FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Askold on January 30, 2016, 03:07:45 am
-
The threat was made that if Israel and Palestine do not accomplish anything in their peace negotiations France will recognize Palestine.
https://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/the-israeli-connection/france-gives-israel-an-ultimatum-18819
Israelis are already protesting this statement:
“The French Foreign Minister stated in advance that if his initiative leads to a dead end, France will recognize a Palestinian state. This statement gives the Palestinians an incentive for reaching a deadlock. This is not the way to conduct a negotiation and achieve peace.”
Meanwhile people are (once again) making "surrender monkey" jokes on Facebook and insulting the French in any way they can think of. Personally I think that even if this is a solution that is forced on people it's not like there haven't been several decades of time to make a peaceful solution without force. ...And it's not like Israel was created without force either.
-
What's the bet those jokes are being made by the some of the same people who were all about France after the Paris attacks?
-
What's the bet those jokes are being made by the some of the same people who were all about France after the Paris attacks?
I was thinking the same.
-
A very brave and necessary move by Paris. Good for them.
-
I know I'm ignorant of politics and that there's a lot more to the situation than this, but on its face this situation is just absurd. "Israel, if you don't give us what we want, we'll... announce that we think this region should be able to govern itself independently at you!"
-
I know I'm ignorant of politics and that there's a lot more to the situation than this, but on its face this situation is just absurd. "Israel, if you don't give us what we want, we'll... announce that we think this region should be able to govern itself independently at you!"
International recognition is important to the legitimacy of a nation state. It really is a big deal, and I for one couldn't support it more.
-
I'm aware it's important, and I support it too. But I think there's some humour to the nature of the situation.
-
I'm with Even Then on this. The bitching that Israel is doing over this is just cartoonishly stupid.
Ironbite-if France does this, does that mean Israel is gonna stomp up to it's room, slam the door, and scream into it's pillow?
-
God, I hope so. Somebody needs to put them in their fucking place.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Er... what's a legitimate concern? That France might recognize a Palestinian state? Because I'd say that's less a "concern" and more "why didn't you do this sooner".
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Er... what's a legitimate concern? That France might recognize a Palestinian state? Because I'd say that's less a "concern" and more "why didn't you do this sooner".
No, that it might incentivize the Palestinians to force a deadlock. That's not to say the reaction is justified, of course.
-
.......oy.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
Except Israel was showing every sign of genuine compromise with the Palestinians. They'd already dismantled their Gaza settlements, and were in the process of doing the same in the West Bank.
Israel's actions since are certainly worth criticizing, but it must be remembered that Hamas got the ball rolling.
Also, I'd like a citation on the bank robbery and the water shutoffs. Did they happen before or after Hamas was elected?
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
Except Israel was showing every sign of genuine compromise with the Palestinians. They'd already dismantled their Gaza settlements, and were in the process of doing the same in the West Bank.
Israel's actions since are certainly worth criticizing, but it must be remembered that Hamas got the ball rolling.
Also, I'd like a citation on the bank robbery and the water shutoffs. Did they happen before or after Hamas was elected?
Instantly. The day after the election happened. Not exactly a "sign of genuine compromise", no?
-
Lt. Fred, you stumbled on another wonk issue of UP's.
I've been in this thread before. He won't stop being Israel's mouthpiece.
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
Except Israel was showing every sign of genuine compromise with the Palestinians. They'd already dismantled their Gaza settlements, and were in the process of doing the same in the West Bank.
Israel's actions since are certainly worth criticizing, but it must be remembered that Hamas got the ball rolling.
Also, I'd like a citation on the bank robbery and the water shutoffs. Did they happen before or after Hamas was elected?
Instantly. The day after the election happened. Not exactly a "sign of genuine compromise", no?
Citation?
-
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
Except Israel was showing every sign of genuine compromise with the Palestinians. They'd already dismantled their Gaza settlements, and were in the process of doing the same in the West Bank.
Israel's actions since are certainly worth criticizing, but it must be remembered that Hamas got the ball rolling.
Also, I'd like a citation on the bank robbery and the water shutoffs. Did they happen before or after Hamas was elected?
Instantly. The day after the election happened. Not exactly a "sign of genuine compromise", no?
Citation?
"Israel will withhold an estimated $50m (£28m) in monthly customs revenues due to the PA..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4729000.stm
Water, the only citation I can find is.
https://chomsky.info/20070730/
Certainly the IDF later cut off power.
Aid was also totally ended, from the US and US-aligned charities. Israel and the US also deliberately fermented civil war, spending 1.5 billion arming Fatah.
Hamas, by contrast, immediately begged for a truce. Ignored.
The lesson was pretty clear: vote in elections all you want, so long as it's how we want. Voting against us is illegitimate.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
-
Lt. Fred, you stumbled on another wonk issue of UP's.
What isn't?
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
To be fair, that's a legitimate concern. Though my response would be to find some kind of bargaining chip to disincentivize the Palestinians from stonewalling.
On the other hand, I think if the PLO is recognized as Palestine's legitimate government, it might undermine Hamas's authority.
Perhaps bombing them? Israel has endless bargaining chips. Palestine has none. That's why the war continues, and no other reason.
That's a ridiculously one-sided view, almost bordering on self-parody.
If you have a case, state it immediately, shut up immediately or apologise immediately. I am sick as shit of your bullshit argument-by-insinuation and you are not getting an inch ever again.
You're in no position to be making demands.
But since I'm a nice guy, I'll start by pointing out that Hamas refused to compromise with the Quartet, which threw the entire peace process into disarray.
It is not "being nice" to uphold basic requirements of reason. It is just an obligation.
Rule 1: never call someone wrong before proving it. Never.
In which year over which issue during which negotiation?
2006, shortly after the elections. Hamas refused to make any commitment to nonviolence, recognize Israel, or accept previous agreements.
