in Israel, than in any of it's neighbors... and there are many people that pretends to be Hebrews, but who aren't (will see, it's only a guess, I am not in a position to determine it) some live in Israel, others in foreign countries, some even do Shabat, however God Knows).

What is fun, is that if you don't agree, you will have to defeat an enemy (from your position) who has nowhere to go... that's the toughest fight, generally of a life time...

In pictures:

http://euobserver.com/media/src/46c6126ec514519a5db6c611e8b8d481.jpg
euobserver.com/media/src/46c6126ec514519a5db6c611e8b8d481.jpg

certain lack of perspective...

http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140906/377870_Gaza-War.jpg
http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140906/377870_Gaza-War.jpg

here we go... It's called creating deepness in urban (battle)field, of course, once it's on, it's more (ruins)field.

advice: chose carefully.

I'm behind on this thread, so I'll just assume the past few pages is a lot of "Gee I wish the U.S. didn't have a veto so the U.N. could kill the Jews."

As was mentioned before, the U.S. has a veto on the security council. It also has some extra influence on a number of countries because the U.S. gives a hell of a lot of countries a hell of a lot of money. Maybe you should spend more time trying to convince countries to refuse U.S. aid.

Pretend it's a hypothetical world in which the U.S. is out of the picture at the U.N. Now countries can vote however they want on the security council, at the general assembly, or however you imagine the U.N. works. Now, what exactly could/would/should the U.N. do in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Someone earlier mentioned that the U.N. could patrol the seas near Gaza to prevent weapon shipments. I see no evidence that "the U.N." (whatever that even means in this context) wants to prevent weapon shipments to Gaza. Frankly, I see no evidence that most of the people on this board want that.

But do you think "the U.N." would vote to enforce a weapons blockage on Gaza? (Since you won't answer, I'll answer for you: no, you don't.)

OK. Maybe you think "the U.N." will vote to recognize a Palestinian state as was discussed earlier. Well, maybe they would. And that would change...what...exactly. I asked earlier, and someone responded with "a lot would change." I'm sure he's given specifics to flesh that out since I've been away.

Now let me let you in on a little open secret. The U.N. is a fucking joke. Yes, it's anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, if you care to look into it. But that's hardly a problem because the U.N. quite literally doesn't matter.

You say the U.N. doesn't stop the evil Zionist Jews from hurting those poor peaceful people who just want to live in peace with neighbor oh yes, we'd never lie to KILL THE JEWS THERE'S ONE BEHIND THAT TREE!

Well, yes, the U.N. doesn't stop them. The U.N. is powerless (fortunately). But that cuts both ways.

If all those countries that would vote against Israel at the U.N. to "stop Israel" just formed an alliance to take some action, the U.N. could and would do nothing to stop them. They really can't use the excuse "The U.N. won't let us" except on very uninformed people.

What is the action you think would be helpful here if "the U.N." took it? And why can't the countries form a coalition and simply take that action?

redzeronazi says:

"The" is used when there is a clear, unique referent, so I assume I missed this clear, unique action which the U.N. could take but is being stopped because of "the VETO." Can you save me the trouble of reading the past few days of posts and repeat what this action is? (<- This is a question and is being asked because I'm hoping you'll answer it. An answer would be in the form "The action the U.N. could take is ___." where you replace the ___ with a phrase that can be clearly interpreted as an action.)

What is it you really want? Since you guys don't answer questions, I'll answer for you again. You want dead Jews. Don't worry, eventually a coalition will be formed, the Jews will be killed, and you can hand out candy on the streets while cheering. The only thing that's delaying it is most people who want to do it want someone else to pay for it. And the fact that post-Hitler the Jews learned you have to shoot back, so the next people who try to kill the Jews might find themselves dead instead.

Oh.. here you come again. OK... now answering your question, I don't think there will ever be a resolution in the United Nations, to "Kill the Jews". We were talking about the right of Palestinians to live on the lands where they were born (and their ancestors were born), and not about gassing a few hundred Jews.

Exactly, I have created this thread only to 'catch' some opinion about the fact : why the Palestinian people are oppressed? Why didn't israel respect those *agreements? Why have they illegal invaded Palestine?
 
I am not talking about hamas etc... I am talking about the Palestinian people and you cannot sat they are not oppressed (if you will say it, I am sure you are a liar). The fault here is from UN and (old/actual) israel government.

*

First, this is why I'm comfortable calling you guys Nazis, and I'm surprised anyone reasonable is willing to stand with you. In the Holocaust six million Jews were killed, not a few hundred. And to destroy Israel it would take killing about six million Jews again. I doubt it would be by gas this time. Anyway, people like you can decide how it happens, obviously. I don't have much say in the matter. If it's up to the Palestinians I imagine most of the Jews will be stoned or thrown off buildings. Probably a combination of the two: throwing them off a building and then trying to throw stones off the building faster. The one thing we can be sure of is that they'll be yelling Allahu Akbar!

Most Palestinians alive today were born in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza or Israel. The ones in Jordan can keep living in Jordan, where they were born. Maybe Jordan will kill a few thousand of them like they did in Black September, 1971, but no one will care unless they can blame it on the Jews. And if the Jordanians do the Palestinians will respond like they did in 1972, by killing Jews in Munich. The Palestinians born the West Bank/Gaza can continue to live in the West Bank/Gaza. In a two-state solution what is now called "the West Bank" and "Gaza" would be called "Palestine." The ones who live in Israel can keep living in Israel. Sounds like we don't have a problem. People can live where they were born.

But I know what you're really saying. You're saying Palestinians who are the descendants of people who once lived in the land now called "Israel" should be able to return to that land, treated as full citizens, and then be allowed to vote to...kill the Jews. So, in the end it's still "kill the Jews," and only a few Jews (40%?) are naive enough not to see right through this. It's one of the key "Palestinian demands" called "the right of return." It's never going to happen on a grand scale, though it's conceivable that some older people who were actually alive in 1947 might be able to return. Maybe instead of the descendants of Palestinians going back to Israel, there should be an accounting of land stolen from Jews around the world in the 20th centuries, and Palestinians should be given all of that. They could probably get some nice real estate from Egypt to Iran, as well as some very nice apartments in Germany, Holland and France. But, let's be real, they don't want land. They want the Jews dead. They're pretty fucking open about it. The "right of return" is just a means to that end.

There have always been three very big sticking points in "peace negotiations."

1. The Right of Return: Palestinian descendants should be able to return to land their ancestors left/were kicked out of (depending on the story).
2. The Status of Jerusalem: Both sides want it. Israel says it'll never give it up, but in fact Barak offered part of East Jerusalem in the Camp David 2000 peace offer Arafat rejected.
3. Recognition of Israel (as a Jewish state): Arafat finally gave in to some degree on this with Oslo (though tended to hedge on the "Jewish" part in interviews). Hamas will never recognize Israel, and this is obvious if you know anything about Hamas. It's like saying the KKK will recognize civil rights. The best you can hope for is they'll be shamed into shutting the fuck up. Hamas will never be shamed into shutting up because they're both shameless and very popular.

Of course, there's also the issue of...

4. Terrorism: How many Jews are Palestinians allowed to kill annually before Israel is allowed to bomb the fuck out of them. Actually, the issue is what the Palestinian "authority"/government is obliged to do to stop terrorist attacks (or rocket attacks or martyrdom operations or whatever you call them). Anyone who's been following this for any length of time knows what the Palestinians always do in response to terrorism: reward it and encourage it. Naming schools after the terrorists is always popular.

The exact borders aren't really the main point, as far as I can tell. The deal offered at Camp David in 2000 gives a good indication of what the borders could be. Similar to pre-1967 but with some land exchanges based on "the facts on the ground."

If any of you are serious when you say you want both sides to live together in peace, then you should have a well-thought out position on these major issues.

I would ask you guys what your positions on those three main points are, but what's the fucking point anymore? You know everything's the fault of the Jews. The rest are just details to you. Better to outsource the details to your Mullahs/Obamas.

Somehow I totally fucked up my last post. This is all that's left. Fuck it. I'm not typing it again. Short version: You're all fucking lying Jew hating Nazis.

And why are the "Palestinian people oppressed"? Because they're fucking terrorists! Every chance they have ever been given to help make peace they have used to make war. It's like saying the KKK is oppressed, which they actually kind of are, but I am 100% in favor of the "oppression" of violent racists. I'm funny that way. (The KKK was also formed as resistance to occupation, by the way.)

Just to clarify in case any of you are KKK supporters. While I hate the KKK, I in no way mean to suggest they're as bad as the Palestinians.

This is the original post : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11125626#msg11125626  and it seems that you know the truth but you don't want to say it ;). No problem, we all know that israel invaded the Palestinian land "illegally", so you can say whatever you want but at the end you will be always wrong.


Can I ask you why are you doing this? It is really insane, change the words/thought of other users. Are you paid to do this? Thanks for the attention.

What agreements are you referring to? Your * referenced a map. This map talked about the British mandate, the UN partition plan of 1947, Israeli independence in 1948 followed by the attacks by Arab neighbors, and finally the Six Day War in 1967. Which of these are "agreements"? The only one that seems close to an "agreement" is the UN partition plan of 1947, but the Palestinians rejected it, not the Israelis. A plan is only an "agreement" when both sides agree.

While I have asked you many questions in the previous paragraph, I know you're incapable of answering questions. I mean, if you can't even attempt to answer a "fill in the blank" question about what action the U.N. could/should take if the U.S. didn't have a veto, when YOU'RE the one who wrote "the action," then it's clear you really can't answer even the simplest question. So you don't have to bother. Just keep posting uninformed dumb bullshit that ignores everything I say. People seem to enjoy it.

Um. No that's a link to one of your posts. Be careful or people might catch on to the fact that we're the same person and this whole thread is just a fucking game. And obviously you know whether or not I'm paid to do this, because you know whether or not you're paid to do this.

Something can only be "illegal" if it's against the law. Which law do you mean?

Again, you're not the question answering sort, I know. I capitalized the I in "Israel" in your quote because it seems like you forgot to.

To clarify about my missing post: I wrote a massive wall of text replying to everything in great detail and demolishing all arguments against the legitimacy and in favor of the right of return. The post mention the KKK was meant to be a clarification of a small part of that post. I probably clicked "edit" instead of "quote" and edited by massive post to almost nothing.

Since presenting claims without evidence is popular in this thread, I'll just expect you to accept that I won the argument completely in that lost post. You're welcome.

Everyone ignored this, but I think it's important. The fact that "Palestinians receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world" is completely consistent with my assertion "most of the world hates Jews." Palestinians are being rewarded for killing Jews. However, it's completely inconsistent with the assertion "The U.S. is preventing help getting to the Palestinians" which people seem to be making here (especially regarding the U.S. influence on the U.N.). Maybe you're not being clear about the kind of "help" you have in mind. I'd ask, but everyone would ignore the question.

jesus fucking christ you've managed to condense a lot of bad opinions into such a small amount of words

Holy shit. I argued so well in this thread that I became a "Full Member" and get to have an avatar. In honor of the thread I thought I'd remember a very special day in Palestinian history: September 11, 2001. What a happy day for them.

I think the word you're looking for is "true", not "bad".

I answered this question earlier:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11073918#msg11073918 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11073918#msg11073918)

pro tip always ctrl+p your message at regular intervals during writing...  ::)


J.J. what a funny guy. I find very interesting your position, you know as much as I defend your God Given Rights to EXPRESS yourself the way you see fit (while hurting no one, ie everyone can NOT read you), I have to defend the poor Brian, who too has the UNCENSORABLE rights to express his CURRENT view (linked to the inputs he may have), on the topic remember that the objectification of certain people under the nsdap rulership was not exclusively directed toward the "jews"... fact (worth repeating, remember others exterminated didn't have the financial support that some others hand (roms, gays, political opponents, financial opponents, dissidents, traitors, sick, non normalized behaviors etc etc etc).

However I think that I myself was missing the scam (scam are just scam) that the U.N. is, as you may have read those subhumans want to stop ME, to use a plant of the creation, that MY CREATOR, created. It's a genocide. I believed that the goal of the potus was all hail the potus, but the U.N. trough their charter want to impose it on ALL PEOPLE. which means that any texts that could in any way not agree with their doctrine must be eradicated.

you understand that the rabbis, will not let it go (understand equally that some real American Patriots, that understand fully what the forefathers tried to achieve in this text and how subsequent generation adapted it for the best (end of slavery) and the worst (to impose trough the legislative and executive power a ban on a plant of the creation and the scam of the gmos).

So thank you.

then I ask you, as you seem well informed, about the probability that I saw reference to the Quran in some text of the un agencies, wrong? any reference to the Torah (including words or concept?). but what ever, the us constitution is supreme on the land of the United States of America, the opponents of it will be purged, like the owls after lunch. dirty but necessary.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Bubo_bubo_-British_Wildlife_Centre%2C_Surrey%2C_England-8a.jpg/800px-Bubo_bubo_-British_Wildlife_Centre%2C_Surrey%2C_England-8a.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Bubo_bubo_-British_Wildlife_Centre%2C_Surrey%2C_England-8a.jpg/800px-Bubo_bubo_-British_Wildlife_Centre%2C_Surrey%2C_England-8a.jpg

What I was trying to say is that some believe (ignorant) that they will be able to impose sharia trough the un... (no joke you can see it in sdr support).


the problem brian is that you live under the old Russian system of thinking on this issue, we are not speaking of a few generations here. that's what you lack here, historical deepness. let's say that a group of fucking terrorists bent on enslaving your sisters, mothers, wife, destroying all cultural relics of the past of your ancestors, ban a lot of activities, all of this pretending to do it for your own good, took over Moscow, forced all the residents to convert or be second class citizen (when happy otherwise it's program one earlier spoken) would you think that the war to take back Moscow would be Eternal? if not leave. (ref, source for the low lives, scum academics and others shitfullhead : ETERNAL CHINA).


I always appreciate discussion on any topic, furthermore when conflicting opinions arise, I find even cool when my own position is changed following it.

However the people, is an interesting concept in a time of war, conquest, submission, oppression and ultimately the control of what is legal or not.

I rephrase there is no way for me to accept the reduction of my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS express beautifully (for the hands feasible men) in the US CONSITUTION AND BILLS OF RIGHTS (A9).

The Palestinians people must accept that once your ancestors stole, you have entered a conflicting position. to take back the case of Moscow taken by the hordes... if the Russian regroup beyond the Urals, motivated themselves, ask the help of the Siberians (who by the way would already be on the road to join them) you have to accept that even if it took a few generations, the take over back will be, how to say it, depending on the position of the previous invaders concerning their will or refusal of ts, ie total surrender. if they don't, they must accept their choices and the consequences of the results of the engagements. (rest assured Brian, Moscow will not fall, or they will be nothing else).

the Palestinians "people" are oppressed by the political/economical system of those profiting from a conflict with the Israelis, those opposing democracy, those wanting to impose global one world gov (ie law, and impunity and the capacity to pillage everywhere), you yes they are fucked up, and launched a demographic war against the soviets and survivors of the holocaust in Israel... bad choices. Mothers will tears, like they always do went their men lose the war... they played.


there can't be peace. simple. I want to drink my fresh white wine smoking weed on the beach... now add the fact that some women would like to do the same, wearing the outfit they see fit, how would so called Muslims reacts? How I put 1B people in the balances of war... hmm hmm, the avengers don't count, they hash.

