On-Topic 5 Nations Condemn Israel's Settlement" Plan

[bankside]

I still wish they'd try a non-geographical state approach. It would set a standard for the future.

That's interesting but impossible to explore in this thread. I'm making a thread about it!

 

[nafhoosier]

The double standard offends me frankly that someone doing violence under a thin religious pretext with a makeshift rocket launcher is a 'terrorist' (with all the attached freedom to overreact, over-retaliate and conduct collective punishment and crackdowns) but someone doing the same thing with a first-world military is just "defending their state/right to exist."

I have zero tolerance for the use of human shields, which Hamas engages in. They shoot their rockets from Mosques, schools, and civilian homes. I see little of you on here mentioning that part of the story. Israel is targeting the terrorists (yes, terrorists) who shoot the rockets into the country. They even give warning signals to civilians to leave their homes (of which most do).

I'm not excusing the civilian deaths in Gaza or brushing them off, nor am I saying everything Israel did this past month was justified.

But you CANNOT condemn Israel in this situation without equally condemning Hamas, which again, few of you guys on here are doing.

Also, do any of you guys know how Turkey threatened Syria with bombs recently? Again, any country would retaliate similar to how Israel did if another government were sending bombs into their borders.

 

[nafhoosier]

Because it's much more common for Jews to think it's their land, their land alone to rule.

Christians and Muslims on the other hand are more likely to believe it belongs to all three religions.

Yeah, those extremely tolerant and peace loving Christians and Muslims.

You have absolutely ZERO evidence for this claim, ZERO. Did you conduct a scientific study from Jews, Muslims, and Christians all over the world?

Jerusalem was originally an International city upon Israel's founding in 1948.... upon which the Jews were happy with and the Arabs weren't.

Again, many on this board need a history lesson.

In reality sir, it's really more the Jews who were happy with it belonging to all three religions and the Muslims thinking it should be theirs.

I'm an Atheist, but I do know how to be fair. Muslims have Mecca, Catholics have Rome, Jews have a Jerusalem. Big freaking deal. Get over it.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

Jerusalem was originally an International city upon Israel's founding in 1948.... upon which the Jews were happy with and the Arabs weren't.

So happy they went to war to control the whole city? Neither side were happy with any agreements given, just the difference is the majority of Arabs were locals who happened to live there and the Jews were displaced European immigrants with a feeling of entitlement for a land they left thousands of years ago.

The whole blaming one side as terrorists in this always strikes me as odd due to the fact the Israeli state was founded by paramilitary terrorists, the Irgun. I don't fully support Hamas, as I have quite a few problems with the Muslim Brotherhood on the whole. But I don't condemn rocket attacks as the last port of call when you live in an open air prison with zero access to supplies and your land slowly stolen from you, and as soon as you peacefully protest the IDF fire tear gas and whatever other horrid weapons they have developed, then when you don't run away from this threat and return again with peaceful protests they open fire and kill your kid brother or sister, mother and father.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I have zero tolerance for the use of human shields, which Hamas engages in. They shoot their rockets from Mosques, schools, and civilian homes. I see little of you on here mentioning that part of the story. Israel is targeting the terrorists (yes, terrorists) who shoot the rockets into the country. They even give warning signals to civilians to leave their homes (of which most do).

I'm not excusing the civilian deaths in Gaza or brushing them off, nor am I saying everything Israel did this past month was justified.

But you CANNOT condemn Israel in this situation without equally condemning Hamas, which again, few of you guys on here are doing.

Also, do any of you guys know how Turkey threatened Syria with bombs recently? Again, any country would retaliate similar to how Israel did if another government were sending bombs into their borders.

Are you seriously asserting there have been equal or greater Israeli casualties than Palestinian ones in the last half century from this conflict?

Because otherwise I don't really see how you can make a moral highground stand for one side against the other when both essentially make precisely the same argument for the conflict.

In my opinion-- yes, I can condemn Israel similarly if not equally-- if not harsher. Because the Palestinians don't get to enforce their political will via a first world military virutally handed to them and heavily subsidized by the United States.

 

[Kulindahr]

But you CANNOT condemn Israel in this situation without equally condemning Hamas, which again, few of you guys on here are doing.

Ah, but those of us who do more than make up for the rest.

Hamas should be turned into fertilizer for the Sinai, so any Palestinians who want to relocate to somewhere sane can have lawns and gardens. I think freeze-drying while still alive would be a good way to start the process.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are you seriously asserting there have been equal or greater Israeli casualties than Palestinian ones in the last half century from this conflict?