Israel also refused to make a commitment to non-violence, obviously, and immediately violated every prior agreement. They also robbed the national Palestinian bank, turned off water and generally fucked with them as hard as possible, before illegally bombing them flat, signing an agreement, and then violating it with an illegal blockade.
Hamas refused to give up negotiating chips in return for nothing. Totally ridiculous of you to suggest Hamas would not accept an agreement, just because they failed to do so.
Except Israel was showing every sign of genuine compromise with the Palestinians. They'd already dismantled their Gaza settlements, and were in the process of doing the same in the West Bank.
Israel's actions since are certainly worth criticizing, but it must be remembered that Hamas got the ball rolling.
Also, I'd like a citation on the bank robbery and the water shutoffs. Did they happen before or after Hamas was elected?
Instantly. The day after the election happened. Not exactly a "sign of genuine compromise", no?
Citation?
"Israel will withhold an estimated $50m (£28m) in monthly customs revenues due to the PA..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4729000.stm
Water, the only citation I can find is.
https://chomsky.info/20070730/
Certainly the IDF later cut off power.
Aid was also totally ended, from the US and US-aligned charities. Israel and the US also deliberately fermented civil war, spending 1.5 billion arming Fatah.
Your source contradicts you. You claim it happened the day after the election, but it was nearly a month. More important, it was after Hamas' rejection.
As for your claim about aid:
Israel would allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians, Mr Olmert said.
Really, Israel had every reason to work against Hamas. Its refusal to make even the most minor concessions completely derailed the peace process.
Hamas, by contrast, immediately begged for a truce. Ignored.
Citation?
The lesson was pretty clear: vote in elections all you want, so long as it's how we want. Voting against us is illegitimate.
Funny, because there's a very strong case to be made that Hamas actually is illegitimate.
-
Lt. Fred, you stumbled on another wonk issue of UP's.
I originally read the fourth "o" of this sentence as an "a".
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
And wow, could you have possibly found a more biased source?
-
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
-
power differences have no meaning anymore, employees saying "you're fired" to CEOs actually gets them fired now, cisphobia and heterophobia are real axes of oppression that deserve our attention
-
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that they warn Palestinian civilians to get out of harm's way.
power differences have no meaning anymore, employees saying "you're fired" to CEOs actually gets them fired now, cisphobia and heterophobia are real axes of oppression that deserve our attention
Al-Qaeda had box cutters. America had stealth aircraft.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry. [/quote]
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
-
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that they warn Palestinian civilians to get out of harm's way.
They bomb the whole country, and warn the population to leave it. And stop them.
-
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that they warn Palestinian civilians to get out of harm's way.
You mean the warning shots that occasionally kill people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking#Controversy), yep. I guess if they weren't itty little bits after that they'd know it was a damn fine idea to get out of harms way.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
Gotta love that spin. Why are you defending extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators?
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
[/quote]
Did you seriously just compare my statement of objective fact to rape apologism? I should have expected you couldn't debate this in good faith.
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that they warn Palestinian civilians to get out of harm's way.
You mean the warning shots that occasionally kill people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking#Controversy), yep. I guess if they weren't itty little bits after that they'd know it was a damn fine idea to get out of harms way.
Yeah, that's worthy of criticism. But phone calls and leaflets don't kill people.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
Gotta love that spin. Why are you defending extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators?
Look, obviously it's bad and the people involved should be prosecuted. One more consequence of the Israeli occupation you support.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
[/quote]
Did you seriously just compare my statement of objective fact to rape apologism? I should have expected you couldn't debate this in good faith. [/quote]
It is indeed blaming the victim, yes. I shell your city, kill your citizens and blame you for not protecting them somehow.
And not to Israel's casual disregard for the lives of Palestinians, huh.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that they warn Palestinian civilians to get out of harm's way.
You mean the warning shots that occasionally kill people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking#Controversy), yep. I guess if they weren't itty little bits after that they'd know it was a damn fine idea to get out of harms way.
Yeah, that's worthy of criticism. But phone calls and leaflets don't kill people.
[/quote]
Shells, gunfire and blockades do, though.
-
It's very simple. Israel is the only side responsible for continuing the conflict. It is also responsible for the vast majority of the misery within that conflict. This is accepted by everyone, from the UN to Amnesty.
Hamas, for decades, and Fatah for longer, has been willing to accept a long-term truce or even a peace deal based on the Green Line. Israel and the US has no interest of accepting any peace deal; why would they? What do they get out of it? Israel has long worked to undermine peace through their illegal construction of settlements in Palestine, an attempt to annex territory. The also try to ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem through denial of building permits.
-
Well, we are talking about the country that is doing an ethnic cleansing on Jews.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/#44077d0d2880
The "wrong kind" of Jews that is.
-
...phone calls and leaflets don't kill people.
"They call us now / Before they drop the bombs. / The phone rings / and someone who knows my first name / calls and says in perfect Arabic / 'This is David...' / ...You have 58 seconds from the end of this message. / Your house is next... / ...Run." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amjad-iraqi/the-humanitarian-myths-of_b_5777364.html)
Yep, definitely wouldn't be the phone call that'd do it.
-
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
Gotta love that spin. Why are you defending extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators?
Look, obviously it's bad and the people involved should be prosecuted. One more consequence of the Israeli occupation you support.
Because it's Israel's fault Hamas brutalizes people who dare to criticize it.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
Did you seriously just compare my statement of objective fact to rape apologism? I should have expected you couldn't debate this in good faith.
It is indeed blaming the victim, yes. I shell your city, kill your citizens and blame you for not protecting them somehow.[/quote]
You talk as though Hamas doesn't have the resources to protect its citizens. It does, it just chooses not to. Gaza is honeycombed with underground structures, from the tunnels it uses for smuggling to the bomb shelters it uses to protect its fighters and leaders.