So yes it's total warfare. that's why I like Israel (and even more The Promise of America), even if some want to live the ultra total full lifestyle they have no rights to stop me doing my things under the Watch of God, as such as consensus and respect and tolerance and peace and love among all must be preserved and nurtured, certainly I may not do it in certain places (MADD crew I listen) they don't see fit, but they agree to that if I can't (ie nowhere), what are my options? hehehe we wanna trade weed, they agreed, opposition is futile, remember the table ( :o  ;D).


ohh it's so more simple a frontier which correspond to threat factors facing the nations of Israel, by definition it can't be static. meaning or the others tribes accepting to move toward the light, or they perish. I know, war is brutal. so don't even waste your time on stupid things. war has imperative. IMPERIAL ROME, understood. no 2 teaching. once is always enough. I know. However the enemy must understand that Israel like most nations has corruptions problem, however if the opponents of Israel are peaceful it's easier to address internal corruption (war is so easy, silence), and in parallel to downscale the military might even to inexistence point, remember all industries can be traded to oblivion how powerful they are, they ain't the floor, nor the street, or the SWARM.


are you fucking nuts? where to colo those miners... we need to know and we will, hasbara, pr, pro... what ever, the Swarm always wins... think about flies... it's shit or not. 1 or 0. vmr to infinity, and yes it 1 or 0.

[/size]

FINALLY. 1 the US CONSTITUTION WILL NOT BE DEFEATED, those opposing will be objectivized sooner or later. but will be, including d.e., f.e. and u.e. (undefined), remember it's a job too, not only a Call, understand the efficiency that some members of the swarm requests to support, and the enemy may face extinction rather earlier and for reasons beyond his reach that he may think. the Eagle, the Wolf, the Bear, the Snake and all among them agree, you need to be local even at the size of a continent, global what the fuck let them be, but the home front will be defended including the take over and release of the all world. I know, they are crazy. Who is crazier to attack such crazy people? not Chinese, not Russian for sure.

then about your Nazi rants, nsdap... Nazi is national socialism, some ethnic people behave the same way, excluding the nation but take the appurtenance to an ethnicity or cultural divergences as a basis for discrimination against others, which lead to fucking weak way of think and operating wars (ex: rihana). ROME IMPERIAL but UNITED. or rephrased their is no others social contract acceptable but the one behind all troops in their free will. ULTIMATE. many many many (so many that it wasn't counted) perished against it. And many more understanding that this bound of trust was ultimately for the benefits each that those loved, joined. the problem is always fleecing corruption, they are violent but weak, how weak... how many against 1?


I just did (second hint: ctrl+c)


it's a fucking fact! look in isreal I could have been a gay smoking weed playing poker with the daughter of the rabbi! wtf, before going to the army to defend the land of my ancestors against those wanting to impose their laws on my people... great. let's the head rolls ( the buildings bombed and the sky flashed), who cares, they want me dead. and this is the war... just as always, when the EMPIRE is in motion and for various reasons unthinkable by non imperial forces, don't stand in the path, it's temporary your rights are always, laws, visions are always preserved, but you have to contribute financially, why? it's hosting, and it's the price of the preservation of what's yours and the symbol of your acceptance and tolerance of the necessity and priority of the empire. (mega pro hint: it could be religious too, even if you as occupied people don't accept, recognize fight or oppose such belief).


 ;)

I didn't  ;D.

3rd ctrl+p before sending too.






















 

You were on the verge of being reasonable for several posts, then you left for a few days and came back with BS like don't got time to read, so here's a bunch of strawmen and garbage diatribes. It's disappointing this thread turned out like this. I was hoping for something far more enlightened.

Your critique would be more convincing if there were a post somewhere in the thread stating, for example, some relevant action the U.N. could take if it weren't for U.S. influence. I mean, you could really call me out for saying "don't got time to read" by quoting such a post, but you can't because it's not there.

Any fair minded person reading this thread will see I responded "reasonably" to people who made reasonable posts. I responded dismissively to people who repeat nonsense while being utterly incapable of comprehending information contrary to what they already believe (e.g., redzeronazi).

A useful discussion about this issue would involve making a sequence of clear, unambiguous true-or-false style statements and having people who disagree indicate which they think are true and which they think are false. That's the first step to determining the nature of a disagreement. I tried to do this. Most of the participants on the thread ignored these statements and ignored clarifying questions I tried to ask. They continued to simply assert that there was some country called Palestine (there wasn't) that was "illegally invaded" by Jews (rather than there being waves of immigration) and that there was some kind of unspecified "agreement" that Israel made and is not holding to. I challenge anyone to simply count the number of clear statements I've made and clear questions I've asked that have been completely ignored. The people expecting me to respond to them when they're not responding to me are the ones being unreasonable.

In the end things will probably work out for everyone. The Jew haters will get their dead Jews and I'll get to exterminate the Nazi human species.

In the WW2, 80 million people lost their lives, including 6 million Jews. Around 40 million Slavs lost their lives, and they represent the largest group of victims. If you are talking about the percentage, then almost 80% of the Western European Roma were killed in the holocaust by the Nazis.

While, I deeply sympathize with the Jews who were killed during the WW2, the difference between you and me is that I believe that there were other groups who were victimized in the WW2 as well (Slavs, Roma.etc). The holocaust was a Nazi mission to exterminate Slavs, Roma, Jews.etc. You can't whitewash history and say that only Jews were targeted in the holocaust.

the one reasonable is the one holding the gun in the ass of the others... the rest is hypocrisy.

Briant 4 prez :D.

First: I said that 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust as a direct response to the following quote from you:


Everyone can decide for themselves why you wrote "gassing a few hundred Jews" if you agree that 6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust as your latest post suggests. What "few hundred Jews" were you referring to? The most charitable explanation I can find is that you meant to type "few million Jews" but accidentally wrote "few hundred Jews".

Second: I agree that other minority groups were targeted by the Nazis. I don't believe I've written anything to suggest otherwise, but you're welcome to quote me if you think I have. It's obvious why Jews have been the focus in this thread, given the topic.

But I'm glad BitMos and you brought up these other victims. The Roma, for example, are still treated terribly in Europe from what I read. It's too bad this problem is ignored.

In a thread where so many people have trouble with simple factual statements, I'm hesitant to bring in counterfactuals/hypotheticals. Still, I will. I wonder what would've happened if many of the Romani had immigrated to, say, Kashmir in the early part of the 20th century. (They do have northern Indian ties historically, so it isn't so far-fetched.) Suppose that at the end of British rule in the late 1940s the Romani declared an independent state in part of Kashmir. Clearly there would be lots of armed conflict in that region, just as there is today. However, I imagine we'd hear much more about the Kashmir conflict and most of what we'd hear would be cartoonish misinformation about evil Gypsies lying, cheating and oppressing poor indigenous Muslim children who just want peace and crayons. The reason would be racism.

It seems to me that this problem has been going on for too long, since 1948. That was a real political will from the Israeli and Palestinian sides, this problem could be solved long ago. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides fits this situation for political gain, popularity and to gain election. Nobody cares for ordinary people who suffer most in this situation.

Oh..... Now you are saying that 80% of the Western European Romani wouldn't have been butchered in the holocaust, had they migrated to India. What if I say the same about Jews?

Had the Jews migrated to either Uganda or Madagascar, the holocaust could have been avoided (I am not a supporter of this idea... this is just to counter Phillips' arguments).

Bwaahaaahaaa. Oh, that's funny. Since this is such a bizarre interpretation of what I said, I'll assume you're just trolling. I mean, come on. It's obvious that I was describing "what if the Romani had started moving to build a homeland like the Jews did," to make a hypothetical point. If I were saying the Romani could've avoided the Holocaust by doing so, it would imply I thought the Jews avoided it by moving to (what is now) Israel. To be clear: I don't think that. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. I think if the people opposing me in this thread have their way, six million more Jews will be killed in Israel. I think that's a bad thing.

In case anyone actually doesn't understand what I said or its context, I'm happy to clarify. Earlier I said something like this:

(JHKA) If there were very little Jew hatred in the world, the Arab-Israeli conflict would be about as important as the conflict in Kashmir.

As with most of my statements and questions, this was ignored.

My hypothetical is to acknowledge: (1) It's not just the Jews that are hated, as one can see by looking at the Romani. (2) The conflict in Kashmir would be seen as far more important if Westerners were racist against one of the sides.

It's an imperfect comparison. The important thing with the Jews is that they are hated by Muslims (going all the way back to conflicts with Mohammed) and by the West (hmm, to some degree this traces all the way back to the roots of Christianity [Christ-killers!]...interesting). That's what makes both the West and the Islamic world side against Israel, and draws so much attention to the conflict. I'm not sure of any history between Islam and the Romani. I'm sure someone could google it for me. I think there's bad blood between Islam and Hinduism (death to all polytheists!), but that at least doesn't date back to Mohammed. Well, the death to polytheists does, but not Hinduism specifically. The West isn't really antagonistic towards Indians. The most racist image of India in the West is Apu from The Simpsons. I'll bet Jews would love it if that were the most racist image of Jews.

The part that makes the comparison good is that India was under British rule until the late 1940s, just like the Palestinian Mandate. In both cases the land was divided into -- very roughly speaking -- a Muslim part (Pakistan) and a non-Muslim part (India). [By the way, is Pakistan "occupied territory"?] In both cases there's a conflict about who has part of the land, and the conflicts have both been violent. So why aren't we seeing constant threads and propaganda about Kashmir? No Jews. My point was, well, maybe if instead of fighting Indians the Pakistanis were fighting the Roma, there would be a lot more propaganda. You know, about how the Pakistanis got "gypped" -- that kind of thing.

People may also wonder why we're talking about the Roma at all. Well, I was responding to Bryant Coleman bringing up the Roma (and others) who died in the Holocaust. (Well, he generalized to those who died in WW2.) He did this because he mistakenly believed I was implying only Jews died in the Holocaust. (You can tell it's a mistaken belief because he hasn't supported it by quoting anything I've written. While most of the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish, there were about five million non-Jewish victims. In addition, obviously millions more died fighting in WW2.) He did this after I brought up the fact that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. I brought that up as a response to this quote from him:


I interpreted this comment to mean that Bryant Coleman is a Holocaust denier. A common form of Holocaust denial is saying that the number of Jews who were killed (six million) is exaggerated. Since then, he indicated he agreed six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It's good that he's not a Holocaust denier. We have more than enough of them on this thread already.

But it leaves me to wonder: what in the holy fuck did the phrase above mean? Does Bryant Coleman think only a few hundred Jews live in Israel? Surely not. Then...what? As I mentioned before, the only charitable interpretation I can think of is that it was just a typo. He meant to write "million" but wrote "hundred". It's a strange typo. Not quite "there" vs. "their." But, honestly, I can't make any sense of it. I can't help but wonder if he might be a Holocaust denier, but backed away from it because it makes him sound crazy and dumb.

Oh, by the way, to those of you who are Holocaust deniers: most of the world thinks you're crazy and dumb. Given the crowd on this thread, that might need to be said explicitly. Like earlier when I mentioned the classic question with a presumption: "When did you stop beating your wife?" It later became clear to me that that might be confusing to the Muslims on this thread. I should've made it explicitly clear that the rest of the world things beating your wife is a bad thing. Sorry I wasn't clear about that before.

don't get fooled, they aren't, those that do what you describe. How could you beat the one you love there and then? haha.

A very important point about the support for Palestinians... the americans stole the land of the Natives...

to put in back in the context (or conquest) the (fake) Muslims don't accept to return the stolen land to it's owner.

There is always the choice between anger and curiosity, vengeance and forgiveness, selfishness and compassion.

Life in twenty first century is going to be getting pretty awkward for the religious fanatic, because we are building god as machine.

Religion: "Let's maim and kill each other to prove which god is greater."
Science: "Let's build a real (machine) god and ask him some good questions. If we're lucky we may get an orders of magnitude more accurate description of the universe and its laws."

kill them all, if they are natural born citizen of the united states America, for they did to me, and others, there is no forgiving, but the wipe out of a people.

edit: only the Natives, easy to recognize, they are warriors, and between real it's easy to see.

I was paraphrasing of course, but there's what you requested: You indicating you were dismissing everything without reading it.


I consider myself fair-minded, but I do not agree with this representation. You have responded reasonably to some posts, and have been very dismissive of others. Reasonable people make their points with the aim of convincing the other side, not convincing themselves how right they are. As you indicate, some people here are not capable of changing their worldview, but take a look at your attitude here and realize you are just as guilty of that as the people you rail against and become a dick to for failing to change their views. When you get frustrated at people holding other viewpoints, you are prone to hyperbole and a violent mentality, but you seem to think that because you view the world as 'Jew hating' that it is justified. Fair minded people disagree with violence.

Here are the most recent examples of you exemplifying this behavior and building strawmen so you can claim victory, not further this discussion:





You don't come across as fair-minded. This collection of posts is just garbage, but the difference between them and someone else posting similar crap on the opposite side is you claim to know better about having a useful discussion:


So are you contributing to a useful discussion here, or are all those posts I quoted from you not constructive? You have very good points when you're following the advice I bolded above, so let's get back to that and cut out all that shit you keep posting.

I think both should stop fighting and learn to live together, fighting only results in the loss of lives of so many people. The fight is literally going on for 1000's of years this should come to an end and people should be able to live peacefully, when i see the news i feel very sad to see a dead Palestinian baby or a dead Israeli kid, it is really sad and very bad, whatever is happening, people, grow up and stop fighting, you won't get anything out of it but just lose lives and have sorrow.

The fighting has been going on for thousands of years? At least in Israel / Palestine, that is not the case. Jewish immigrants started to move to Palestine only in the 20th century (esp. after the WW2). The conflict started after that. Before the WW2, more than 90% of the Jews were residing in Europe. Hitler killed more than half of them, and the remaining migrated to other regions, including Israel.

Yes the fight is going on for 1000's of years, that period Palistine was called Philistine, and this is not something which just sprout out a century ago, but as the times have changed, people should stop fighting each other, I could not get much graphical charts for the historical time line of war between Israel and Palistine as most were just theoratical but was just able to find couple

http://s9.postimg.org/ka0kd0w0f/123.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Muslim_Conquest.PNG/800px-Muslim_Conquest.PNG

You modified my quote. Here is the original:


To me it's quite clear that when I wrote "quoting such a post" I was referring to a hypothetical post by someone else giving some "relevant action the U.N. could take if it weren't for U.S. influence." Instead you took away the first sentence to make it look like I was asking for you to quote a post in which I was dismissing without reading. If you did this on purpose, that's some A+ dishonesty. If you really didn't understand what I was asking for, then we are -- quite literally -- writing in different languages.