Because otherwise I don't really see how you can make a moral highground stand for one side against the other when both essentially make precisely the same argument for the conflict.

The number of casualties isn't relevant; the means of attack and the positioning of weapons for aggression is.

One thing that should be noted, something I don't think anyone has mentioned, is that there really isn't much room in Gaza for positioning weapons that isn't already occupied by something for civilian use. That doesn't excuse Hamas from deliberately using human shields, but it points out a difficulty in the situation.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The number of casualties isn't relevant; the means of attack and the positioning of weapons for aggression is.

One thing that should be noted, something I don't think anyone has mentioned, is that there really isn't much room in Gaza for positioning weapons that isn't already occupied by something for civilian use. That doesn't excuse Hamas from deliberately using human shields, but it points out a difficulty in the situation.

The tactics involved tend to lose their relevancy in the historical judgment if the side using them is a formal power with a military in uniform, and if they're successful.

I do not "like" terrorist tactics, I do not "think they're good." However I do recognize the simple fact that if you don't have a military and you feel backed up into a corner and your future threatened, tactics we'd all call "terrorist" will emerge.

 

[AngolaZee]

Many movements resorted to "terror" to gain freedom and independence from occupiers. E.g the ANC of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. At first they were seen as terrorist because thats the term the oppressors used to refer to them as, of course when the wool came off from the international communities eyes it became clear who the real terrorist were.

I do not consider violence used to gain what is rightfully yours from those who refuse to give it you to be terrorism. I consider it to be justified retaliation. However if you come to my land of birth (Israel), bulldoze my house, kick me out of the country I was born in and then follow me to the "country" (Palestine) you expelled me to, steal my land there as well, bulldoze my house AGAIN. That is terrorism right there

 

[Kulindahr]

The tactics involved tend to lose their relevancy in the historical judgment if the side using them is a formal power with a military in uniform, and if they're successful.

I do not "like" terrorist tactics, I do not "think they're good." However I do recognize the simple fact that if you don't have a military and you feel backed up into a corner and your future threatened, tactics we'd all call "terrorist" will emerge.

I sometimes think the Palestinians would do better to form a formal militia, and the next time the IDF comes into Gaza, march out to formally oppose it, armed civilians defending their homes in plain sight opposing an armored menace -- if full light of world news cameras.

A similar approach worked for Gandhi.

 

[Kulindahr]

Many movements resorted to "terror" to gain freedom and independence from occupiers. E.g the ANC of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. At first they were seen as terrorist because thats the term the oppressors used to refer to them as, of course when the wool came off from the international communities eyes it became clear who the real terrorist were.

I do not consider violence used to gain what is rightfully yours from those who refuse to give it you to be terrorism. I consider it to be justified retaliation. However if you come to my land of birth (Israel), bulldoze my house, kick me out of the country I was born in and then follow me to the "country" (Palestine) you expelled me to, steal my land there as well, bulldoze my house AGAIN. That is terrorism right there

This is what makes me wish there were a way to sneak a high-tech team into that block where the Muslims worship a black rock, and inscribe on the wall, "Be good to the Jews, neighbors to them, for I, Allah, called them first."

 

[Mariatenebre]

Mariatenbre, you need to take a closer look at American history.

There are many Native American tribes which to this day maintain that no treaty (or at least no honored one by the U.S. government) legally ceded their land. The U.S. is still trying to get the Lakota to cash a check in exchange for like the 19th century value of stealing the Black Hills and the Lakota refuse to do it.

In your reasoning it would be because "they want war and blood." In reality it's because cashing that check would be legitimizing the theft of their land, legally. They will never do it.

Is it really so hard to imagine that maybe similar considerations are at work here beyond just irrational wide-eyed insanity and wanting to put Israelis on spears?

There is a big difference between the Native Americans and the Palestinians. First of all the Jews always owned this land before they were displaced by the Arabs and Romans and even still there was still a large Jewish presence in this land. Further more the Palestinians could have lived in peace in Israel and in their own country and many Palestinians do live in peace in Israel. However the Muslim Pallys want to destroy all of Israel because they will never accept Jewish rule even though the so called Palestinians were always under foreign rule by such nations as the Jordanians and Ottomans.

The Lakota do not want to kill the white settlers and totally drive all non Natives into the sea as the Pallys do. No Native American tribe as far as I know has it in their tribe's charter the destruction of all Euro's and the destruction of America. Plus even if they do not want to cash the check the Lakota still live in peace with us. You don't see any Native American tribe fireing rockets into America or suicide bombing us, killing innocent civilians etc. There is a clear difference between the Native Americans who always owned this land not cashing a check, but still living in peace and governing themselves, and the Pallys who usurped this land and wanting all Jews, men women and chidlren dead.