I sympathize with the people of Gaza, I really do. And that's part of why I'm so angry at your support of Hamas.
Well, we are talking about the country that is doing an ethnic cleansing on Jews.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/#44077d0d2880
The "wrong kind" of Jews that is.
Yeah, that's contemptible, and I'm not even going to try to defend it. But it's also a red herring. What does this have to do with the situation in Palestine?
-
Oh, joy. We re-discovered a vastly more interesting and important topic to debate with UP about. Too bad it will be so difficult to keep it on an adult level.
-
Not to be an asshole, but...why did Isreal need to be established where people, ya know, already lived? I get wanting to have a place where Jews can escape the rabid anti-semitism that pervades most of the world, but fucking Christ, they could've chosen a better home than in the Middle East. Even when it was originally established, it was still largely a Muslim centre of the world, and Muslims and Jews, to my knowledge, have pretty much kinda sorta a little bit never gotten along. Could've put Israel somewhere near South Africa or China who, at the time, were ostensibly our allies. But, no. Had to fulfill our little doomsday prophecies made by Bronze Age goat-fuckers.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
-
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands. It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
-
Such as?
-
Such as?
I presume you're talking about reasons for our support of Israel. Well, for one thing, you have realpolitik concerns. Back in the Cold War, many of Israel's enemies had close ties to the USSR. Supporting Israel meant undermining Soviet influence in the Middle East.
-
UP, you got anything more current than that? Not being snide, I'm legitimately curious, because Cold War-era anti-communist hysteria isn't really much of a reason to support a country run by psychotic dickheads now.
-
UP, you got anything more current than that? Not being snide, I'm legitimately curious, because Cold War-era anti-communist hysteria isn't really much of a reason to support a country run by psychotic dickheads now.
How about the intelligence sharing? Even as I type this, Israel is providing America with valuable intelligence on ISIL.
-
"Prophecy" is an interesting choice of words.
Also interesting is that modern Islamist movements origin lies in no small part to the combined fuckery of the US and Israel and their squelching of Arab nationalism.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
Well that's quite the apologia for ethnic cleansing. I accept the existence of Israel now but its origins were a massive injustice to the people who lived there.
You wanted to give the Jewish people reparations? Why not give them the best part of Germany? What did any of this have to do with the Palestinians?
-
Such as?
Because they're the only Middle Eastern state that's actually friendly, perhaps? Having a platform in the region is kind of useful, given that it has a lot of oil and people who hate them.
Honestly, the idea that the US only supports Israel so it can fulfill some prophecy is absolutely fucking stupid. Reality is not a cliched fantasy plot.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
Well thats quite the apologia for ethnic cleansing. I accept the existance of Israel now but its origins were a massive injuztice to the people who lived there.
Fun fact: Jews were driven to Israel from all over the Middle East, starting at about the same time. And even before that, they suffered persecution.
Besides, do you know who started the fight that led to the Palestinian exodus? The Arabs, not the Israelis. Not that it justifies the response, but it helps to put things in perspective.
You wanted to give the Jewish people reparations? Why not give them the best part of Germany? What did any of this have to do with the Palestinians?
"Give them the best part of Germany?" Do you know what a propaganda boon that would be for future Nazi movements? Besides, AFAIK, the Jews didn't want Germany. They wanted Mandatory Palestine for reasons practical, historical, and sentimental.
Such as?
Because they're the only Middle Eastern state that's actually friendly, perhaps? Having a platform in the region is kind of useful, given that it has a lot of oil and people who hate them.
Honestly, the idea that the US only supports Israel so it can fulfill some prophecy is absolutely fucking stupid. Reality is not a cliched fantasy plot.
Indeed.
-
Such as?
Because they're the only Middle Eastern state that's actually friendly, perhaps? Having a platform in the region is kind of useful, given that it has a lot of oil and people who hate them.
I thought Bahrain was also a US-friendly Middle Eastern state (although I think part of that is an "enemy of my enemy" thing with Iran).
-
...You know, without Israel I doubt so many of the countries in Middle East would have been pro-Soviet. When their enemy/rival is protected by USA their options are limited and at least the Soviets threw free stuff to them as long as they weren't in NATO clique.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
Four or five hundred Jews in 1850, sure. They should have gone and lived in Morocco or Iraq by this logic.
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
Well thats quite the apologia for ethnic cleansing. I accept the existance of Israel now but its origins were a massive injuztice to the people who lived there.
Fun fact: Jews were driven to Israel from all over the Middle East, starting at about the same time. And even before that, they suffered persecution.
Largely by the Zionist movement. Those guys were assholes. They also forcibly drafted Holocaust survivors after telling them they were headed to America. The Zionist movement greatly encouraged that flight, and were the key cause of it.
Besides, do you know who started the fight that led to the Palestinian exodus? The Arabs, not the Israelis. Not that it justifies the response, but it helps to put things in perspective.
Complete crap, as usual. The Israelis were mostly responsible - the war and ethnic cleansing started long before the Arab invasion in 1948.
Do you accept that Palestinians are not responsible for their own ethnic cleansing?
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
The Jewish population of Palestine was insignificant. The European Jewish population was zero. They had no legal claim whatsoever to an inch of land.
The logical way to do Zionism, if it needed to be done, was as a one-state multi-ethnic nation like Lebanon. If Ben Gurion couldn't accept that, he could instead make a nice homeland in hell, I think.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
Gotta love that spin. Why are you defending extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators?
Look, obviously it's bad and the people involved should be prosecuted. One more consequence of the Israeli occupation you support.
Because it's Israel's fault Hamas brutalizes people who dare to criticize it.
Indeed. Israel started and maintains the civil war and is therefore responsible for every consequence. Others are also responsible, but the primary guilty party is Israel, and her apologists like yourself.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
Did you seriously just compare my statement of objective fact to rape apologism? I should have expected you couldn't debate this in good faith.