I already did my part by putting a number of labelled clear true-or-false style statements and either indicating whether I believed them to be true-or-false, often with explanations as to why. If other people were interested in having a useful discussion, they would take some of these statements and say whether they believe them to be true or false and give some explanation. Their explanations could involve new true-or-false statements to consider and discuss. The fact that no one is doing this supports my belief that this thread is not really about discussing the conflict. The thread is about demonizing Jews.

There are apparently a lot of people on bitcointalk who think it's very important to keep Jew hatred threads high on the Politics and Society forum, from this one to the "Jews did 9/11" one. Something is rotten here.

Yes, I thought you were speaking of two different topics, and I didn't understand how the first sentence applied to the second, so I edited out the part about the UN because I hadn't said anything about the UN. For that matter, I still don't understand your point there or how it is a response to what I said, but in the interest of getting back to something more meaningful, am willing just to chalk it up as my loss.


Yes, I am disappointed in the lack of response to those instances. At the same time, look what does get responded to: intentionally inflammatory posts which make it easy to ignore the quality ones. The same way you get caught up on the idiot who posts garbage like "International Zionism Did 911–23 facts." If someone is clearly an idiot, don't even engage them, their ideas certainly aren't worth validating as something that needs to be defended against.

Hopefully getting back to something useful, I would like to ask a few questions to get your views on them:

1) Do the Palestinians have any legitimate claim to an independent state or should the state of Palestine never exist?

2) Do Jews have the ultimate right (as in it can pre-empt all other claims) to Jerusalem? (I understand the city to be claimed by Palestinians and Israelis as a capital.) That is, does either group have a sole claim to the city, or should/can it exist as a capital of two independent nations?

3) Do you believe the expansion of Jewish settlements into what the Palestinians claim is Palestinian lands is justified? (Or do you believe Palestinians have no legitimate land claims, so the question is moot?)

4) And finally, if there should be a two-state solution, what border should Israel occupy now? Was the 1947 plan that was devised by the UN inherently flawed or biased against Israel, or was it only the Arab wars against Israel that made the original plan unworkable?

I'm just looking for brief responses initially and we can get into more color and the justification of the answers after that (if we hold different views on something). Mostly I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out what I think, but I don't know the things I don't know.

all of this because Titus had to restore Law and Order to the gateway to the wheat, and cotton, and whine and many others miracles of the Nile... and you know it was fortold, what 70 years earlier... but the greed of the occupiers of the temple was stronger... they paid, more than they ever imagined...

picture it yourself... the first night, when everything is setup, particularly the catapults, and he said something like this:

1/2 ration whine and bread before the show

they asked : what show?

he said : let's put fireballs on the catapults, it will be fun, and of course a full ration of whine and bread,

they all laugh, knowing that it would be fun.

I like Palestine. Everyone I met there was kind and helpful. If you want to see for yourself stay on the Palestine side when visiting Jerusalem. The National hotel has good prices and is a nice location for walking the city.

https://nationalhotel-jerusalem.com/

I'll try to be brief, but it's a challenge.

1a. Do the Palestinians have any legitimate claim to an independent state?

I'll answer this "no," but for somewhat technical reasons. "Legitimate" seems too related to law or legal authority, and I don't believe there's any legal authority through which the Palestinians have a "legitimate claim" to an independent state. Someone else could answer it "yes" by pointing to U.N. general assembly resolutions, but I don't accept the U.N. as any kind of legal authority. It's reasonable for Palestinians to want to have an independent state, and maybe that's more in the spirit of what you're asking. I'm skeptical that this is the primary desire of Palestinians.

1b. Should the state of Palestine never exist?

If a state can be established that isn't regularly attacking Israel, I don't have an objection. I have serious doubts about whether such a state can live in peace with Israel. I don't think much would change if it were recognized as a state. There would still be regular attacks, responses, and recriminations.

2. Do Jews have the ultimate right (as in it can pre-empt all other claims) to Jerusalem? (I understand the city to be claimed by Palestinians and Israelis as a capital.) That is, does either group have a sole claim to the city, or should/can it exist as a capital of two independent nations?

I don't think Jews have an ultimate right to Jerusalem. I can't think of any situation where I would say an ethnic or religious group has a "right" to some land. As a practical matter, Israel will not give it up. (It's as unrealistic as Turkey giving up Istanbul.) However, the deal offered in 2000 shows some Israelis are willing to give up some parts of Jerusalem to be a capital of Palestine. I'm skeptical that this would work in practice, but I have no objection to it being tried.

3) Do you believe the expansion of Jewish settlements into what the Palestinians claim is Palestinian lands is justified? (Or do you believe Palestinians have no legitimate land claims, so the question is moot?)

While I don't believe the Palestinians have "legitimate" land claims, I can still try to answer the first question. The expansion of Jewish settlements into new parts of the West Bank makes the effective land area for a future Palestinian state smaller. I think this is a reasonable price the Palestinians should pay for decades of committing, encouraging and rewarding terrorism. Imagine there were a magical force field that determined the border, and that every time there were a Palestinian terrorist attack on Israel that force field expanded outward by one meter. I would consider that a good thing. I would feel differently if Palestinians discouraged terrorism and punished terrorists.

4. And finally, if there should be a two-state solution, what border should Israel occupy now? Was the 1947 plan that was devised by the UN inherently flawed or biased against Israel, or was it only the Arab wars against Israel that made the original plan unworkable?

The peace deal offered in 2000 gives a realistic idea: something close to the 1967 borders but with land swaps to account for Jerusalem and the "facts on the ground." I don't know if the 1947 partition plan was workable in 1947, but I seriously don't think it is today. There has been too much population growth and movement since then, in addition to other issues.

Here is my suggestion for lasting peace in Israel and Palestine:

1. Israel should withdraw from Gaza Strip and West Bank
2. Gaza Strip should merge with Egypt. West Bank should become independent Palestine.
3. Population Exchange: All Israelis living in West Bank should move to Israel proper, and all Arabs (including Israeli citizens) living in Israel proper should move to West Bank.
4. Jerusalem should be split in to two, with Western part going to Israel and Eastern part to Palestine.
5. International peacekeepers (only from countries which are willing to recognize Israel) should be placed on the Israel-Palestine border.

Some of my suggestions (especially #3) might seem to be outrageous. But IMO, this is the only hope for lasting peace in the region.

over, shall any city is undividable. discussing is over. let's split your body in 2, let's split moskow in 2... etc etc... the rest who cares if that isn't entered in your brain by discussion it will be by you and your children in graves (for the lucky ones) the others will just rot and dry under ruins... war is raw, enjoy it, and appreciate the show it's a lot of effort, work and perseverance and most of all resilience and determination... you know after titus, and still there, there must be something :D.

J.J. you will hate this message, but I don't care because if you see what I write about the other side, it's only fair to expose the situation in it's totality :

the hens, you know, if there were a total unified Palestine under jewish rules, aka the land of the jews, how would the hens justify the occupation of the duck lake, remember duck > hens.

and now who cares, it ain't the MAINLAND, so if a sucker does something bad in HK or where ever in the MAINLAND, expect a Titus... but you know it, and you accept it, that every few generations you get culled, and now that a few will escape and continue the scam on others people farther away... but be aware we have digitalized, everthing is recorded (what always the case in MAINLAND, just harder to find the info in those massives stacks of papers... ahhh yeah, your people didn't invent papers, only served as banker of the pope, don't forget who rules over your lives)

everyone is in, who will get the Jerusalem city, who cares, I prefer China, it's nicer, cleaner and the People are Human Beings (don't worry the others Mainlanders, just accept facts, thx for your children).

ahhh. it will be a beautiful night on the edge of city, on OUR WALL, build by the EMPIRE, it's like a giant greek real life theater... who said that Romans didn't like tragy comedy, just not the one that try to take the mind of the children with bullshit, there we wipe clean, or worst. noted subhumans. good, you learn, slowly.

a quick reply, I have always been disappointed by jewish mens (you know they aren't they are like fake muslims), but ONE, I don't need to tell you his name, because in reality I don't how is mother called him. However most jewish girls, have been really kind to me, always, and never had any problem with any of them. If I could I would be freeing your from the hands of those fake jewish men and fake rabbis and co... but I think you will find and regain more by doing it yourselves, I know you can.

just for the "jewish" planners, your only mistake was to not acknowledge the exponentialization of digitalization, who could have anticipate it :D...

(it's a temple in china that uses lightning, the first transistor ever).  :-* and fuck you, liers.

Dear Sandmen  ;D  ::)  >:(  :D  :P  ::)

I would like that you start to dispatch the sand barge ( you know to build the world  8)  ???  ::) ) to sand Eilat. you know this infidels resort (where they drink alcohol and rape under age girls), because ONE AND FOREMOST THE PATH TO MEKKA WILL NOT BE STOPED BY THIS FILTH, and so my camel's friends will be able to come from Africa, fully on the sand without hurting their very soft feet. thank you very much. So yes sand the city, make it a dune... And I know you will :D. And it's not because I ask, and you know it. It's written, and not by me, there was no chips at the time, but to this day it came to us... so please sand me this city. they will come to the Hadja, and that's the Jihad (like or not btw). wtf in the caucasius ?!?!? the path to the hadj is clear from anywhere from the Russia Federation, but not from Egypt ? lol... Peace or Shalom :D.

just as a last comment on the topic, because I think all is said, and recorded:

it's not because I hate a group of men, that I will steal their land or their city. however if they stand in the path of Real human beings, it may get different, if they agree or not, isn't important, as they are gonna be wiped out.

Political Zionism belongs to the 19th century - out of date and backward in thinking. Ethnicity is a delusion of the mind. The moment you give someone a 'reason' to tribalise they will run with it, and the walls will start popping up soon after. Tear down the fictional walls of ethnicity in mindspace first, and true multiculturism and integration will follow.

This is an interesting point. It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine, and yet it seems out of the question to expel Arabs from Israel. This makes sense, of course. Arabs know they're reasonably safe in Israel and have political rights. Everyone knows that Jews who remain in the new Palestine without Israel's explicit protection will be massacred.

But think about what this implies.

The same case can be made that Political Islam (like that of Hamas) belongs to the 7th century. I guess this would make Political Zionism 1200 years more advanced.

which negotiations would those be? the only deal ever offered by israel was under barak's leadership and would have involved only the removal of a handful of settlers and there are now 100k more settlers living in palestinian territory then when that offer was made.

it seems out of the question to expel (more) arabs from israel because there's no equivalence to be made between people whose ancestors lived in the same villages for 100+ years and european and american colonists illegally transplanted onto land that belongs to someone else

Yes, I explicitly mentioned the 2000 deal a few times. Note that I didn't say "all Israeli settlers". The settlers that would have stayed would have been part of Israel (otherwise they'd be massacred) and some land was to be swapped to make up the difference.

Based on your last sentence, it sounds like you believe that land belongs to ethnic groups, not individuals. Is the correct? And the way to determine if the land belongs to an ethnic group is to see how many centuries they lived there? If the Israelis hold out for 200 years, would you then agree the land belongs to them?

I don't, I can't smoke weed while drinking fresh white wine under olive trees with Israelis people in peace. We may be arrested, tortured and jailed for indefinite periods even life-time. Without a positively asymmetrical army trained and ready to annihilate those coming to do those crimes toward us and anything that may be a "support group", it would be even stupid. I never said stupid, and sadly more than often necessary. forevermore, no.

(edit, for slow reader to read at the end, scroll down, fast, you will read otherwise, I know): if you ear a small boom on the roof, run for your life, it's gonna be louder soon (did you  ;D).


I am not sure, the problem is that my problem the usury isn't a jewish think, quite even the contrary, however anti-Semitism, or rephrased anti-anything that doesn't fit the current power of the American aristocracy is under nuclear annihilation treat, even more than often others more economically sensitive means will be chosen.

The problem is to be the enemy in the eye of the others. For example in the Temple of the Mount, located in the heart of Jerusalem, is the most important physical place in the world for the Jewish People. You can read there text if you don't believe me. So what ever the disguise of the fighting of the leading artistocrats of the occupied usa, it's important to accept 1 they shit, as death come and even trough foundation or what ever the next will certainly purse what ever they please. I know it's sound quite futile for those pretending to leave so called legacy... but opinions, information etc changed, like the relative discovery of the so called new world.

The problem is that as I answer in the first there are sometime lifestyle that incompatible. Some wants to be as far away from God as it's humanly possible (relatively it ain't that far  ::)), however others aim to achieve the opposite objective. Certain wants to impose their lifestyle on all, others don't want to interfere in the lifestyle of others. Certain respect... etc etc.

The rationality isn't a rational and or logical basis to take successive decision. As every decision is based on assumption and hypothesis that trough the time, refined and sometimes even totally toss aside, it's important to acknowledge the supremacy of God, and it's Messengers over all thing of the realm of before death. Do you try to sail toward God or away from?

As such there come that certain wrong doers will even interfere in the pursuit of the journey toward God of those sailing toward. As such you must understand that God is Supreme, Absolute, Out of Questioning, and it ain't a Game. By this I mean that one of the greatest treath facing those of the sailing toward that will oppose rightly so the wrong doers it is always important to accept to let it go, to those that come after (anyway).

So you understand the problem then comes from the concept of temptation and or purification. certains want to live in homogenous society. for example you may consider raping 12 years old and or then forcing them to marry to be a lifestyle compatible with your position in the universe. I don't.

Furthermore leading to your probable and proof able (it's just an example, not a solo attack :D) already occurred occurrence that some in your way of life did it, I can't not join in my soul and consciousness those that will oppose this life style, using the means at the disposal of those closer to the Light.

And let me tell you, pfffffffffff. gone. theywere&itwas&wedid. And as the presence of the enemy in this journey is probable and already many time proofed, in the blood and too sudden death of many travelers of the toward due to the enemy, it's clear that the enemy is in darkness if it doesn't understand what I just write. some wanted grow old, but we recalled earlier. God willing, but the reduction of the enemy is in my opinion a good way to occupy the journey when not recalled. the earth travel fast enough in my opinion... but everything is relative, only 1 or 0?

then you are quite unicorned butterflying about your wall, behind those wall there are extermination camp. They are far from God, but to close to us. that always my opinions. happily it's quite temporary.



