Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

"occupied territories"

slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 2:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Because Israel is our friend and ally, and as long as their interests coincide with ours, it will remain so.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 6:59:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 2:06:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Because Israel is our friend and ally, and as long as their interests coincide with ours, it will remain so.

It is always healthy to go along with allies without questioning them. Truly the tail wagging the dog.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 6:59:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:06:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Because Israel is our friend and ally, and as long as their interests coincide with ours, it will remain so.

It is always healthy to go along with allies without questioning them. Truly the tail wagging the dog.

I'm fairly certain that there are intense, private discussions where the US has a LOT of influence over Israeli policy, but publicly? Apparently not. So perhaps the real question is whether or not public opinion is the tail or the dog? It seems it is the tail in this case.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:59:30 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 2:06:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Because Israel is our friend and ally, and as long as their interests coincide with ours, it will remain so.

It is always healthy to go along with allies without questioning them. Truly the tail wagging the dog.

I'm fairly certain that there are intense, private discussions where the US has a LOT of influence over Israeli policy, but publicly? Apparently not. So perhaps the real question is whether or not public opinion is the tail or the dog? It seems it is the tail in this case.

It is interesting to speculate that, but when Obama has publicly stated that Israel should stop or slow down West Bank settlements, yet veto's or votes against any and all UN resolutions denouncing West Bank settlements, it is a mixed message.

That is clearly a case where the Israeli tail is wagging the US dog. We can't even get Israel to drop its newer request to get the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. To my knowledge that is the only US ally who has a stated and acted upon policy of maintaining an ethnic/religious majority.

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

I've always had a bit of trouble with this aspect of Zionism.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 11:43:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

It's no surprise. The American media is largely owned or run by Jews and right-wing Christian supporters of Zionism.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2014 9:12:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Believe me, there are plenty of anti-semites among critics of Israel.
http://www.jerusalemonline.com...
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 8:50:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Believe me, there are plenty of anti-semites among critics of Israel.
http://www.jerusalemonline.com...

LOL wow, that's some hard evidence there. Jerusalem Online, referencing a study done by the Anti-Defamation League, about how mean people can be online.

Nobody doubts that "some" criticism of Israel is motivated primarily by base anti-Semitic feelings. The vast majority of it though, is motivated by appalling Israeli human-rights abuses, and as Amnesty International put it, "the attempt to justify what cannot be justified". The feeling that pro-Israeli forces hold too much sway over the American government is also a significant motivator of anti-Israel feelings.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 3:08:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is just for editing my signature. Sorry if spamming.
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:29:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:28:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

I've always had a bit of trouble with this aspect of Zionism.

There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .
B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).
C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).
D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population. In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:29:38 PM, mendel wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:28:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

I've always had a bit of trouble with this aspect of Zionism.

There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .

What you think has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Also, you act like there were no massacres of Palestinians during 1947 and beyond.

B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).

C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).

Not only have you characterized why the state was created in the first place. There is a good solution to the points you give. It is called 2 state solution, yet Israel continues to settle in one of the territories that the other side would control in a 2 state solution.

D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population.

All I know is that Israel is a Jewish state and will do what ever it needs to in order to maintain a Jewish majority because they believe it is their god given right. I'm not naive enough to say they would never consider "ethnic cleansing" by murder. They clearly don't need to consider it at this point because they have full control of their borders and can ensure the purity of their citizenship with in their percentage tolerances, but why is ethnic cleansing by policy any better?

In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).

So then why the outrage when the West Bank was referred to as an "occupied territory". Israel is clearly not prepping it for a 2 state solution. They still rule with an iron fist such as demolition any house or building where proper permits were not obtained. They control much of the West Bank. If it looks and smells like a duck then it is a duck.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 10:32:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:17:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:29:38 PM, mendel wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:28:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

I've always had a bit of trouble with this aspect of Zionism.

There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .

What you think has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Also, you act like there were no massacres of Palestinians during 1947 and beyond.

B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).


C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).

Not only have you characterized why the state was created in the first place. There is a good solution to the points you give. It is called 2 state solution, yet Israel continues to settle in one of the territories that the other side would control in a 2 state solution.

D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population.

All I know is that Israel is a Jewish state and will do what ever it needs to in order to maintain a Jewish majority because they believe it is their god given right. I'm not naive enough to say they would never consider "ethnic cleansing" by murder. They clearly don't need to consider it at this point because they have full control of their borders and can ensure the purity of their citizenship with in their percentage tolerances, but why is ethnic cleansing by policy any better?

In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).

So then why the outrage when the West Bank was referred to as an "occupied territory". Israel is clearly not prepping it for a 2 state solution. They still rule with an iron fist such as demolition any house or building where proper permits were not obtained. They control much of the West Bank. If it looks and smells like a duck then it is a duck.

Just to make one point about you're last remark. A normal person doesn't give a country to people who hate you and create a terrorist state. Israel has absolutely no reason to assume that Palestine would not become just that. That is a simple reality.
If the future Palestinian state wouldn't be a terrorist state there would't be a problem with settlements, there's one and a half million Arabs living in Israel why can't a few hundred thousand Jews live in Palestine. The answer is that it would't be safe because it will be run by terrorist organizations.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 10:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .

Well, if the minority population was colonizing the majority population's land, under the threat of a British gun, then I think the more prudent question would be to ask whether opposing this foreign minority is a moral thing to do.