It is indeed blaming the victim, yes. I shell your city, kill your citizens and blame you for not protecting them somehow.
You talk as though Hamas doesn't have the resources to protect its citizens. It does, it just chooses not to. Gaza is honeycombed with underground structures, from the tunnels it uses for smuggling to the bomb shelters it uses to protect its fighters and leaders. [/quote]
Absolutely foul. The US has many miles of tunnels and bunkers. Therefore, the US government is responsible for 9/11, because Americans live on the surface.
I sympathize with the people of Gaza, I really do. And that's part of why I'm so angry at your support of Hamas.
Self-serving crocodile tears. I've yet to hear you demand Israel end their opposition to peace, which is the only thing that matters. Indeed I've watched you defend Israel's continued refusal to permit peace.
-
Oh shit I forgot about this topic. It's been so long and we've been concentrating on other things.
Ironbite-so let's watch as UP is constantly outmaneuvered once again.
-
Another fun fact: the Jewish Nazi organisation, a large and powerful element within Likud, is still well-respected within Israel, despite literally offering to ally with and aid Hitler during WW2. Their terrorist leader later became President. Members are issued medals by the state. One of their victims - a Swedish diplomat who saved many tens of thousands of lives during WW2, gunned down because he was trying to negotiate a ceasefire - is excluded from the Known Unto The Nations list because he was murdered by Jews.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
Four or five hundred Jews in 1850, sure. They should have gone and lived in Morocco or Iraq by this logic.
That's demonstrably false. In 1838, there were 3,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone.
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
Well thats quite the apologia for ethnic cleansing. I accept the existance of Israel now but its origins were a massive injuztice to the people who lived there.
Fun fact: Jews were driven to Israel from all over the Middle East, starting at about the same time. And even before that, they suffered persecution.
Largely by the Zionist movement. Those guys were assholes. They also forcibly drafted Holocaust survivors after telling them they were headed to America. The Zionist movement greatly encouraged that flight, and were the key cause of it.
Citation?
And I take it you've never heard of the Farhud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud).
Besides, do you know who started the fight that led to the Palestinian exodus? The Arabs, not the Israelis. Not that it justifies the response, but it helps to put things in perspective.
Complete crap, as usual. The Israelis were mostly responsible - the war and ethnic cleansing started long before the Arab invasion in 1948.
Do you accept that Palestinians are not responsible for their own ethnic cleansing?[/quote]
Are you talking about the civil war in Mandatory Palestine? Because that started in 1947, hardly "long before." And yes, that was started by the Arabs.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
The Jewish population of Palestine was insignificant. The European Jewish population was zero. They had no legal claim whatsoever to an inch of land.
No legal claim whatsoever?
The logical way to do Zionism, if it needed to be done, was as a one-state multi-ethnic nation like Lebanon. If Ben Gurion couldn't accept that, he could instead make a nice homeland in hell, I think.
Israel already is a multi-ethnic state. You have Arabs, you have Syriac Christians, you have Vietnamese refugees, and you have gentile migrants from the former Soviet Union, among other non-Jewish demographics.
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Can't round them up these days. Bad PR.
But Hamas has no problem rounding up and murdering dissidents within Gaza.
That is, fighting a years long civil war with Israel-backed Fatah.
Gotta love that spin. Why are you defending extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators?
Look, obviously it's bad and the people involved should be prosecuted. One more consequence of the Israeli occupation you support.
Because it's Israel's fault Hamas brutalizes people who dare to criticize it.
Indeed. Israel started and maintains the civil war and is therefore responsible for every consequence. Others are also responsible, but the primary guilty party is Israel, and her apologists like yourself.
Okay, seriously, do you think Hamas has no agency of its own? Or do you think it'll just abandon its ways if Israel threw its hands in the air and gave up?
UP, ya do know that there's just the teensiest, tiniest power differential between the Palestinians and the Israeli's?
Like, Israel is a modern western industrialized state and Palestine is it's shooting range.
As if that makes a difference. And if Palestine was "Israel's shooting range," you'd expect far more casualties.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a difference between being a stable industrialised state and a series of bomb craters populated by desperate refugees, hostile Israeli settlers and breakaway factions who won't do what they're told. Kinda.
And...do you think the number of Palestinian casualties are insufficient? Not enough kids oven baked with white phosphorus yet or something?
Last told the ratio of Palestinians to Israeli's killed since 2000 was 8/1 (http://garryleech.com/2014/08/08/israel-palestine-by-the-numbers/). Too small?
Many of those deaths can be attributed to Hamas' casual disregard for the lives of its own citizenry.
You can also attribute the blame for many rapes to the victims, too.
Did you seriously just compare my statement of objective fact to rape apologism? I should have expected you couldn't debate this in good faith.
It is indeed blaming the victim, yes. I shell your city, kill your citizens and blame you for not protecting them somehow.
You talk as though Hamas doesn't have the resources to protect its citizens. It does, it just chooses not to. Gaza is honeycombed with underground structures, from the tunnels it uses for smuggling to the bomb shelters it uses to protect its fighters and leaders.
Absolutely foul. The US has many miles of tunnels and bunkers. Therefore, the US government is responsible for 9/11, because Americans live on the surface.[/quote]
You're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is that Hamas refuses to let its civilians use its extensive network of shelters.
I sympathize with the people of Gaza, I really do. And that's part of why I'm so angry at your support of Hamas.
Self-serving crocodile tears. I've yet to hear you demand Israel end their opposition to peace, which is the only thing that matters. Indeed I've watched you defend Israel's continued refusal to permit peace.
Israel is not opposed to peace. They were on the road to peace before Hamas threw a wrench into the works.