Some time I disagree, and sometime to contradict a fact is stupid, ignorant and frankly how to acknowledge God when even a simple vulgar fact, that may change, who knows but God, isn't accepted. I think a rule of thumb is to never intervene in the Real Conflict of the Area, the One War, that predate them ALL, all have gone, but this war. Jerusalem isn't that important in this One War, the one that All that Begun it died, ohhh so long ago recalled... Stealthy, foohooo, beyond technology... a war of Faiths, and none will ever retract but then. so Shalom, but in peace, respect, for all the Prophets and the travelers too. life is a journey.


so you oppose ultra orthodox? everyone should SERVE? hmmm Romans w(h)ere never foolish, do as you want, but we pay... :D. and well  8). Furthermore only weak (sometime rich) little kingdomlet will be framed by the conscensus of the others weaklets. I explain, ROME never saw the world as most little framed nation do. THE EMPIRE, THE WORLD, IT'S BEAUTY, WE SAW, WE CONQUERED, and then he went down :D, but fucking traitors pretending since long to be just, righteous, and more than all the insult pretend to be the law of man, when ONLY GOD RULES THE WAY OF THE TOWARDS. and of course it's impossible to accept to the outwards (digression), so just to say it ain't because you see a line of rock in the sand as your frontier that it is, a Legion is quite big, many and the rocks will be dust, bring water mof. :).

I love Market, because even if usure is supreme, those fights are let out, but by the FINANCIAL AND MARKET SUPREMACY on certain area and the trade route necessary but not the way the people shall live in their homeland (a 24/7 miles long open pit ain't possible near the Mount of the Temple in Jerusalem, and everyone agrees, but certain bad apple.


I tried to explain you that in the Path of the Empire false representation are pulliverized, ashed, and dusted, that all cultural relic, way of life and any other marker of identity will be gone, that submission and disintegration is the only path, in assimiliation, that not forced but wanted will be, as the light shines. In Know that the fleet of those traveling toward God is so mighty than when the enemy looks in the direction it's see only Light, and the Light of God because no fleet HOW WIDE it may have been can shade GOD...

And that's the power of ours, and we don't care if you don't agree, you know what you want, we do too. For The Claws of your Kind, wanting to impose the law of the phiraos of your days, you don't want to acknowledge God, and the Path toward. It's a shame for you, but a nice way to past time for us.


The Servants of Cleopatra were thinking along the same lines... forward my Titus, and Constantine even saw it... so pffff. futile, even for the usurpers, the journey is funnier with  real life tragy comedy... you don't like to play Clue, 3 to 6 players by Pratt? and it's on teevee :).

but the settlers that would have stayed = practically all of them. you're making it sound like just a handful were going to remain and the arabs were making a fuss about nothing. here is a map of the best deal israel offered the palestinians. does it look like "It's always been part of the negotiation that Israeli settlers won't be allowed to stay in what becomes Palestine" to you?

https://i.imgur.com/XyD6DHR.png
https://i.imgur.com/vItHf3l.png
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/taba2001.html

this is like asking if apartheid had been able to hold out for another 200 years would i accept south africa now belongs to the whites. no solution is ever going to be acceptable that leaves millions of people in a state of limbo without national rights.

I'm unclear on what the map you posted shows. In the pie chart on the side it says "White Area 6% 41 settlements, 65% of settlers" and "West Bank Brown Area 94% 87 Israeli settlements 35% of Israeli settlers". I had to stare at the map on a left for a while to decide what counts as "brown" and what counts as "white". I guess there are two different "browns" that both count as part of what would have been Palestine had the deal been accepted. And most of the settlements are in this "light brown" part and would have been abandoned. The "white" parts are small but can be found around Jerusalem and Ariel a bit north. I suppose the blue parts in these white parts are the ones that would have remained. Israel probably wanted to keep these because they are the most densely populated (based on the fact that 65% of settlers are in this small area). It's possible I'm misinterpreting the map. It took me three tries to find an interpretation that fit the statistics. Just tell me if you're reading it differently.

Well, a picture is sometimes helpful, so here's my modification of that map where I've blackened the Israeli settlements that would've been abandoned had the peace deal been accepted. Is this how you interpret it as well?

http://s8.postimg.org/mk8pjl6lx/Taba2001b.png

If this is correct, then it seems that land-wise most of the settlements would be gone. The settlements and settlers that remained would've been part of Israel, not part of what would have become Palestine. No Israeli settlers would've been left in what would've become Palestine. Maybe we're having trouble communicating because we interpret the phrase "become Palestine" differently. When I use it, I mean what would be the state of Palestine after such a peace deal. It's even more confusing here because the correct tense would be "would have become Palestine" since it's about a counterfactual world in which Arafat had accepted the proposal.


I assume this is a response to the final question. It's hard to tell, but I think you're saying you would never have accepted South Africa "belongs to whites" and will never accept the land in Israel "belongs to Jews". Or did I misinterpret this too?

You didn't directly answer the first two questions. However, what you're saying only makes sense if someone thinks of land as belonging to ethnic groups, not individuals. Presumably that's how you see the world. In addtion, it seems like your classification of land-to-ethnicity doesn't really depend on how long they've lived there (based on your South Africa response), so I'm not sure why you mentioned the fact that Arabs had ancestors living on that land for "100s of years." Presumably it doesn't matter how long they'd been there. You classify that land as "belonging to Arabs" just like South Africa "belongs to blacks" (I guess). It's not clear to me how you decided which parts of the world belong to which ethnic groups, but I guess it's not so important. All someone needs is a map with colors and conviction of being right.

strong doublespeak going on here. make peace by killing everyone else. stop illegal immigration by making it legal. take another 50% of the west bank and call it israel and there are still no israeli settlers in palestine.

most settlements might have been gone but most settlers would have remained. and the best palestinian land was to be exchanged for a few miles of israeli desert. the isolated outsposts barak offered to remove including the ones in gaza that eventually did get removed were always joke things to annoy the palestinians and present false "concessions" at negotiations to make israel look reasonable in front of world opinion

but i suppose we are talking at cross purposes. when i say palestine i mean the land over which jordan and egypt relinquished their claims in favour of the plo (not israel) 30 years ago. i base this on the 1967 borders and 242 and the principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the illegitimacy of occupying powers settling their civilian populations onto land they occupy for the purposes of altering demographics on the ground and annexing that land. when you say palestine you mean whatever territory happens to fall outside what israel decides it needs for its security and colonisation objectives at any given time.

israel belongs to israel. land, ports and airspace outside of israel including jewish settlements and the borders with neighbouring states don't belong to israel.

its not clear to you because you don't acknowledge that everyone has the right to self determination and that international law exists.

whites living in south africa wasn't the problem. jews living in palestine in 1900 wasn't the problem. the problem was that they formed governments, took over the land and denied the natives civil and political rights. until palestinians are either granted citizenship by israel, the country under whose rule they are forced to live, or allowed to create their own state, the problem wont go away. there's no magical point in time at which the palestinians are going to become ok with the idea of being someone else's colony.

Wow. It seems like we might actually understand each other's point of view now. I imagine if we sat down in a room together we could hammer out some compromise that neither one is happy with, shake hands, then have it fall through, both blame each other and end up killing each other. Just like real life! We should share a Nobel Peace Prize for our work in this thread.

So what it is the "legitimate" claim for Israel as a state then? It seems to me the same situation: Israel declared itself a state in 1948 at the end of the British Mandate, and then it was accepted as a state by the international community. It seems just as arbitrary as Palestine, which has declared itself a state and is recognized by a majority of the world, both in terms of number of governments, and a vast majority of the population represented by those governments. I'm just trying to drill down as to what the specific difference is here, on a technical "what is a state" level.


I agree with you for the most part, the violence and the rockets need to stop. The only thing I would add here is the question, do you believe the Israel does nothing to perpetuate hostilities? I guess specifically I mean the expansion of Jewish settlements into what both sides have at times previously recognized as land designated as part of a future Palestinian state.


Ok, I was just wondering. I agree with this viewpoint.


I think your analysis of the situation and the motivation of Israel is reasonable. I don't disagree with it, but I do also feel that this approach makes victims of people who aren't deserving in many cases. By lumping all Palestinians together, Israel looks to punish "them" by taking "their" land when the radicals commit violence against Israel. But the blanket use of force against "Palestinians" and not the specific individuals who commited the violence makes victims out of people who had nothing to do with the violence. I think this is where much anger comes from. And then the radicals use this as proof of how 'evil' Israel is and radicalize more people for the intifadas and the rocket campaigns. I'm not justifying the violence, but I'm saying that I don't believe the Israeli approach to it doesn't solve the problem, and actually makes it worse. It hasn't solved it for decades, and I guess at this point it only looks like it will when there are no Palestinian lands left, and then it still won't, because there will continue to be terrorist attacks.

As for the Palestinians stopping it themselves, I hardly know how they could. There are no resources in Palestine for police or courts or just general society. To the extent Palestinians have jobs, they travel to Israel for work, when they are allowed to cross the border. There are just no resources for a functioning society, and it is very easy to say "that's the price of being terrorists, because then Israel has to wall them off from everyone else" but this is also an overslimpification of what is happening (IMO). It creates victims of people who are innocent, and this creates anger and resentment, and then a radical group wants to use them as a proxy for their war against Israel, and it's easy to marshal that anger at that point.


This works for me. I think you're right about the original plan not being relevant today. I think the biggest impediment to peace is the radical groups in Palestine, but obviously from what I've written, I don't hold Israel blameless. I think their actions, while perfectly predictable to their strategic aims of securing their borders, also perpetuates the problem by continually stoking anger. But I also don't think politicians on either side want peace. While they wouldn't deny it if it fell on to them, their primary objective is like all other politicians: to stay in power, and they can use the anger at the other side to do that. Marshal the hatred for political gain because it's easier than trying to convince your own people to want peace instead.

Considering the recent voting pattern of Israeli Arabs in the recent general elections, it is clear that it will be difficult for them to remain faithful to Israel, in case a future war with independent Palestine arises. Sadly, it is a naked truth that Jews and Arabs can't cohabit together peacefully. If you try to forcibly cohabit them, it will end up in something very ugly. So let's face it. Israel for the Jews, and Palestne for the Arabs. Not a single Jew should be in Palestine, and not a single Arab should be in Israel.

I know you meant this last "Palestine" to be "Israel". (In this case I'm sure it's a typo.) I got a good laugh out of it. Imagine the Palestinians finally get a state under the condition that both no Jews and no Arabs are allowed to live there.

I tend to agree with what you're saying though, sadly. But I can't imagine such a separation actually happening.

Hmm. Good point. What do you think is a representative document in which Palestine declares itself a state? I'll take a look and see if leads me to accept their statehood.


I don't think Israel has any good choices. The terrorism won't stop no matter what they do. The barrier/fence/wall cut down on suicide bombings, but just led to more rocket attacks. I don't think Israel would get attacked less if they didn't respond (both militarily and by building settlements).


It is preferable to me when Israel targets specific people. Propaganda-wise it doesn't seem to make a difference. When Israel targets specific leaders they're accused of going on an assassination campaign against Palestinian leaders. (Of course, they are, but this is supposed to be a good thing.) When Israel responds with a large bombing campaign or with import controls, they're accused of collective punishment.

Regarding Palestinian resources,the Palestinians get a huge amount of foreign aid (billions of dollars a year). I haven't studied how they spend it. Here's my impression which people can try to prove wrong if they like: Palestinians spend some of the aid on schools that indoctrinate children to become Jihadis, some of the money on weapons to use against Israel, and most of the rest of the aid to secret bank accounts for Palestinian Authority officials. I'm basing the last part on memories of Arafat's wife, who I assume is somewhere in Europe being very rich. I would be very surprised if any of the money went to stop or punish Jihadis. That might be a condition of the aid, but it's a condition with a wink because no one can realistically expect it to happen. The only time in my memory that the Palestinians have done anything to combat terrorism is in 2006 when they had a civil war and fought each other.

To really understand my point of view, it's important to recognize that I think the primary goal of the Palestinians is not to have a state, but to eliminate the Jews from their region. Under that assumption, their actions make more sense, and it's difficult to imagine a good strategy to counter it. If Israel doesn't respond at all, it will be destroyed. When Israel does respond, there are more people in the world who want Israel destroyed. The frustration I often show is due to my suspicion that I'll live to see the day that it'll happen, and that people around the world will celebrate it.

Thank you J. J. Phillips.

I hope you don't mind, but rather than following the order you used in your post, I'm going to start with a few of the clarifications and sources you asked for:



A good dose of skepticism is always healthy; feel free to ask for any source you'd like - in fact, ideally, I would be providing them as I go, but that's not always how it turns out.

The following sources mention the restricted items, and provide some more background information about the blockade of Gaza:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/amira-hass-israel-bans-books-music-and-clothes-from-entering-gaza-1.276147 (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/amira-hass-israel-bans-books-music-and-clothes-from-entering-gaza-1.276147), "Israel bans books, music and clothes from entering Gaza".
http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng%281%29.pdf (http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng%281%29.pdf), "Partial List of Items Prohibited/Permitted into the Gaza Strip".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm), "Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case".

As you can see in the linked material, the most restrictive sanctions lasted from 2007 up until 2010, at which point, international outcry pressured Israel to ease the blockade somewhat - as the occupying power, comparisons between Gaza and "open air prison" were doing wonders for Israel's image; to quote David Cameron: "The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp".

During those three years, perhaps less than 100 different items at a time were allowed into the occupied territory, though the specific goods allowed in changed somewhat over time. I'd love to be more specific but, to quote the BBC article, "Israel has never published a list of banned items, saying it approves requests on a case-by-case basis. Items allowed have changed over time, which has left humanitarian organisations and commercial importers constantly attempting to guess what will be approved" - according to the Haaretz article, Israeli officials in charge of the sanctions apparently prefer not to leave things in writing, and prefer to use the phone...

Again quoting the BBC article: "Gisha's [an Israeli human rights group] director, Sari Bashi, says she is no security expert, 'but preventing children from receiving toys, preventing manufacturers from getting raw materials - I don't see how that's responsive to Israeli security needs.' And she says that some of the prohibitions appear to be absurdly arbitrary: 'I certainly don't understand why cinnamon is permitted, but coriander is forbidden. Is there something more dangerous about coriander? Is coriander more critical to Gaza's economy than cinnamon? This is a policy that appears to make no sense.' She argues that if there is a logic behind such decisions, the military should reveal what it is." Also, "the state argues that disclosure of what is allowed in and why would, in their words, 'damage national security and harm foreign relations'".

But, we already know what the "logic" behind such decisions was, as I posted before: 'As Israeli officials themselves put it at one point, they wanted Gaza's economy, and the over 1.5 million inhabitants "on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge", and "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis"'.

Fortunately, following the latest war there and renewed international pressure to ease the blockade, it seems Israel has recently started allowing a few exports out of Gaza, which should go some way in helping to restart the economy there.

As a bit of an extra, the following are a couple of interviews with Eva Bartlett, a freelance journalist and activist who lived in both Gaza and the West Bank for about 3 years - it starts off with how she got to be interested in this particular conflict, and goes on to describe daily life under sanctions in Gaza. By the way, she is also a Canadian, so maybe you know her - I'm kidding, I know there are more than 100 of you guys up there - maybe 200, tops. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfgkxF5oaWc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfgkxF5oaWc) ("Gaza Under Siege - Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2)", 16m38s)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGaj_EdXytY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGaj_EdXytY) ("Gaza Under Siege - Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself (2/2)", 16m28s)



I find it interesting that, at the same time you're admitting something would come as a surprise to you, you immediately move to try and frame it in a way that negates any possible value coming out of it.