Maria, repeating the same lies does you no good.

But BTW, I learned to read the Bible as a conservative Christian. Conservative principles of exegesis are what I apply in exposing your lies, nothing else.

I have not repeated the same lies. All major Biblical scholars accept the fact that humans sacrifice, murder, rape etc was sanctioned in the Bible. Hell the story of Jephthah's daughter is a clear example of a human girl being offered as a burt offering to Yahweh because her father made a vow to sacrifice the first thing that came through his door and unfortunately it was his daughter.

 

[xbuzzerx]

There is a big difference between the Native Americans and the Palestinians. First of all the Jews always owned this land before they were displaced by the Arabs and Romans and even still there was still a large Jewish presence in this land. Further more the Palestinians could have lived in peace in Israel and in their own country and many Palestinians do live in peace in Israel. However the Muslim Pallys want to destroy all of Israel because they will never accept Jewish rule even though the so called Palestinians were always under foreign rule by such nations as the Jordanians and Ottomans.

So, the good Injuns were the ones who peacefully accepted conquest, the bad ones were the ones who fought?

The Lakota do not want to kill the white settlers and totally drive all non Natives into the sea as the Pallys do.

You really do need to look back at history again.

No Native American tribe as far as I know has it in their tribe's charter the destruction of all Euro's and the destruction of America. Plus even if they do not want to cash the check the Lakota still live in peace with us. You don't see any Native American tribe fireing rockets into America or suicide bombing us, killing innocent civilians etc. There is a clear difference between the Native Americans who always owned this land not cashing a check, but still living in peace and governing themselves, and the Pallys who usurped this land and wanting all Jews, men women and chidlren dead.

Look up "Ghost Dance." See what that was all about.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have not repeated the same lies. All major Biblical scholars accept the fact that humans sacrifice, murder, rape etc was sanctioned in the Bible. Hell the story of Jephthah's daughter is a clear example of a human girl being offered as a burt offering to Yahweh because her father made a vow to sacrifice the first thing that came through his door and unfortunately it was his daughter.

 

[Mariatenebre]

So, the good Injuns were the ones who peacefully accepted conquest, the bad ones were the ones who fought?



You really do need to look back at history again.



Look up "Ghost Dance." See what that was all about.

The difference is the Jews are not trying to destroy all Palestinians and would have let the Palestinians live in peace in their own country. The Euros wanted to take all of the land from the Native Americans and wanted to ice them all.

Also I am aware of Ghost Dance but that was along time ago. The majority of Native Americans did not want to murder all Euros and non Natives. Point in fact the two societies are not comparable. The Native Americans were a pro gay, pro female and reasonable civilization where as the Pallys kill gays, unsubmissive women and are rabid theocrats.

 

[bankside]

The difference is the Jews are not trying to destroy all Palestinians and would have let the Palestinians live in peace in their own country.

Utter fantasy. Might as well be talking about gargamel and the smurfs if this is it.

 

[Laufey]

There are plenty of Jews who would like nothing more than to turn all of Palestinian land into Jewish settlements. There are also plenty of Palestinians who would like all of it to belong to them.

But you can't generalize like Maria does.

 

[nafhoosier]

There are plenty of Jews who would like nothing more than to turn all of Palestinian land into Jewish settlements. There are also plenty of Palestinians who would like all of it to belong to them.

But you can't generalize like Maria does.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of people on here agree with those particular Palestinians who want nothing more than to annihilate all of Israel and take back all the land, having all Jews live under Islamic control.

Both sides will have to make concessions in order for there to be peace.

Israel will have to stop expanding settlements and give up land that closer resembles the 1967 borders than it does not.

Palestinians will have to recognize that there DOES deserve to be a Jewish state the size of a crumb and that not all of the freakin' refugees will be able to return to their homes within the 1967 borders of Israel.

Both sides suffer, both sides win. It's call reality and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional.

 

[iwantbig]

so when did the pallys " usurp " this land ?

 

[Laufey]

They have a historic claim at least for the Gaza strip. Back when ancient Israel existed they referred to the area as the tribe of Philistines. The 12 tribes of Israelite's did not rule it.

Although it's just the Gaza strip... a lot of what is Israel today has more historic ties with the Arabs than the Jews. The religious books of Judaism, Islam and Christianity all speak of the holy land as the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. So pretty much everything south of Beer Sheva was Arab land and the twelve tribes did not occupy it. It's almost half the size of the current Israel-Palestine area.