Another fun fact: the Jewish Nazi organisation, a large and powerful element within Likud, is still well-respected within Israel, despite literally offering to ally with and aid Hitler during WW2. Their terrorist leader later became President. Members are issued medals by the state. One of their victims - a Swedish diplomat who saved many tens of thousands of lives during WW2, gunned down because he was trying to negotiate a ceasefire - is excluded from the Known Unto The Nations list because he was murdered by Jews.
Citation fucking needed.
-
Here:
Assassination of Folke Bernadotte is on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
Shamir, one of the alleged masterminds behind the murder was later a prime minister of Israel as a member of Likud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir
Now, it does say "alleged" but the facts are that he was a leader in the group that took credit for the assassination so unless they took credit for a murder that was done by another group or rogue agents it certainly does seem like he was involved.
-
Here:
Assassination of Folke Bernadotte is on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
Shamir, one of the alleged masterminds behind the murder was later a prime minister of Israel as a member of Likud:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir
Now, it does say "alleged" but the facts are that he was a leader in the group that took credit for the assassination so unless they took credit for a murder that was done by another group or rogue agents it certainly does seem like he was involved.
Ah, so it might actually be true.
But it's still a red herring.
-
So this is a "red herring" but a game developer fucking a dude isn't?
-
So this is a "red herring" but a game developer fucking a dude isn't?
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/762/619/8d0.jpg)
-
Anyway, the point is that the Israeli government is a US-supported terrorist organization. Let's not bring up Gamergate here. Let's focus on the fact that Israel routinely drops bombs on Palestine and seem to think that giving the residents a phone call telling them to run (where, exactly?) is okay, despite destroying their property and anyone too slow to move (can't evacuate your house in one minute? Well, that's just too bad, isn't it?).
-
So this is a "red herring" but a game developer fucking a dude isn't?
Lets not bring that up again as it's died down for now.
-
"Give them the best part of Germany?" Do you know what a propaganda boon that would be for future Nazi movements? Besides, AFAIK, the Jews didn't want Germany. They wanted Mandatory Palestine for reasons practical, historical, and sentimental.
There were people who were already living in Palestine who had resided there for centuries and it wasn't their fault that the Jews had been dispersed from there by the bloody Roman Empire. That's how far back we're talking. Sentimentality is a stupid reason to do anything and the "practical" is kind of flattened by the fact that-there were people already living there.
In any case, Nazi movements have already capitalized on the situation in occupied Palestine. There's "Dr" David Duke getting friendly with one right here (http://www.algemeiner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/duke-ahmadinejad.jpg).
From a justice standpoint, the German nation did the Jewish people wrong. The Palestinians just happened to be occupying a piece of real estate some Jewish people of a Zionist persuasion wanted for "sentimental" reasons. I see no good reason why the Palestinians deserved the short end of the stick.
So this is a "red herring" but a game developer fucking a dude isn't?
Lets not bring that up again as it's died down for now.
Yeah, and everyone is bored shitless with it. It's been done to death.
-
"Give them the best part of Germany?" Do you know what a propaganda boon that would be for future Nazi movements? Besides, AFAIK, the Jews didn't want Germany. They wanted Mandatory Palestine for reasons practical, historical, and sentimental.
There were people who were already living in Palestine who had resided there for centuries and it wasn't their fault that the Jews had been dispersed from there by the bloody Roman Empire. That's how far back we're talking. Sentimentality is a stupid reason to do anything and the "practical" is kind of flattened by the fact that-there were people already living there.
The idea that Palestine was rendered "Judenfrei" by the Roman Empire is a myth. There have been large Jewish populations there since Cyrus said they could go home if they wanted to. One reason a Jewish homeland there was a dream for a long time was because it already had large numbers of Jews, even before Zionism.
From a justice standpoint, the German nation did the Jewish people wrong. The Palestinians just happened to be occupying a piece of real estate some Jewish people of a Zionist persuasion wanted for "sentimental" reasons. I see no good reason why the Palestinians deserved the short end of the stick.
From an allied perspective, the Germans had already suffered enough. Twelve years under the Nazi jackboot, 7 million dead, her infrastructure in ruin, her people in need, and the territory divided into occupation zones.
In any case, it wasn't about "punishment." The UN partition plan would have given the Palestinians their own state. But thanks to the civil war and the occupation of the remaining Palestinian territories by other Arab states, that didn't happen.
-
"Give them the best part of Germany?" Do you know what a propaganda boon that would be for future Nazi movements? Besides, AFAIK, the Jews didn't want Germany. They wanted Mandatory Palestine for reasons practical, historical, and sentimental.
There were people who were already living in Palestine who had resided there for centuries and it wasn't their fault that the Jews had been dispersed from there by the bloody Roman Empire. That's how far back we're talking. Sentimentality is a stupid reason to do anything and the "practical" is kind of flattened by the fact that-there were people already living there.
The idea that Palestine was rendered "Judenfrei" by the Roman Empire is a myth. There have been large Jewish populations there since Cyrus said they could go home if they wanted to. One reason a Jewish homeland there was a dream for a long time was because it already had large numbers of Jews, even before Zionism.
And a heck of a lot more Palestinians. What happened to the Jewish people wasn't their fault. They shouldn't have suffered for it. Also, by the time of the Caliphate occupation the area was mostly inhabited by Aramaic speaking Christians, not Jews. The Jews were mostly gone.
This stuff is ancient history that was used as the pretext for cleansing the population of a modern area, it'd be the same if the Native American inhabitation of North and South America was used as a pretext to send it's European and African populations back to their native lands.
From a justice standpoint, the German nation did the Jewish people wrong. The Palestinians just happened to be occupying a piece of real estate some Jewish people of a Zionist persuasion wanted for "sentimental" reasons. I see no good reason why the Palestinians deserved the short end of the stick.
From an allied perspective, the Germans had already suffered enough. Twelve years under the Nazi jackboot, 7 million dead, her infrastructure in ruin, her people in need, and the territory divided into occupation zones.