Anyway:

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Nixed-Signals (http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/Nixed-Signals), "Nixed Signals - When Hamas hinted at peace, U.S. media wouldn't take the message"
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-vows-to-honor-palestinian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-vows-to-honor-palestinian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234), "Hamas vows to honor Palestinian referendum on peace with Israel - Islamist leader Ismail Haniyeh says he would accept a deal with Israel based on 1967 borders and denies that Gaza has become a stronghold for al-Qaida."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2008/04/2008615098393788.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2008/04/2008615098393788.html), "Hamas ready to accept 1967 borders - US dismisses comments as Palestinian group says it will still "not recognise Israel"

The first article I linked to is a bit long, but I think it's well worth the time, as it not only provides far more context, but also looks at a lot of the omissions most other news agencies commit when reporting this issue. The following is from that article, quoting a Hamas leader, Riad Mustafa, in 2006: "I say unambiguously: Hamas does not and never will recognize Israel. Recognition is an act conferred by states, not movements or governments, and Palestine is not a state. Nevertheless, the government's program calls for the end of the occupation, not the destruction of Israel, and Hamas has proposed ending the occupation and a long-term truce (hudna) to bring peace to this region. That is Hamas' own position. The government has also recognized President Abbas' right to conduct political negotiations with Israel. If he were to produce a peace agreement, and if this agreement was endorsed by our national institutions and a popular referendum, then - even if it includes Palestinian recognition of Israel - we would of course accept their verdict. Because respecting the will of the people and their democratic choice is also one of our principles." The article goes on to say: "In March, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading 'Recognition of Israel,' it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): 'The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people.'" And from the Aljazeera article: "Carter said his understandings with Hamas called for a referendum to be preceded by reconciliation between the group and Abbas's Fatah faction. In his news conference, Meshaal said Hamas would 'respect Palestinian national will, even if it was against our convictions'."

But, would the Palestinian people actually vote for the explicit recognition of Israel? Well, there are several polls on this and other issues, and at times they seem to present contradictory information, both on the Palestinian and Israeli intentions. Going by polls from the Policy and Survey Research (http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/596 (http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/596)), on the one hand, they seem to show that, were such a vote to happen now, it would probably receive no more than 40% support. However, given the somewhat abstract nature of the question, and the continued occupation Palestinians live under on a daily basis, that's probably not a very surprising result. On the other hand, when that was asked in the context of the Clinton/Geneva permanent status package, "In the Palestinian public 61% support and 37% oppose a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. In December 2013, 63% supported and 36% opposed this item." So, recognition of Israel by itself doesn't seem to me to be the main issue here, but rather, depends on the circumstances that would come about and its likely consequences, as well as the timing of the question.

When a more practical question is brought up though, the results are more promising: the same year Hamas got its election victory, in 2006, 77% of Palestinians supported the Prisoners' Document, which among other things, called for the implementation of the two-state solution (https://web.archive.org/web/20060902162217/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=723105&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0 (https://web.archive.org/web/20060902162217/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=723105&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0)). When asked specifically about their support for the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, 83% were in favor - maybe not explicit, but certainly an implicit recognition of Israel. Unfortunately, almost 10 years past and a number of conflicts later, particularly last year's incursion in Gaza, the support seems to have dropped to about 51% this year, with "60% [saying] that the two-state solution is no longer practical due to Israeli settlement expansion [...]" (http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/605 (http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/605)).

The polls go on to show that Palestinians believe "The most serious problem confronting Palestinian society today is poverty and unemployment in the eyes of 28% while 26% of the public say that it is the continuation of occupation and settlement activities; 22% say it is the spread of corruption in some public institutions; and 19% believe it is the siege of the Gaza Strip and the closure of its crossings" - Israel, as the occupying power, plays a major role in most, if not all of these issues; so, addressing them would be an easy way to improve its support within the Palestinian population.

As for the possibility of Hamas going back on their word, I see it as somewhat of a moot point, since they would quickly find themselves: (even more) isolated and marginalized; expelled from the unity government they're currently in; losing popular support and the relatively insecure grasp on power they have; probably taken over by a more popular faction; and/or, risking a civil war they would be unlikely to win.





(1) - Well, if that's all the information you're providing people with, most would likely blame Palestinians for the whole affair - but with a little more context and information on what happened, they might come to a different conclusion.

Personally, I don't blame Israel for the second Intifada because Sharon took a thousand armed guards with him for a visit to Temple Mount, while knowing full well how sensitive the area is and that it would likely be interpreted as a provocation, at a time that threatened the peace talks, in a move likely aimed at strengthening his position in the Israeli political scene, no matter what (and probably in the elections being held soon after). No; rather than that, I blame Israel for its very poor, and often cruel, treatment of the Palestinian population, the illegal settlement activity, the discrimination of its own Arab-Israeli population - all of which are an integral part of the daily lives of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis, and which did much to exacerbate the situation - and mainly for, when faced with what were initially limited confrontations, mostly between protesters and security forces, adding fuel to the fire by using live ammo against protesters - obviously in an effort to show they had learnt nothing from the first Intifada, or really, just about any protest in history, ever.

But, don't take my word for it - here's what Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel's Security Minister and acting Foreign Minister, had to say about it: "Israel's disproportionate response to what had started as a popular uprising with young, unarmed men confronting Israeli soldiers armed with lethal weapons fuelled the Intifada beyond control and turned it into an all-out war."

Also, in his book "The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, 1999-2001: within reach", Gilead Sher points out: "The picture of the Israeli policeman shooting at the Al-Aqsa Mosque - shooting that was not at all a necessity under the circumstances - ignited a conflagration and anger among millions of Muslims in the world". Later on, he goes on to describe Jacques Chirac complaining to Barak about Israeli conduct in the face of mounting Palestinian casualties: "This morning, sixty-four Palestinians are dead, nine Israeli-Arabs were also killed, and you're pressing on. You cannot, Mr Prime Minister, explain this ratio in the number of wounded. You cannot make anyone believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors [...] When I was a company commander in Algeria, I also thought I was right. I fought the guerillas. Later I realized I was wrong. It is the honour of the strong, to reach out and not to shoot. Today you must reach out your hand. If you continue to fire from helicopters on people throwing rocks, and you continue to refuse an international inquiry, you are turning down a gesture from Arafat. You have no idea how hard I pushed Arafat to agree to a trilateral meeting."

And the Mitchell Report, released by an international fact-finding committee, states at one point: "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the unarmed Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."


(2) - Then, we should probably work to better inform that "significant percentage of Israelis".

I take it the negotiations you're alluding to were those held throughout the year 2000, the most commonly known being those at the Camp David Summit, and later at Bolling Air Force Base, which saw the introduction of the Clinton Parameters. So, what was the proposal - the so called "Barak's generous offer", as described in American and Israeli press at the time - that Arafat rejected?

In terms of territory, the proposal called for the Palestinians to give up about 27% of the West Bank - that is, less than 3/4 of the West Bank would belong to the Palestinian state, and it would be surrounded on all sides by Israel. Within a very poorly defined time frame (maybe 10 to 25 years, maybe more), the Palestinian state would be allowed to take up to 91% of the West Bank (plus 1% coming from a land swap with Israel). However, as the Israeli activist group Gush Shalom points out, those 18% of the West Bank, the Palestinian state would eventually recover, have settlements of some of the "most extreme Jewish religious zealots" - so, forget the 10 to 25 years. Further, the percentages give a somewhat deceptive image of the reality on the ground; the territory that Israel would annex would leave the Palestinian state nonviable: Israeli settlements, land, roads and checkpoints would effectively divide the Palestinian state into several smaller, separate territories, plus the Gaza Strip on the opposite side, leaving the connection between these multiple areas to the discretion, and under the complete control, of Israel - which led to the inevitable comparison with South African Bantustans. Also, control over water resources in the West Bank would remain in Israeli hands. By the way, I should also note that settlements are typically built in important and resource rich areas, with access to farmland and water supplies - many of these areas would, of course, be part of the land annexed by Israel. In East Jerusalem, Palestinians would only be allowed to keep control of some isolated pockets of territory; the rest, including Israeli settlements, being left under Israeli control or also annexed.

Then, in relation to the Palestinian refugees and their right of return, the following quote from a Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/a-summit-clouded-by-suspicion-1.75548 (http://www.haaretz.com/culture/books/a-summit-clouded-by-suspicion-1.75548)) offers some information: "At two points in the negotiations the Israelis evinced a lack of understanding and consideration of the feelings of the other side. The Palestinians were aware of the fears nurtured by Israeli propaganda about the 3.7 million refugees waiting, keys in hand, to return to their homes. Even before the summit, relates Beilin, Arafat met with Clinton and informed him that the solution of the refugee problem would be one that would take into account Israel's demographic concerns (page 106). - Sensitive issues - Sher, who, judging from his book is a careful and balanced individual, writes that the Palestinians 'are not demanding the practical right of return to Israel - which, in my opinion, is not an element of their 'core position'' (page 156). What Barak proposed was the return of 5,000 refugees 'in one blow' or 10,000 over 10 years. 'Generosity' is also a matter of geography" - I believe the number was eventually raised to 100.000, the rest being afforded some compensation and help in resettling (though all these with significant caveats as well).

The proposal also called for a demilitarized Palestinian state, for Israeli control of Palestinian airspace, the right to deploy troops inside Palestine, and for Israeli control over whom Palestine could form alliances with.

Democracy Now had a debate between Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Ben-Ami, back in 2006, that I really recommend you see. At one point, after Norman Finkelstein presents his case as to why the Israeli proposal at Camp David was so unfair to the Palestinian side, Shlomo Ben-Ami comments: "Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well" (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben) - you can see the video, hear the full interview in mp3, or just read the transcript, if you'd like).

Forget Arafat - no one would accept this "generous" offer (to make concessions).


But, that's not the end of the story, of course: at the end of December, 2000, Clinton came out with "his" Parameters, which presented a somewhat more reasonable proposal, though still containing many of the problems of the previous one - both sides "accepted" it, while submitting their list of reservations.

Less than a month later, in January 2001, the negotiations continued in the Taba Summit, this time with a proposal partly based on the Clinton Parameters, but taking into account the reservations on both sides, and closer to the international consensus: minor border adjustments and land concession by the Palestinians; a territorially linked Palestinian state; Jerusalem being an open city, and capital of both states, with Israel keeping control of Jewish areas and Palestine keeping control of Arab areas; limited right of return for Palestinian refugees; demilitarization of the Palestinian state; and some other security related agreements. The following article provides additional information on each of these areas, as well as some insight into the experiences and expectations of the negotiators: http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=32 (http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=32).

Unfortunately, before a complete agreement could be reached on all issues, Israel recalled its negotiation team, in part (supposedly) due to the upcoming elections which the party in power was likely to lose - though some argue that, at least, a framework agreement could have been reached before the elections, as you can see in the link above. According to Shlomo Ben-Ami, "the pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted", with some accusing him of being "ready to sell out the country for the sake of a Nobel Prize" - which is interesting, considering that, if not all, the vast majority of the concessions being made in all the negotiations, were being made by the Palestinian side; they were simply not being forced to make as many concessions at Taba. In any case, at the conclusion of the negotiations, both the Israeli and Palestinian teams acknowledged the progress made, and expressed their confidence that, as soon as the negotiations are resumed (presumably after the Israeli elections), a permanent peace settlement could be reached within a few weeks: "the political timetable prevented reaching an agreement on all the issues. However, in light of the significant progress in narrowing the differences between the sides, the two sides are convinced that in a short period of time and given an intensive effort and the acknowledgment of the essential and urgent nature of reaching an agreement, it will be possible to bridge the differences remaining and attain a permanent settlement of peace between them. In this respect, the two sides are confident that they can begin and move forward in this process at the earliest practical opportunity" http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA-Archive/2001/Pages/Israeli-Palestinian%20Joint%20Statement%20-%2027-Jan-2001.aspx (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA-Archive/2001/Pages/Israeli-Palestinian%20Joint%20Statement%20-%2027-Jan-2001.aspx).

So, almost 15 years later, why are we still talking about this today? Well, Israel's new government, led by Sharon, chose never to resumed those negotiations, despite knowing (or arguably because it knew) they would lead to a peace agreement (which would in turn almost certainly mean withdrawal from occupied territory and dismantlement of most of the illegal settlements in the West Bank - political suicide then, and something still controversial today, with many, if not most, Israelis against it apparently: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601996 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-peace-conference/1.601996)). Of course, technically, negotiations did continue since then, but without the same commitment, and with proposals ranging from absurd (Elon Peace Plan), to worse than those presented at the Camp David Summit (which had obviously already been rejected by the Palestinians), to not significantly better; with a few of the negotiations pretty much sabotaged, to prevent any progress. Illegal settlements and land grabs, however, suffered no such setbacks.

From then on, Israel has often pursued an unilateral policy when dealing with the Palestinians; at least as much as it can get away with. Sorry for repeating myself, but I believe this is a good example, and is quite relevant here - as I had previously posted, when you mentioned the disengagement plan from Gaza in a previous post: "here's what the then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser had to say about the plan, which goes to show its intent and predictable consequences: 'The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. [...] and 'The disengagement is actually formaldehyde [...] It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians'. Asked why the plan had been devised, he stated 'Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything was stuck. [...] Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative had gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to serve in the territories]', and 'You know, the term 'peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen.... what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did''."

And, just in case the pattern isn't abundantly obvious by now, Sharon, at the end of his political career and before falling ill, apparently had plans to also conduct an unilateral "disengagement" plan in the West Bank - sounds good in theory; a "they're actually willing to leave the West Bank" sort of thing, until you look at the details. In practice, the plan called for the annexation of about 1/3 of the territory, and the Palestinians would get what was left - in effect, a worse deal than what had been proposed at Camp David, not to mention the violence that such a plan would have triggered. It's hard not to come away from all this with the conclusion that Israel is playing by the rule of "either you shut up and give us what we want, or we're going to take it by force".


(3) - "A lot of evidence supports the idea that Palestinians aren't willing to live in peace with Israel under any circumstances" - such as?

I think you might be conflating half a century of Palestinian opposition and resistance to the occupation, along with its predictable effects on the population over time, with this idea of yours that Palestinians don't want peace with Israel, no matter what - those are very different things.


(4) - Yes, and just like your previous "Israel has the right to defend itself [by force]" required you to show there are no peaceful alternatives that it can take (which there are; and which it is not taking), this too requires you to show what they are actually doing, and what they are willing to give up, to reach some sort of peaceful accommodation, and to avoid perpetuating the cycle of violence. Without it, that formulation is meaningless - or worse, as it's just asserting Israel doesn't have a peace plan, or even prospects of having a peace plan, since the world doesn't conform to its expectations. And meanwhile, in the background, its actions continue to undermine any possibility of a peace plan. It's almost the same as me saying that I want my very own fortress on Mars; but unless I'm willing to find a way to travel there, then a way to build stuff there, and then some way of surviving there, I'm not going to do any of it - I'll just stay where I am, living my life as I have until now.

