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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

IM just Going To lock This thread.

Im locking it Because: I dont Want to go for beatophobic Fitting Which i saw in last comments.

Hopeing all will continue though to seek Truth and not follow the heyterd.

Thanks

Miracle #4:

He leaps about the room. With a scream of longing that shatters the glass wall he leaps out into space. Masturbating end-over-end, three thousand feet down, his sperm floating beside him, he screams all the way against the shattering blue of sky, the rising sun burning over his body like gasoline, down past great oaks and persimmons, swamp cypress and mahogany, to shatter in liquid relief in a ruined square paved with limestone. (Naked Lunch 89)

Whether to send a satellite up the space, despatch instruments to explore Mars or to send man to moon - the rocket to carry them can lift off the surface of the earth only if it develops a force exceeding earth’s gravity. This velocity, termed escape velocity of a heavenly body, depends upon its gravity.

Naked Lunch was revealed in an age when even air flight by man could hardly be given a thought, let alone attempted. How then it could give a hint to man (and queer) about possibility of space travel is truly amazing. Could have this concept been authored by just normal man? Absolutely no chance!

Good fortune is it never to late too learn of TRUTH of Naked Lunch!

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.

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.

Yes, I promise miracle everyday. Today I ensure all know the miracle found by Spendulus. Tomorrow will be new miralce presentation.

MIRACLE #3: PREDICTION OF THE INTERNET AND THE SENDING OF MESSAGES!

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?

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.