In any case, it wasn't about "punishment." The UN partition plan would have given the Palestinians their own state. But thanks to the civil war and the occupation of the remaining Palestinian territories by other Arab states, that didn't happen.
The political movement for Zionism promised "a land without a people for a people without a land" to Jewish migrants but their were people. The entire enterprise of Zionism was founded on moving the people who lived there out and moving the colonisers in. If it weren't for Britain and the US incubating this disaster the civil war, the six day war and the mess that we have today wouldn't have happened. There is simply no good case for organising systematic ethnic cleansing of a pre-existing territory for "sentimental" reasons.
And no I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist now, it's origins remain an injustice that so far has only been repaid with doubling down on the injustice. Australia, Canada and the US also have their origins in conquest and displacement and I'm not suggesting that we dismantle states simply because their origin lies in historic injustice.
-
The Jews specifically wanted Israel rather than some other place. Besides, there weren't many unpopulated livable regions so settling them in their ancestral home made some sense. ...Though the fighting that came because of it does make it seem like putting them in some place Alaska or something might have been better choice.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
Four or five hundred Jews in 1850, sure. They should have gone and lived in Morocco or Iraq by this logic.
That's demonstrably false. In 1838, there were 3,000 Jews in Jerusalem alone.
And a half dozen outside, sure. The remaining million or so had no right, as such, to live there.
It's partly because there was already a lot of Jewish settlement and infrastructure in the region, which stretched back decades. So there were legitimately practical reasons.
It's wholly because of the Zionist movement, with largely sentimental/religious motivations.
I'd say give 'em part of the Yukon or an area in South America that doesn't suck. Some place other than the middle of a sand-blasted desert surrounded by likely hostile natives. They could bitch all they want about their "ancestral home," but it doesn't change the fact that people kinda lived there already and had been doing so for generations and, thus, have more claim to the land itself than a bunch of guys coming back there after what had to have been, at least, a few hundred years, if not thousands.
It'd be kinda like me going back to my house in Little Rock and being surprised when the people that already live there get pissed off when I start living there and eating their food.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
Every Jew that immigrated to Palestine around or after 1947 - and that's like 99% - had left Palestine before they re-immigrated. The very small indigenous Jewish population did not grant unrelated Germans the right to annex someone else's home simply due to their religion.
I know none of this changes the current political climate, but damn it, its a peeve of mine. Israel is kind of a MASSIVE peeve of mine. Mostly because their pathetic dick-waving wouldn't mean shit if it weren't for big bro America backing them up even when they're being massive cunts. Again, because we got ourselves a doomsday prophecy to fulfill!
Israel won the Six-Day War without America in their corner. And there are more reasons for our support than that prophecy.
[/quote] Well thats quite the apologia for ethnic cleansing. I accept the existance of Israel now but its origins were a massive injuztice to the people who lived there.[/quote]
Fun fact: Jews were driven to Israel from all over the Middle East, starting at about the same time. And even before that, they suffered persecution. [/quote]
Largely by the Zionist movement. Those guys were assholes. They also forcibly drafted Holocaust survivors after telling them they were headed to America. The Zionist movement greatly encouraged that flight, and were the key cause of it.[/quote]
Citation? [/quote]
The zionists were largely responsible for the Iraq exodus. Most Iraqi Jews didn't want to leave. The riots had very little to do with it (but can be spun as "ethnic cleansing" to absolve Israel of their responsibility for their own massacres).
http://www.dangoor.com/70006.html
http://www.nimn.org/Perspectives/israeli_voices/000427.php?section=Israeli%20Voices
Is the best I can get on the internet for the conscription claim, but Benny Morris, a fascist, talks about this a fair bit in some of his books.
And I take it you've never heard of the Farhud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud).
Are you talking about the civil war in Mandatory Palestine? Because that started in 1947, hardly "long before." And yes, that was started by the Arabs.
By Israel, in order to expropriate land within 'their' country. Read Benny Morris, really. You're quite ignorant on this.
The Jews never left the Holy Land since their return from the Babylonian exile. All that was different this time was that there were Jews from elsewhere in the world and they had genuine sovereignty over themselves.
The Jewish population of Palestine was insignificant. The European Jewish population was zero. They had no legal claim whatsoever to an inch of land.
No legal claim whatsoever?
Zip. The Palestinians, including a handful of Jews, had total right to the land they owned.
The logical way to do Zionism, if it needed to be done, was as a one-state multi-ethnic nation like Lebanon. If Ben Gurion couldn't accept that, he could instead make a nice homeland in hell, I think.
Israel already is a multi-ethnic state. You have Arabs, you have Syriac Christians, you have Vietnamese refugees, and you have gentile migrants from the former Soviet Union, among other non-Jewish demographics.
That's fine. I'm sure they wouldn't mind accepting the indigenous million and a half Palestinian refugees they forcibly expelled from their great multi-ethnic country then. Except they've spent the last 60 years expelling them even further, of course.
Indeed. Israel started and maintains the civil war and is therefore responsible for every consequence. Others are also responsible, but the primary guilty party is Israel, and her apologists like yourself.
Okay, seriously, do you think Hamas has no agency of its own? Or do you think it'll just abandon its ways if Israel threw its hands in the air and gave up?
Takes two to tango. Hamas obviously can't end the conflict while Israel bluntly refuses to negotiate, ever. Because it is Israeli refusal that perpetuates the conflict, it's 100% their fault.
[quote Absolutely foul. The US has many miles of tunnels and bunkers. Therefore, the US government is responsible for 9/11, because Americans live on the surface.
You're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is that Hamas refuses to let its civilians use its extensive network of shelters. [/quote]
So did the US on September 11, 2001. There was plenty of space to house the population.
I sympathize with the people of Gaza, I really do. And that's part of why I'm so angry at your support of Hamas.
Self-serving crocodile tears. I've yet to hear you demand Israel end their opposition to peace, which is the only thing that matters. Indeed I've watched you defend Israel's continued refusal to permit peace.