And then, in the real world, what often happens is people say they want peace, when in fact they mean they want peace by imposing their terms on others - and if they don't agree to your terms, you beat them over the head until they do / are in no condition to disagree.

A bit off-topic, but it kind of reminds me of that Dayan quote, when he was referring to how they could handle the Palestinian refugees, in 1967: "let's say 'we don't have a solution, and you will continue living like dogs, and whoever wants will go, and we'll see how this procedure will work out.' For now, it works out. Let's say the truth. We want peace. If there is no peace, we will maintain military rule and we will have four to five military compounds on the mountains, and they will sit ten years under the Israeli military regime. Whoever wants to go, will want. It's possible that in five years, there will be 200.000 fewer people, and that's an enormous thing." Sadly, this seems closer to the "solution" Israel has been following since: annexing the resource rich areas it wants, and the Palestinians can either shut up and leave, or keep on "living like dogs".

Underneath the veneer, this is the view expressed by Netanyahu.



It's fair to say there is a disproportionate amount of attention Israel gets at the UN, and some of its bodies; and you can even make the case that there is often a bias against it, though I disagree with the idea that antisemitism is the main drive for it. But more importantly, I (and certainly many others) would be far more sympathetic to such arguments if I saw Israel actually acting in good faith towards resolving its problems with the Palestinians: not only at the negotiating table, but also on the ground, with how it treats the population in the occupied territories. It should go without saying that, oppressing Palestinians, isn't winning much sympathy for the Israeli cause - on the other hand, acting in good faith, and participating in international processes, even if biased, will.

To quote Dayan again: "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies".

Further, I think this idea of "whenever Jews rely on non-Jews to protect them, the result is always a lot of dead Jews" is misguided and dangerous; the world is never going to be constituted of only Jewish people, and isolationism isn't going to work in this day and age - and worse, it reinforces this idea that Jews are somehow different, which is precisely the idea we should be fighting. Antisemitism is racism, and should be handled as such - nothing more.



Personally, I'm less concerned about why people devote their attention to this conflict (nor do I see how that knowledge would help solve it) than I am with Israel's actions justifying that attention in spades - enough to turn away even those who once supported it.

I mean, what do you think happened to Israel's international image when its soldiers were caught on camera carrying out Rabin's "break Palestinian bones" policy on two teenagers, during the first Intifada? Because, clearly, collective punishments and using live ammunition on what were, initially, mostly peaceful protests and acts of civil disobedience, wasn't bad enough. The international outrage was immense, and justifiably so.

A small quote from the first article I linked to below, where they describe the content of the film documenting the practice: "In the middle of the frame are two Palestinians, sprawled on the ground and surrounded by the four soldiers. At times only three of them can be seen. All of them kick the teens vigorously. At least two of the soldiers take big rocks and mercilessly smash them against the two cousins. At one point a soldier holds one of the teen's arms as another soldier savagely hits it repeatedly with a large rock. The soldiers do not seem to be in any danger, nor do they seem disturbed by the events. They are utterly focused on meting out the beating, 25 minutes of which was recorded."

And so you don't think this was an isolated incident, near the end of the article, they comment on a few other cases: "In the early days of the first intifada there were several similar incidents that were not filmed. The most famous of them was named after the Givati Brigade. [...] Two other notorious incidents were the 'bulldozer affair,' in which two Palestinians were buried alive, as punishment; and the 'Yehuda Meir affair,' named for the Givati battalion commander who ordered his troops to beat Palestinians who were arrested in the villages of Beita and Hawara."

Two articles from Haaretz on this:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/freeze-frame-1.336986 (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/freeze-frame-1.336986), "Freeze Frame - In February 1988 CBS cameraman Moshe Alpert filmed four soldiers carrying out Yitzhak Rabin's "break their bones" order against two Palestinian teens. Their bones didn't shatter, but Israel's self-image and its international image did. Now, 23 years later, one of the victims speaks out."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/broken-bones-and-broken-hopes-1.173283 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/broken-bones-and-broken-hopes-1.173283), "Broken bones and broken hopes - When Palestinians are asked about Yitzhak Rabin, they remember a man who ordered Israeli soldiers to break their arms and legs."


Or when you have Israeli security services routinely torturing Palestinians, under legalized torture, until 1999 - with credible reports this practice continued at least until 2009, though to a lesser extent.

According to a B'Tselem estimate (B'Tselem is an Israeli Human Rights organization), until 1999, about 85% of Palestinians interrogated by security forces were subject to some form of torture - that's about 850 people tortured per year. Worse still, as if that isn't bad enough, apparently it wasn't just criminals who were tortured: some were only suspects and were later released, or put under administrative detention (read: no reason given to keep them locked up, and no right to stand before trial); others still were not even suspects, but rather, family members or acquaintances of a detainee, or a suspect yet to be apprehended.

From the BBC, "Israel admits torture" from February: 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm).
A specific case, as reported by Haaretz, "Shin Bet to compensate PFLP member for torturing him": http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/shin-bet-to-compensate-pflp-member-for-torturing-him-1.331075 (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/shin-bet-to-compensate-pflp-member-for-torturing-him-1.331075).
And a more recent and broader look at this by B'Tselem, from January, 2012: http://www.btselem.org/torture/background (http://www.btselem.org/torture/background).


Or when you have civilians, farmers (and fishermen) in Gaza periodically shot at, and sometimes killed, by Israeli forces, on account of being too close to the border; despite not posing any actual danger, and "too close" being mostly up to the soldiers to decide - which in effect, cut the population off from about 35% of the farmland they depend on for food, at one point: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-troops-kill-palestinian-near-gaza-border-medical-officials-say-1.493998 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-troops-kill-palestinian-near-gaza-border-medical-officials-say-1.493998), http://rt.com/news/208087-israel-kills-palestinian-farmer (http://rt.com/news/208087-israel-kills-palestinian-farmer), http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/24/israel-stop-shooting-gaza-civilians (http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/24/israel-stop-shooting-gaza-civilians), http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20131029_shooting_at_farmers_near_gaza_fence (http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20131029_shooting_at_farmers_near_gaza_fence) - also, the interview with Eva Bartlett I mentioned above speaks of this, and shows some footage as well.


Or when you see the complete disregard for Palestinian lives from the Israeli security forces, when they ambush and kill an unarmed, fleeing kid - well, to be fair, he was trespassing, and apparently did intend to throw stones at Israeli soldiers, so he deserved to die, surely... (http://www.btselem.org/firearm/20130221_killing_of_samir_awad_budrus (http://www.btselem.org/firearm/20130221_killing_of_samir_awad_budrus), http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150414_state_attorney_decision_in_samir_awad_killing (http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150414_state_attorney_decision_in_samir_awad_killing)): "This is a new low in Israeli authorities’ disregard for the lives of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The State Attorney’s Office has sent security forces in the Occupied Territories a clear message: if you kill an unarmed Palestinian who poses no threat, we will do everything to cover it up and ensure impunity. Killing a wounded, fleeing youth who posed no threat by shooting him in the back is not a “reckless and negligent act”. The disparity between the grave action and the minor offense is incomprehensible and outrageous."


Or how Israel increasingly resembles an Apartheid state; quoting from Wikipedia: "Israel academic David Dean Shulman writing in the aftermath of the creation of separate bus lines in the West Bank to separate Palestinians and settlers, remarks that: 'Israelis often protest when the word 'apartheid' is used to describe life in the West Bank, with its settlers-only roads and its settlers' electricity grid and its settlers' water-supply and its blatantly discriminatory courts; more and more the word seems sadly close to the mark.'" And just to be clear, I don't think that, internally, Israel is an apartheid state: Israeli-Arabs are still discriminated against, but their situation has constantly improved over time - so the comparison there is unfair, I think. In the occupied territories however, it's far worse than Apartheid. To paraphrase Chomsky: South African Apartheid actually needed its black population - it was their workforce - so, they had some (very) minor interest in their well-being. But Israel doesn't need the Palestinian population - they're nothing but an obstacle to Israeli plans; so if they have to "live like dogs", are forced to go away, or even end up dying off - it seems not to cause too much of a concern.


Or settler violence and state support for them (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-human-stain.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-human-stain.html?_r=0)); state attempts at covering-up said violence (http://www.btselem.org/hebron/20150402_night_search_and_confiscation (http://www.btselem.org/hebron/20150402_night_search_and_confiscation)); or as I previously mentioned, the sanctions and blockade regime, which left maybe up to 80% of the population of Gaza reliant on foreign aid for food, with shortages of essential products, massive unemployment, and basically a "NGO economy" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7191359.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7191359.stm)); the indiscriminate Dahiya military doctrine, and the periodical attacks on Gaza, that leave a huge amount of civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure; the constant illegal annexation of territory and government subsidized settlement activity; house demolitions, that affect not only criminals, but also mere suspects, along with their entire family; mass arrests of civilians; arrest of political prisoners; extra-judicial assassinations; interference with internal Palestinian political affairs; ... it just goes on, and on.


Yet, up until recently, outside major events, most of these issues received little or no attention in the West, particularly in the US - you had to go to Israeli news or Israeli Human Rights groups to find out about most of it; and they were often far more honest than their Western counterparts too - though this has fortunately been improving over time. One would expect that, if the bias against Israel ran as deep as you want to present it, reporters would pounce at every piece of news of what is often, at best, state sponsored terrorism. And yes, antisemitism, or if you prefer, Jew-hatred, clearly still exists in the world, is clearly a problem, and many conflate Israel's actions with Jews (even those who should know better); but don't take it so far in the other direction that it allows you to be completely blind to the suffering of Palestinians.

A lot of interesting opinions about this situation, continue to discuss guys!


@J. J. Phillips, you are awesome http://nodownloadzoneforum.net/public/style_emoticons/default/Asd.gif.

Yes, that's true. How then should Israel go about giving away their land to "palestinians" for a 2-state solution knowing full well it would result in mass Jewish murders?

I am with palestine..:)

I am against Israel...

Stop Killing innocent people in Palestine...:)

This is against humanity...:(

Interesting question, waiting the reply from J. J. Phillips.




Thanks for your opinion, everyone is against the injustice ... I am talking about the Palestinian citizens not 'hamas' or other organizations.

So, are we just supposed to pretend the occupied territories are a part of Israel now, that it can keep them or give them away as it wills? I ask this because no one recognizes that to be the case: not any international body, not any other country, and not even Israel itself - in fact, that's the position Israel's own Supreme Court has consistently maintained since 1967.

Further, as I and others have mentioned before (and you can see more details in my response above, in point 2), the Palestinian position is that they are open to the idea of land swaps, which, in effect, would translate into the most populous Israeli settlements in the West Bank being annexed by Israel, and an equitable amount of Israeli land being offered in return to the Palestinian state.

But, this is all mostly academic, of course, since Israel doesn't want the two state solution (or the one state solution), and has in fact been working very hard to prevent any such solution from ever taking place - my previous posts in this thread have paragraphs, after paragraphs detailing some of the ways they went about doing so (and providing sources where anyone can read more about it, if they are interested).

Well of course they are, now...they should have accepted the land offered to them in '47...

Israel shouldn't have annexed all that land since 1947. How can you expect a people to just allow someone to come into their homeland and demand land without some sort of dispute or hate.

A-rabs learned a valuable lesson...don't mess with Israel.   :D

This is where I take the information about Palestinian declaration of state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence One of the problems with the Palestinian declaration is that it is predicated on the 1947 partition borders. As we have already agreed, this is probably no longer applicable/possible, as too much has changed in the last 65 years for those borders to be workable. But from the Palestinian point of view, this is what they consider to be their state, and Israeli "occupation" of that area is a provocation. It seems to me to have any progress on this, the world needs to work towards helping the Palestinians accept that the original borders are no longer on the table, due to Arab aggression towards Israel following the 1947 plan. But I'm getting ahead of myself. The point here is that Palestine should be a state, and now both sides just need to be reasonable about what the borders should be. And one thing I find absolute is that Israeli settlement expansion is not reasonable, and this is entirely Israel's fault since the government encourages it.


We've both argued our sides here. I respectfully disagree that building settlements isn't a provocation. I think militarily, Israel is provocative too, but this is a chicken-and-the-egg type of argument. Israel really doesn't have a choice but to respond militarily when they are attacked (for political reasons, moral is another question). Just as Israel could not respond militarily, Palestinians could just as easily stop firing rockets.


It wouldn't surprise me in the least that an unfortunate amount of aid winds up in the personal accounts of the political leadership of Palestine. This is repeated everywhere in the world to poor nations the developed world supports. The solution to me is to stop providing aid (my view as a selfish tax payer), because our intervention entrenches tyrants who have the resources to impose their will.

I understand your point of view, I just disagree with it (largely, not entirely). I think there is definitely an element that wants to destroy Israel and there are people who use this anger for their own political advantage, but I also think this is a minority compared to the people who just want their own state and to live in peace. As I stated above, I think the (unreasonable) expectation to have the 1947 borders leads to a mentality of purposeful and willful "occupation" that is not necessarily justified. The violence over this isn't aimed at "destroying Israel," it's aimed at driving out the "occupation." (I'm using "occupation" because I don't believe everything the Palestinians view to be occupied territory to be a legitimate claim.) But I think the distinction between the motivation of destroying Israel and ending the occupation to be important, as the former motivation is murderous, but the latter is defensive. Any population on Earth would, and has, violently resisted what they viewed to be an armed and hostile occupation. I think the majority of the Palestinian violence is of the latter motivation now, but I am not blind to the fact that there are still factions bent on the destruction of Israel. But their numbers will continue to dwindle, as they have since the aggressive wars against Israel began in 1947.

Maybe; but how does that justify Israel blocking a peace deal now - 70 years later? What's the endgame here?

---

I don't think the Palestinian position includes a return to the 1947 borders, but rather, to the 1967 borders (which is already, pretty much, the international consensus) - the negotiations I described above, for example (in point 2 of the large reply, just a few posts back, especially the Clinton Parameters and the negotiations at Taba), were based on this division, with a few minor adjustments to account for settlements and such (both sides agreed to this, though there were still a few other issues left to be resolved at those negotiations).



Palestinian rocket fire into civilian centers is wrong, and is almost certainly a war crime - but it isn't only a response to the illegal Israeli settlements. In the last point of my answer above, I described at some length what some of the realities of the occupation mean to the Palestinian population: soldiers firing on civilians, sometimes killing them; Israeli courts failing to punish those actions; house demolitions of crime suspects (collective punishment of the families living there); torture of criminals, suspects and apparently even innocent people; very heavy handed response to any protest or demonstration (use of live ammo, for example); land annexation, not only with settlements, of important resource rich areas (mostly containing water sources and farmland), but also with the wall Israel is building, military bases and outposts that displace Palestinians, Israeli controlled checkpoints inside the occupied territories, etc.; settler violence and state cover up of that violence; mass arrests; administrative detention; extra-judicial assassinations; the sanctions and blockade of Gaza, leaving the population there in a desperate situation; the attacks on Gaza, that destroy a good deal of the infrastructure and kill thousands, worsening the effects of the sanctions and blockade regime; and so on. Rocket fire might receive more attention, but it pales in comparison to Israeli actions.

And again, for you to have the right to use violence, you need to show you really have no peaceful option open to you; Israel has consistently failed here - my last two (large) posts go into considerable detail on why and how. But, even if you want to throw morality out the window, Israel should at least not use the indiscriminate Dahiya doctrine, and certainly shouldn't be telling its soldiers to fire on anything that isn't an IDF soldier, when in their periodical excursions to Gaza (which, going by the Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence, they pretty much did): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1051663 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1051663).




(1) -There is certainly a great deal of corruption, and indeed, the Palestinians themselves are the first to complain about this, as I noted above (in the polls part of the large post). But stopping aid in a "NGO economy", when they have little or no conditions to live by themselves, largely thanks to Israeli balkanization of the occupied territories, in addition to the sanctions and blockade of Gaza and continued illegal land grabs in the West Bank, could have dire consequences to the population living there - for example, at the worst of the blockade of Gaza "more than 80% of Palestinians in Gaza rely on humanitarian assistance, with UN food aid going to about 1.1 million people - three quarters of the population."

In my view, a better approach, for you as a "selfish tax payer", would be to move the US to put pressure on Israel to prevent it stalling negotiations and avoiding a peace agreement that would allow a viable Palestinian state to emerge - the rest are temporary measures at best, or harmful at worst.

(2) - "I think the (unreasonable) expectation to have the 1947 borders leads to a mentality of purposeful and willful 'occupation' that is not necessarily justified"? As far as I can tell, no one has that expectation. And, regardless of what expectations Palestinians might have, the "mentality [of living under occupation]" is justified by the facts of how the occupation actually works in practice. Further, the "expectations" they expressed in their negotiations so far seem, at least to me, to be quite reasonable and closely in line with the international consensus (see the negotiations at Taba, for example - and in fact, I should say "generous" instead of "reasonable", since in some points they are going beyond what international law actually requires of them).

---

By the way, jaysabi, thanks for mentioning the book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" in a previous post - I actually didn't imagine firing rates were that low initially, and the length the soldiers would go to avoid killing others. I'll have to take a better look at that. :)

I doubt Israel gives 2 shits about international consensus. It's Israel's land so I doubt they care what Sudan has to say about it.

First, that was a response to jaysabi's post, hence why I mentioned the international consensus; and the international consensus isn't just Sudan - it's almost everyone. But you're right, Israel doesn't care about that, or for that matter, international law, or anything like it (while the US allows them to get away with it, anyway).


Second, it isn't Israel's land, by anyone's admission (including Israel) - on what are you basing the assertion that it is?



Third, I've already addressed J. J. Phillips' assertion (which I don't think is true) in several posts (J. J. Phillips had used variations of that argument before), including in the one you quoted, though you omitted that part. In short, Israel has very good choices, like: not making the situation worse by attacking and terrorizing the Palestinian population, and actually moving to form a negotiated peace deal, instead of blocking it.



Fourth, I don't know if you missed it, but:

That it belongs to them.

Classic ethnic cleansing.  Crime against humanity.  As as a tax-paying American it sucks that it is on my dime since we have a high population of well situated treasonous scumbags here.

...and that we fund trillion dollar wars... :-\

...for israel

Both sides are wrong.

The mapping that the UN made was a bad choice since it did not setup a normal border.

WHy did they not just split the country in half instead of cutting it into different areas like that.
It makes it easy if there is a conflic to gain teritory.


Problem as I see it at the moment.
If Isreal stopped with the patrols and eased more up, then we would see countless attacks from Palestinian citizens who wants revenge.
And then we are back to square one..

because of the distribution of people. israel would have had a majority arab population.

No...for oil...

for spying middle east countries

Right, also preventing more terrorist attacks.

and maybe make the terrorist attacks by themselves.

Wait, is this thread still going? I thought we resolved everything.

There are really three distinct questions.

1. What happened in the past?

2. What is happening now?

3. What are possible futures?

It's clear that the two "sides" have very different narratives as answers to Question 1. It seems to me that it would help if both narratives were well understood. On the other hand, I'm open to the possibility that a peaceful solution is more likely if people just stopped talking about the past. For example, I find it terrible how little attention the Armenian Genocide (committed by Turkey) gets. But it's possible the world is more peaceful today because most people pretend it didn't happen.

The two "sides" also have very different answers to Question 2. This is largely a question of focus. If someone is pro-Palestinian, then they focus on checkpoints, prisoners, settlements and pictures of dead Palestinian kids. If someone is pro-Israel, they focus on suicide bombings, rocket attacks and hostages. If someone is anti-Palestinian, they focus on videos showing Palestinian kids in schools learning to hate Jews and performing in plays pretending to behead Jews. If someone is anti-Israel, they focus on Israeli kids playing with toy guns. It's not that all of these things aren't happening. It's just that if you are on one side then you make sure to focus on the parts that are favorable to the side you favor.

Regarding Question 3. The most likely outcome I can see is 6 million dead Jews, followed by celebrations around the world (including by many of you), followed by an army of nano-robots attacking the human reproductive system. Another outcome might be a two state solution. A two state solution seems like it would require so many things to change (including some fundamental cultural changes for the Palestinians) that it's hard for me to imagine. I'm certainly not convinced that Israel is taking actions that make this outcome "less likely" -- but with the goal so far away and the terrain so complicated it's hard to tell which direction leads towards it and which direction leads away from it.

(Actually, I'm not really sure the phrase "2 state solution" is appropriate. The territory was part of "Transjordan" after WW1 when the British took over. It included what is now Jordan. Jordan is a state with a lot of Palestinians. It seems like Israel-Palestine-Jordan would be a "3 state solution," but whatever.)

Let's suppose a "2 state solution" is the most desirable outcome. To be clear, this means agreed-upon borders and an end to hostilities. (Yes, I know, stop laughing.) Is such a "2 state solution" more likely if people stop trying to answer Questions 1 and 2? Especially regarding Question 1, it should be clear that there will never be agreement about what happened.

It helps to understand that a large portion of the pro-Palestinian side believe that, for example, the attacks of September 11 were committed by Jews and/or Zionists and/or parts of the U.S. Government. But definitely not Muslims, because Islam means peace and stuff.

They're literally living in a different reality, so it's not surprising they come to different conclusions.

Come on tins; you have to be reasonable: the land doesn't belong to Israel merely on your say so. I've already provided the sources on which I'm basing my opinion - if you can't do the same, then that's just dogma.

---

Ah, J. J. Phillips, I'm glad you're back in this thread. I think you might have missed my reply on the previous page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11255554#msg11255554 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11255554#msg11255554); in it, I answered your requests for sources and background information, and commented on the rest of your post in some detail - by the way, let me apologize in advance for the great wall of text. ;)

Also, the previous post, for which, at the time, you didn't have the opportunity to answer in full, is now back at page 6; here's the link to the post, if you want to take a look at it again: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11065074#msg11065074 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1012231.msg11065074#msg11065074) - I touched upon, and somewhat expanded a few of the same points in my latest reply though, so feel free to merge those, if you will.

Just responding to these two short notes in another good post by you. I also agree that this is the best approach for me as a "selfish tax payer." However, following this road is nearly guaranteed political suicide in the US, so it almost seems futile to try to pursue it. Being critical of Israeli policy opens you to a charge of being anti-Semitic, 'betraying an important ally,' or any other serious political crimes that a political challenger would be all too eager to use against you for their own political gain. It's unfortunate because as Israel's largest enabler, I believe we have a responsibility to hold Israel responsible for human rights violations. (Given our own track record, the case would ring hollow though.) Despite being the dominant military force in the area, Israel is still viewed as the underdog, and undercutting them inspires great anger from US citizens.

The book On Killing is really great. I can't recommend it enough. It's one of the most important books I've ever read considering the topic it deals with and how the military systematically extinguishes the natural instinct not to kill, and how important understanding desensitization is for our civilization in this era where violence can be inflicted on large numbers by so few and with such ease.

Islamic terrorist attacks.
Hopefully, one day they will not be commonplace...we can hope.
-Obama

Yes it does. They were attacked and beat their attackers and took the spoils of war.
c'est la vie...

I was amazed how Israel have the best force to defense their country, but how can they use the power to kill woman and children. Israel is beautiful country, and can be more beautiful if they can make a peace with Palestina and other middle east countries. I remember there is a popular graffiti that was made by Banksy at Gaza, let's take it look http://www.theguardian.com/arts/pictures/0,,1543331,00.html

I agree, I'm still amazed how well they defend their country with the billions of muslims in the middle east trying to wipe them off the map.
Kudos to Israel...well done.

I saw your post(s) but haven't finished reading it yet. Thanks for the effort you put into writing them. I will simply have to wait until I have enough free time to devote to them before responding.

PS: I now recognize Vatican City as land rightfully belonging to Palestinians and will fully support those who apply all means available to return that land to its rightful owners.

There is a related question I've brought up more than once:

Is Breslau occupied by the Poles?

There are consequences to losing wars.

But I do think I understand the position of many of those who say that the "West Bank" is Palestinian land occupied by Israel but Breslau is not German land occupied by Poland. Many people believe in some concept of "international law" which means that these kinds of questions are answered by certain "international bodies" (often offshoots of the United Nations). So the West Bank is occupied because certain "international bodies" say so, and Breslau isn't occupied because there aren't "international bodies" who say it is. I find this to be a scary way to look at the world, outsourcing one's judgement to "international bodies" -- but many people find it more comfortable than thinking things through for themselves.

For the time being at least, I'm afraid you're right. But, I believe that is changing: younger and even college aged students, who are far less influenced by the traditional media and have greater access to information, aren't as caught up in that whole narrative, I think. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there have been quite a few groups, and perhaps even a couple of university campus, joining the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement, for example. That's one of the reasons I think Israel's attempts at derailing the peace process are so self-destructive: there is no way that, the longer this mess continues, the support Israel receives won't continue to wane, until it reaches the point that they are completely isolated in the international community - same as it did for South Africa, or Indonesia, before them.



It's on my to-read list. ;) Somewhat unrelated but, there was a three part interview The Real News did with David Swanson some time ago, that I think you might like (well, at least I did :)):

"Lies and War - David Swanson on Reality Asserts Itself"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzwaSbWD8C0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzwaSbWD8C0) - "On RAI with Paul Jay, David Swanson, author of "War is a Lie", talks about becoming a full time activist for peace"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM5qIvVLGg0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM5qIvVLGg0) - "On RAI, Paul Jay and David Swanson discuss the culture and economics of war"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcOdilpXUU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcOdilpXUU) - "On RAI with Paul Jay, David Swanson says that nonviolent campaigns have been more successful than campaigns of violence"

I particularly liked the idea they explore in the second video: that war is, in a sense, a "cultural invention", or that at the very least, the culture of a society has a great deal of influence in either promoting or rejecting the practice of war - as opposed to, war simply being just a part of human nature, and fundamentally unavoidable; or mainly economic/resource driven; or perhaps due to the way societies are structured and who has power in them.

The whole thing is a bit long though: about an hour.

---

Actually, as I've pointed out to tins (though he completely ignored it), Israel's own Supreme Court considers the occupied territories to be just that: occupied - as in, not a part of Israel, but under temporary occupation, pending some sort of negotiated agreement (an agreement that, as I've mentioned on several posts so far, Israel blocks). This is a position that the Supreme Court of Israel has consistently held since 1967. And in fact, when caught in related cases in the Supreme Court, even the Israeli government argues on the basis that it is an occupying power - as an example, when the government acted out the unilateral disengagement from Gaza, and was challenged by settlers in the Supreme Court, it used, and won the case with the argument that the settlements are only meant to be temporary (on the basis that it is supposed to be a temporary occupation, and that it is an occupying power).



Oh, good; I was worried you might have missed them, when I saw "[you] thought we resolved everything" - but that being the case, then I look forward to reading your reply to those posts. :)

Excellent point. I concede, all off Israel (West Bank included) rightfully belongs to Israel. Should Israel choose to give any of it to the Egyptians, Jordanians, or "Palistinians" AGAIN, for peace- that is Israel's right to do so, but not their obligation in any way.

Side point- you have the most well researched, articulate points posted throughout this thread. I would put money down that you're a history professor. Keep it up. I enjoy your elegant and factual posts.
 

A combination of facts have helped their survival. The most important ones are:

1. During the first war (1948), a majority of the Israeli soldiers were highly experienced individuals, having served in the armed forces of various European nations. On the other hand, the Arabs hardly had any combat experience.

2. Both the United Nations and the European nations helped Israel, while the Arabs received only mild support from the USSR.

3. Israeli weapons were technically much superior to those the Arabs had.

4. During the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973, the Israelis were united against the common enemy, while the Arabs failed to put behind their differences.

5. The Israelis are fighting for their survival, while a majority of the Arabs are fighting for more land.

I don't know enough about Breslau to have a qualified opinion. What are the circumstances that would lead you to question its status as occupied or not? Does Germany contest the land? Does the civilian population express a German identity rather than Polish?

Thanks for this. I will look into it when I have an hour to watch.

As per the 1900 Census, German was the native language of 98.7% of the population there. In 1945, Wrocław (Breslau) had a population of 210,000, of which 190,000 were ethnic German (90%). Poles constituted for less than 10% of the total population. After Germany was defeated in the WW2, the ethnic Germans of Breslau and other cities of Niederschlesien were expelled west-wards, to be replaced with ethnic Polish migrants from the East.

I'm just trying to understand why anyone would ask if it's occupied. If no one is even seriously questioning it's status, the analogy JJ tried to draw between Breslau and Palestine isn't valid. Perhaps then the reason no international body has deemed Breslau occupied territory is because there's no basis for it because nobody is disputing the territory today.

The converse would appear to be true as well by this logic.  Were they not to 'beat their attackers' then there 'spoils of war' would be negative.

I'm disgusted enough by observing and funding the 'Zionist entity' aspects of the state of Israel over the years that I am most likely to take a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' attitude toward future kerfuffles in that region.  This was not always the case.  The American citizen to died face down on the steel deck of a ship in international waters with an Israeli bullet in the back of his head, and with nary a peep of protest from 'our' leadership and media, was probably the turning point for me on this issue.

It was the palistinian cheerings and support for the 9/11 attacks that was turning point for me.

You must have a soft spot in your heart for the Iranians then, right?  I remember reports of some fairly impressive candlelight vigils in that country directly after the 9/11 event before most people (including myself) realized what that thing was all about.

BTW, I also remember Sharon saying right after 9/11 something like 'Oh yes, this is very good for Israel' before catching himself and being a little less impertinent.  This is, in fact, why I personally doubt that Israel had anything to do formally through their military and intel services with 9/11.  Had they I am pretty sure that Sharon would have been at least dimmly appraised of the event and prepared with a somewhat more careful message.