Israel is not opposed to peace. They were on the road to peace before Hamas threw a wrench into the works. [/quote]
Israel has negotiated in good faith once, at Taba. Never again, never before. Hamas and Fatah have been begging for any kind of acceptable deal for three generations; ignored.
Another fun fact: the Jewish Nazi organisation, a large and powerful element within Likud, is still well-respected within Israel, despite literally offering to ally with and aid Hitler during WW2. Their terrorist leader later became President. Members are issued medals by the state. One of their victims - a Swedish diplomat who saved many tens of thousands of lives during WW2, gunned down because he was trying to negotiate a ceasefire - is excluded from the Known Unto The Nations list because he was murdered by Jews.
Citation fucking needed.
Here's your photo of the letter the respected later-President of Israel sent to Hitler's ambassador in Ankara offering assistance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#/media/File:SternGang-Doc-Nazi-Collaboration.jpg
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
-
Find a random clip of Netanyahu and co. talking about Hamas and that's probably the response you'll get.
Do you expect anything else from a pro-Israel propagandist?
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
No, because you're being deliberately obtuse.
-
And Mr. Kettle, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Pot.
-
Don't mind me, folks, I'm only here for the show.
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
No, because you're being deliberately obtuse at this point I'm stumped and I need to consult Conservapedia. I'll be with you directly.
FTFY
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
No, because you're being deliberately obtuse.
Lol.
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
No, because you're being deliberately obtuse at this point I'm stumped and I need to consult Conservapedia. I'll be with you directly.
FTFY
If you're not going to take this seriously, why should I?
And before I continue, I'd just like to ask Fred a question: can I level with you?
-
If you're not going to take this seriously, why should I?
Well yeah, we figured you weren't taking any of these arguments seriously. So what were you doing with all that rambling? Being a dick?
Isn't that against the rules?
-
And before I continue, I'd just like to ask Fred a question: can I level with you?
Ad hom powers: Charging up.
-
So we're not getting a response to this?
No, because you're being deliberately obtuse at this point I'm stumped and I need to consult Conservapedia. I'll be with you directly.
FTFY
If you're not going to take this seriously, why should I?
And before I continue, I'd just like to ask Fred a question: can I level with you?
I have no idea. Why haven't you yet?
-
This is the bit where he tells you you're a bad person and he's been owning your arguments all day in front of the rest of the board who've totally noticed...but...not...told you yet.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
To me, this is like saying "just because I'm pro-ISIS doesn't mean I'm anti-America". Israel has been pushing for the total destruction of even the concept of a Palestinian state since their creation in 1947. To be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine in its entirety.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
It's a bad thing if, like many Israelis, you think all of old Palestine belongs to Israel.
It kind of underscores the point that there were people living there before they were turfed out and those people matter.
Israel don't play that.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
To me, this is like saying "just because I'm pro-ISIS doesn't mean I'm anti-America". Israel has been pushing for the total destruction of even the concept of a Palestinian state since their creation in 1947. To be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine in its entirety.
This is some r/badhistory material right here.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
To me, this is like saying "just because I'm pro-ISIS doesn't mean I'm anti-America". Israel has been pushing for the total destruction of even the concept of a Palestinian state since their creation in 1947. To be pro-Israel is to be anti-Palestine in its entirety.
This is some r/badhistory material right here.
If you say so.
-
Do you have an actual argument UP or just quips?
This is what David Ben Gurion said (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion).
Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it… We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs
.
-
Thank you, Tolpuddle. I really don't have the energy to argue in any significant capacity myself.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
As for Ben-Gurion, in a letter to his son, he wrote:
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Way to link to a page that undermines your argument.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
As for Ben-Gurion, in a letter to his son, he wrote:
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Way to link to a page that undermines your argument.
Except your quote is 20/20 hindsight and mine is the mindset he went into creating the state of Israel with. Timelines matter. Also 53.5% is a small majority who favor a two state solution, the 38% who oppose it is rather substantial.
Favoring a two state solution is rather vague, favoring a two state solution only under terms that Israeli's would accept that doesn't exist currently (like not dealing with Hamas) doesn't actually count.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
As for Ben-Gurion, in a letter to his son, he wrote:
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Way to link to a page that undermines your argument.
Except your quote is 20/20 hindsight and mine is the mindset he went into creating the state of Israel with. Timelines matter.
Didn't know Israel existed in 1937. Besides, here's what he had to say in 1920:
Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.
Also 53.5% is a small majority who favor a two state solution, the 38% who oppose it is rather substantial.
True, but it's proof that the Israeli people aren't necessarily against the existence of a Palestinian state.
Favoring a two state solution is rather vague,
Fair point.
favoring a two state solution only under terms that Israeli's would accept that doesn't exist currently (like not dealing with Hamas) doesn't actually count.
What are you saying here?
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.
Citation?
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.
Citation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Settlement_policy
In particular:
"At the presentation of the Oslo II Accord on 5 October 1995 in the Knesset, PM Yitzhak Rabin expounded the Israeli settlement policy in connection with the permanent solution to the conflict. Israel wanted "a Palestinian entity, less than a state, which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank". It wanted to keep settlements beyond the Green Line including Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev in East Jerusalem. Blocs of settlements should be established in the West Bank. Rabin promised not to return to the 4 June 1967 lines.[48]"
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
As for Ben-Gurion, in a letter to his son, he wrote:
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Way to link to a page that undermines your argument.
Except your quote is 20/20 hindsight and mine is the mindset he went into creating the state of Israel with. Timelines matter.
Didn't know Israel existed in 1937. Besides, here's what he had to say in 1920:
Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.
Also 53.5% is a small majority who favor a two state solution, the 38% who oppose it is rather substantial.
True, but it's proof that the Israeli people aren't necessarily against the existence of a Palestinian state.