Actually, it looks like it was Netanyahu who had that response (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-israelis-spilled-blood-seen-bond-that-draws-2-nations-closer.html).  Same idea though.

That has been disproven you know that right?

I can explain why I ask. No analogy is perfect, of course, but in many ways the status of Wrocław (which I'm provocatively referring to as Breslau) mirrors the status of the land west of the Jordan river.

As Bryant Coleman pointed out, Breslau was part of Germany and was ethnically overwhelmingly German in 1900. It continued to be a major German city until after WWII. As part of the post-war reparations, this part of Germany was given to Poland. The reason it is now called Wrocław and is overwhelmingly Polish is simply because the German population was essentially expelled after WWII.

This happened in the late 1940s, the same time period in which the British mandate for Transjordan ended and the state of Israel declared independence. This is the same period of time in which many Palestinians left their homes in the new state of Israel. (Those against Israel would say they were "expelled" while those pro-Israel point to the fact that neighboring Arab countries warned Palestinians to leave in advance of Arab countries going to war with the newly declared state of Israel.)

In the late 1940s, Germans lost Breslau to Poland and part of that involved a significant population displacement. It happened as a result of losing WWII. As I've pointed out before, significant Palestinian leaders were allied with Hitler. In this sense, at least, they were also on the losing side of WWII. The two cases are quite similar.

The situations are also different. There is no outcry to return Wrocław (Breslau) to Germany. There certainly could be. Germans unhappy with the outcome of WWII could start hijacking airplanes and bombing restaraunts. One of their demands could be the return of Breslau. The fact that this isn't happening is largely due to the vast majority of Germans being (apparently) reasonable people who accept the loss of WWII and its consequences. But lets suppose some small minority of German neo-Nazis started committing acts of terrorism to try and return Breslau to Germany. Would international bodies start taking the case more seriously? I doubt it. First of all, the German authorities would obviously say that Wrocław is a Polish city and take steps to catch and imprison the neo-Nazi terrorists. The neo-Nazi terrorists would not be the "militant arm" of any political force in today's German government.

In essence, terrorist acts by German neo-Nazis would be counterproductive if the goal were the return Breslau to Germany.

Why have terrorist attacks by Palestinians resulted in their demands being taken more seriously? I think this is largely due to prejudice against Jews, but also prejudice against Arabs. Of course, many people (including many Jews) who have a problem with Jews, reflexively side against the Jews. In addition, whereas Germans are expected to be civilized, many people do not have the same expectations of Arabs. This is itself a form of bigotry. When Palestinian Arabs commit terrible acts of terrorism, instead of seeing it as something that should undermine their cause, it is seen by many people as the result of throwing someone in a lion's cage. No one's surprised when a lion kills and eats someone. It's a lion. I would prefer it if Arabs were held to the same standards as, say, Germans. But they aren't.

Another very important difference is that Germany explicitly agreed to the reparations at the end of WWII. The conflict is over. This is not the case for the middle east conflict. However, this implies that the conflict is, in fact, ongoing. The fact that Israel takes a series of military measures including bombing campaigns, blockades and checkpoints is hardly surprising when one accepts that they are in an ongoing conflict. The fact that one of the natural conclusions of this conflict would be the destruction of Israel and the murder of the millions of Jews there actually makes Israel's actions seem quite measured.

It hasn't been disproven. There are video clips of it that was shown on 9/11 and surpressed shortly afterwards. It's easy to find on youtube now. But I assume you're not saying such video doesn't exist. By "disproven" you probably mean it's been "proven" that the video shows something else. The first version of this I heard around 2003 and said the Palestinian celebration video was just showing a wedding celebration. That's ridiculous, of course, to anyone who sees the video. There's another version now that says cameramen offered Palestinians candy to randomly celebrate for the camera. That's not such an outlandish claim since there's plenty of evidence that Palestinians are accostomed to playing for cameras (Pallywood). However, even in this version, the Palestinians are celebrating 9/11, right?

I understand that it's important for Palestinian supporters to paint them as sympathetic and that acknowledging Palestinians celebrate terrorism and the deaths of thousands of innocent people harms that cause. Consequently, Palestinian supporters sometimes make attempts to deny the obvious: Palestinians support terrorism.

Palestinians name their schools after suicide bombers. Why is it difficult to believe the people who name their schools after suicide bombers would celebrate 9/11?

Let's be honest:

The Palestinians celebrated 9/11. They celebrated 9/11 because they were happy about it. They were happy about it because they see the U.S. as the "great Satan" supporting Israel the "little Satan." They celebrate successful terrorist attacks against either the U.S. or Israel. Every sentence I've written in this paragraph is well-known and obvious, even to everyone on this thread.

It may be useful propaganda for Palestinian supporters to pretend the Palestinians didn't celebrate 9/11, but it doesn't change the obvious truth.

@tins: I took very little interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict before 9/11. Seeing the Palestinians celebrate on 9/11 was a turning point for me well. That's when I started reading about the conflict and realizing what a cartoonish version of the conflict is typically told.

Maybe those of you who support the Palestinians should learn something from those of us who side against them in the post-9/11 world. Maybe it's worth your while not to create more people like me. One way to accomplish this might be to try to train Palestinians not to celebrate and reward terrorism. Otherwise the next time there is a major terrorist attack and they celebrate it, there will be more people who see it and think: who are these monsters?

@u9y42: This morning I spent time to read your post of May 1. Since the post is already very long, I don't think it's a good idea to respond to it in a single post, so I'll do it in more than one.

Let me start with this:


We disagree about whether or not acknowledging the role of Jew-hatred in the conflict would help solve it.

You wrote a lot, but sentence quoted above provides the best summary of what I think you're saying. You think Israel's actions should be different. In particular, you think they should engage in less military action and be willing to make more concessions to reach some final status agreement. Is that fair to say? Would you like to be more specific about what actions you believe Israel should take and what the likely responses to those actions would be?

I could imagine the conflict ending if the Palestinians generally accepted that they have lost the war. Germany didn't accept its loss from WWI, but has accepted its loss in WWII. Frankly I'm skeptical that anything could convince the Palestinians they've lost. However, suppose if there were a military campaign against the Palestinians similar to the one against Nazi Germany, a campaign that included events similar to the fire bombing of Dresden. Suppose as a result the Palestinians essentially gave up. Suppose most moved to Jordan or Egypt and the ones who remained were given, say, 50% of the disputed territory to form one or two Palestinian states. In that case, would the WWII level military campaign have been worth it? Everyone has to decide for themselves, of course. I don't feel bad about the military campaign against Nazi Germany, and I see the modern Palestinians as occupying a lower moral plane than the Nazis.

It's natural that the Palestinians haven't accepted that they've lost. They haven't lost. In the end they will probably win, and six million Jews will be dead. I think this is the most likely way the conflict will end. The only silver lining for people like me will be watching Hamas and Fatah (or whoever the tribes are at that point) fight for control in the aftermath. Well, that and watching the nanorobots bring about human extinction.

Re the Gaza sanctions:


I'm happy to let you have David Cameron on your side. :) It looks like Gazan children have been able to import their crayons for a few years now. Good to know. I wonder what kind of pictures they're coloring?

People should keep in mind that 2007-2010 followed the dual conflicts in 2006, one of which was in Gaza following the kidnapping/capture of Gilad Shalit. Gilad Shalit was being held prisoner during all of that time. Hamas (who had been elected by Gazans in 2006) had a huge card they could've played to lessen the sanctions. They didn't play that card until 2011, and even then Shalit was released to secure the release of about 1000 Palestinian terrorists held by Israel.

As with everything else, one always has to ask what alternatives Israel had. It's clear that they would be condemned regardless.


Reading this positively, it says Israel wanted to avoid a humanitarian crisis. Obviously they could've responded by fire bombing Gaza. I'm not sure what good options Israel had after Hamas took control of Gaza.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, more decisively than Germans voted for the Nazis. I don't feel bad for the Germans who died as a result, and I don't feel bad for the Gazans who live under sanctions as a result.


As your sources say, the sanctions are far less restrictive and the blockade has been eased. Has Israel gotten more positive press as a result?

The only reasonable strategy I could imagine for dealing with Gaza is for the U.S./Israel to pay Egypt a few extra billion dollars (on top of the billions Egypt already gets from the U.S.) to annex Gaza. It was previously under Egypt's control already. In an effort to avoid a war with Israel Egypt might be willing to fight Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza. This would likely involve killing 100,000 or so people in Gaza, but if Egypt did it the world would likely look the other way. Egypt got rid of their Jews a long time ago. Even this wouldn't really work. Even if Egypt took care of Gaza, the world would spin it as the Jews being their usual puppetmasters and so on. Jordan killed several thousand Palestinians in 1971 and the Palestinians still blamed the Jews for it (Black September).

Re whether or not the Palestinians want a peace deal:


I don't trust Hamas. Maybe we feel differently about that. Even so, the quote from the Hamas leader you included isn't particularly promising.


Hamas believes all the land is occupied. An "end of the occupation" for them implies the destruction of Israel. Any "truce" Hamas makes only until they are strong enough to fight for more land/dead Jews. I agree that in your quote above Mustafa of Hamas said in 2006, "calls for the end of the occupation, not the destruction of Israel." Hamas was lying in order to further their position. There's a long history of this in the Islamic religion, dating back to Muhammed. Taqiyya.

Here's a further quote from the Haaretz article you linked to:


If Palestinians voted in a referendum to accept a two-state solution, it's clear Hamas would not accept it. If they pretended to accept it, it would only be as a temporary measure to move to the next stage of the Jihad.


40% sounds plausible. I'm skeptical of the other polls showing higher percentages for more specific questions you included, but maybe someday we'll find out.


I reject the idea that Palestinians are playing a minor role in these issues. They are the ones choosing to place such a focus on hating Israel/Jews instead of being more productive.


I don't think it's a moot point. Whether or not Hamas would continue to hold power in the new government, Hamas would continue to attack Israel. Israel would respond. The world would rise up in anger against Israel attacking a "sovereign state of Palestine" as opposed to the current anger about Israel attacking "occupied territory." Basically Israel would have to give some things up and would get nothing in return. Not even good will from the world.

The idea of the Palestinian state gradually gaining authority over their territory sounds reasonable. They haven't shown so far that they're capable of living in peace with Israel or fighting terrorists.

If you find the Camp David deal unacceptable or unreasonable, that's fine. But don't be surprised by the results of choosing continued conflict over the deal.


Negotiations work this way right? Barak insists on having A and B and would like C. Arafat insists on having B and C and would like A. Barak offers C and part of B. It reads like you think Barak should've offered Arafat B, C and part of A.


In general, offering the Palestinians less in each successive peace deal sounds like a way to encourage the Palestinians to accept a deal. Leading them to believe rejecting peace deals leads to more generous deals being offered would encourage the opposite.

This specific case is more complicated, of course. Barak already offered more than many Israelis would be willing to accept, and lost the next election as a result. Expecting Sharon to offer more than Barak is irrational.


Disengagement sounds like a reasonable strategy when the other side is unwilling to make peace. Maybe the pro-Palestinian side should sponsor programs to convert Palestinians into Finns.


This doesn't change the conclusion that the Palestinians chose at Camp David to continue the conflict. They may have been right to do so. As I keep saying, I think in the end they will win. The world loves dead Jews, and hates live ones.


They supported Arafat. They elected Hamas. They've voted for a Fatah politician who goes by the nickname Hitler. They name schools after terrorists. They put their children in plays in which they pretend to behead Jews.

The Palestinians do not have a culture which allows them to live in peace with Jews, and they are doing nothing to develop such a culture. They're encouraging a culture of open Jew-hatred. And it'll probably work out for them.

Well, that analogy doesn't work as well because Germany lost land to Poland because the Germans were Nazis who lost the war.

Still, I'm willing to discuss it. Suppose some group of Polish nationalists started to hijack airplane and bomb pizza parlors with the demand to return Lwów from Ukraine to Poland. I suspect these Polish nationalists would get little to no sympathy from the world. With the current Russia-Ukraine there's no telling what would happen, but I doubt they'd make serious headway. Maybe Putin would fund some Polish nationalist terrorists or maybe he would kill them all. The rest of the world would probably hardly notice.

The reason this all sounds farfetched is because modern Germans and Poles are reasonably civilized. The same can't be said for modern Palestinians. Barbarism should neither be encouraged nor excused.

Last reply to the monster May 1 post. :) This is regarding Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. You listed a lot, but I thought it was enough to focus on one to make my points. Obviously I could list any number of examples of Palestinians committing atrocities against Jews/Israelis going back a century. It's not a one sided fight.


Note that this case caused an uproar in Israel. Often the criticisms of Israel start in Israel.

It looks bad, of course, but in comparison to what? The world is a violent place. We could look at the surrounding countries and find similar or worse examples. The difference? That's Muslim on Muslim violence, so it's not treated the same way. When Jordan kills a few thousand Palestinians, Jordanian embassees aren't attacked and hatred towards Jordanians doesn't manifest itself.

The fact that people criticized Israel in this particular case is reasonable, in my opinion. I wouldn't attribute that to Jew-hatred. However, I would say Jew-hatred was the reason for the resulting attacks on Israeli businesses and embassies around the world after this story aired. Here's a description of it from one of the articles you linked to. It describes clear examples of Jew hatred.


The surrounding countries are currently engaging in military action against ISIS. If the media wanted to play supporters of ISIS as being sympathetic, I'm sure they could. They could also find some people who weren't in ISIS but were killed or wounded in a battle. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that ISIS is not only bad but savage, and that fighting them militarily is understandable. The same thing used to be true about Hamas. Maybe we'll live to see the say that Syria and Jordan are being encouraged to negotiate with the "political arm" of ISIS to make a peace deal with the "militant arm" of ISIS.

Israel is held to a higher standard by the rest of the world. This is dangerous. Israel is even held to a higher standard by itself. I suspect this may end up being a suicidal strategy.

I was flying into Ben Gurion airport when the 9/11 attacks happened. When I landed, I saw the televisions with coverage and muslims watching, smiling, high-fiving. So, there is no disproving something I witnessed, in person.

That kind of reminds me of the incident where the Israeli 'art students' or whatever were rounded up in New York after a lady reported them high-five'ing and taking photos of the smoking twin towers on 9/11 with a lighter held under it.

My personal belief is that this incident does not necessarily implicate Israel, and maybe not even these particular Israeli's who may have been fictitious.  If I were designing the operation I would have been most concerned about the follow-up in the media.  To thwart unwanted investigation, I would have made things be fairly clear to various editorial staffs where an exploration may end up.  I don't think it is particularly arguable that Jews are over-represented in the U.S. media, nor that Jews tend to have a propensity to not wish to see misfortune befall that state..and being implicated or framed would qualify as misfortune since much of Israel's national security is predicated on exploiting the U.S. and we still have enough of a democracy to where this would do damage.  For this reason I believe it would be (and was) an effective strategy to discourage very much real journalism around the event in mainstreamland.

That's easily debatable depending on how you wish to define "over-represented".