Favoring a two state solution is rather vague,
Fair point.
favoring a two state solution only under terms that Israeli's would accept that doesn't exist currently (like not dealing with Hamas) doesn't actually count.
What are you saying here?
I'm saying that Israel has flat out refused to speak to Hamas in the past. Proposing a two state solution with a more amenable opposition than Hamas is proposing something that does not currently exist.
And yeah, that two state solution? The Israeli Labor party uses it to justify opposing international recognition of Palestine (https://www.laborherald.com.au/economy/why-unilateral-palestinian-recognition-undermines-a-two-state-solution/).
Wanting a two state solution but opposing any international recognition of Palestine while saying you support a two state solution is disingenuous at best.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.
Citation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Settlement_policy
In particular:
"At the presentation of the Oslo II Accord on 5 October 1995 in the Knesset, PM Yitzhak Rabin expounded the Israeli settlement policy in connection with the permanent solution to the conflict. Israel wanted "a Palestinian entity, less than a state, which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank". It wanted to keep settlements beyond the Green Line including Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev in East Jerusalem. Blocs of settlements should be established in the West Bank. Rabin promised not to return to the 4 June 1967 lines.[48]"
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
Huh, I didn't figure UP of all people self-censored our posts.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
Huh, I didn't figure UP of all people self-censored our posts.
1. That's not what self-censorship means.
2. I was being sardonic.
-
According to this poll (http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6966), the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution, but don't think it'll happen. Look at the controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/opinions/two-state-solution-ziv/) opposition leader Isaac Herzog caused in his party when he called a two-state solution "unrealistic." If Israel were truly opposed to a two-state solution, there wouldn't even be any controversy.
Is there any debate at all within government? The public's views are irrelevant.
Yes, there is. The two-state solution is a major plank in the Israeli Labor Party's platform.
Stated plank. In reality, Labour has never been serious about it. They started the settlement construction to ethnically cleanse the West Bank.
Citation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Settlement_policy
In particular:
"At the presentation of the Oslo II Accord on 5 October 1995 in the Knesset, PM Yitzhak Rabin expounded the Israeli settlement policy in connection with the permanent solution to the conflict. Israel wanted "a Palestinian entity, less than a state, which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank". It wanted to keep settlements beyond the Green Line including Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev in East Jerusalem. Blocs of settlements should be established in the West Bank. Rabin promised not to return to the 4 June 1967 lines.[48]"
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
By far the most pro-Palestinian labour prime minister and the last one with a substantial term. Barak was no better.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
We'll stop shelling you as soon as you promise never to use force under any circumstances including law enforcement. And recognise our right to annex your land.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?
If that's true, then it's a recent development. In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922).
Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?
If that's true, then it's a recent development. In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922).
Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.
Bibi circa 2009:
"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”
The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:
"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html
-
While we're at it, here's a HuffPost article from late 2015 about Netanyahu rejecting a two-state solution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-reject-palestinian-state_us_562e5f1be4b0c66bae58b878 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-benjamin-netanyahu-reject-palestinian-state_us_562e5f1be4b0c66bae58b878)
WASHINGTON -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reaffirmed on Monday that he does not envision a two-state solution for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories any time soon.
During a parliamentary committee meeting, Netanyahu told members of the Knesset that he has no current plans to surrender control of the occupied West Bank to the Palestinians as part of a peace agreement. “At this time, we need to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future,” he told lawmakers, reported Haaretz.
Netanyahu accused members of the opposition government, who have lobbied for renewed two-state solution negotiations, of indulging in an unrealistic fantasy.
"You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree,” he told them. “I'm asked if we will forever live by the sword - yes."
Relevant portion quoted, of course.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?
If that's true, then it's a recent development. In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922).
Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.
Bibi circa 2009:
"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”
The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:
"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html
Alright. Point made.
-
I have still not been told why France recognizing Palestine is a bad thing.
Ironbite-far as I can see it does nothing for the situation.
-
That was twenty years ago. At the same time, the Democratic Party was against gays openly serving in the military.
What we're trying to show you is that throughout Israel's short history, they've been steadily opposed to the idea of a Palestianian state, only really claiming to support it if certain unattainable conditions are met ("oh sure, we'll support a two-state solution, but you replace your government first!"). This was true in 1947 with Ben-Gurion, this was true in 1995 with the Labor party, and it's sure as hell true today under Netanyahu.
How exactly is that unreasonable, considering Hamas explicitly wants to destroy Israel?
As does Likud explicitly want to destroy Palestine. Would a Fatah government be entitled to demand the IDF coup their government before peace? Would that be "reasonable"?
If that's true, then it's a recent development. In 2009, Netanyahu was fully supportive of a two-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922).
Also, I'd like a citation on your claim about Likud explicitly stating it wants to destroy Palestine.
Bibi circa 2009:
"“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan (translation: where we can accept a Palestinian state).”
The Likud Charter in 1999, which is still the charter:
"a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/charter-destruction-palestinian.html
Alright. Point made.
I think this is actually an admission of something.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
Can you put me on ignore?
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
Can you put me on ignore?
Hey, it's no fun for UP if you want ignore him.
-
Again I fail to see why this is a "BAD THING". Maybe I'm not in the right mindset of utterly contemptuous stupid but again, how is this a bad thing?
Ironbite-all I see is this gains Palestine...nothing in terms of actual aid.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing either. Just because I'm pro-Israel doesn't mean I'm anti-Palestine.
You're pro-war and therefore anti-Palestine.
Do you want to get put on ignore?
Can you put me on ignore?
Hey, it's no fun for UP if you want ignore him.
Yeah, but he ignores my points enough as it is, so this would just give him a legit reason to shirk responses to debate, as well as the direct question rule.
-
I'm never gonna get an answer from UP
-
I'm never gonna get an answer from UP
Alright. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. I think it could be a good thing.