B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).

Interesting, though I would reverse it. After all, it is/was foreign Jews who colonized and overran the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).

There seems little point in "creating a state" for an oppressed people, when doing so results in the systematic oppression of another people.

Its a myth that Jews were heavily persecuted in Europe while living blissfully in Muslim countries, but its equally fallacious to suggest the level of persecution Jews underwent in those Muslim countries even approached the level of hostility Jews felt elsewhere.

Israel treats a minority of the Arabs it controls (Israeli Arabs) well, though to say it grants them "full/equal rights" is demonstrably false. There are a variety of institutionalized laws in Israel-proper that discriminate against any non-Jew.

Israel treats the rest of its Arabs (West Bank, Gaza), far worse then most countries treat their respective minorities, especially in relation to its majority.

D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population. In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).

Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean Israel is attacking Palestinian children, it means they expel Palestinians (under pain of death) from Palestinian lands, so they can confiscate it for Jewish-only use.

Its also somewhat disgusting to have an anonymous commentator tell war refugees to "grow up and move on". I daresay you wouldn't dream of imparting such advice on Jewish-Holocaust survivors.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 11:23:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 10:34:05 PM, HPWKA wrote:
There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .

Well, if the minority population was colonizing the majority population's land, under the threat of a British gun, then I think the more prudent question would be to ask whether opposing this foreign minority is a moral thing to do.

So your saying the arabs were justified to kill jews then and now. Proving my point exactly why it would be reckless for israel not to try to keep the status quo of the jews being in charge.

B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).

Interesting, though I would reverse it. After all, it is/was foreign Jews who colonized and overran the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

You keep returning to history 80 years ago. Now a days the vast majority of israelies are native born and the Jews are the major majority

C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).

There seems little point in "creating a state" for an oppressed people, when doing so results in the systematic oppression of another people.
There's no systematic oppression of any arabs in israel. The only ones persecuted are terrorist thank g-d.

Its a myth that Jews were heavily persecuted in Europe while living blissfully in Muslim countries, but its equally fallacious to suggest the level of persecution Jews underwent in those Muslim countries even approached the level of hostility Jews felt elsewhere.

Therefore.....

Israel treats a minority of the Arabs it controls (Israeli Arabs) well, though to say it grants them "full/equal rights" is demonstrably false. There are a variety of institutionalized laws in Israel-proper that discriminate against any non-Jew.

Give me one law except for the law of return.

Israel treats the rest of its Arabs (West Bank, Gaza), far worse then most countries treat their respective minorities, especially in relation to its majority.

Israel hasn't annexed the west bank and therefor there are different systems in place. Mainly the palistinian authority has autonomy in the cities and they get their funding from israel and the usa. Gaza is run by a terrorist organization who openly call for the destruction of israel. That is the only reason why the arabs suffer in gaza.

D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population. In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).

Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean Israel is attacking Palestinian children, it means they expel Palestinians (under pain of death) from Palestinian lands, so they can confiscate it for Jewish-only use.

A.Are you once again referring to history 70 years ago B. i could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in most places in 1948 we didn't tell them to leave. we actually sent them over the radio over and over again that whoever stays will be protected. While it's true we didn't let them come back but can you blame them. When israel asked for a list how many people ran away instead of a list of between 500,000 to700,000 the arabs signed up over 1.2 million arab names, (there was no proper documentation of the population at the time)

Its also somewhat disgusting to have an anonymous commentator tell war refugees to "grow up and move on". I daresay you wouldn't dream of imparting such advice on Jewish-Holocaust survivors.

I sure would, in fact all 4 of my grandparents spent a few years in dp camps between the years 1946 and 1954 all of them ended up in america. Hundreds of thousands of jews were in dp camps in that time period with nowhere that they could call home. Alot of them went to israel most didn't. I have no sympathy for someone who can't get his life together and move on. You just don't stay in a dp camp for 70 years.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 2:44:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 10:32:59 PM, mendel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 2:17:02 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:29:38 PM, mendel wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:28:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/2/2014 7:05:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/1/2014 7:05:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Can you imagine the US having a policy to maintain a white Christian, Hispanic Catholic or any stated ethnic or religious majority? I can't think of any policy which would be more against US principles. It would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

I've always had a bit of trouble with this aspect of Zionism.

There's a big difference between america and israel.
A, what if the minority population is violently opposed to the majority, to the point of danger (in1929, 69 jews were massacred in chevron, in 1935-7, 510 jews were killed etc.) i think the majority would want to insure that it remains such so that it could be the one with the power .

What you think has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Also, you act like there were no massacres of Palestinians during 1947 and beyond.

B. America is a melting pot everyone turns into an american in israel the cultural difference between the jews and arabs is a huge canyon, so a more proper comparison would be, do you think america would limit immigration etc. if the country was bas being completely overrun by a different culture (for example let us say 100 million religious Muslims lived here would you want them to come the majority).


C. The point of the creation of the state in the first place was that the jews shouldn't be at the mercy of non jews anymore. In every country in the world the jews experienced terrible discrimination and suffering and yes in the arab countries as well (it's a myth the idea that jews had equal rights and was not persecuted in arab countries). When the jews are the majority they rule the country and they treat the arab citizens with all the rights and prevliges as any jew in israel (it's extremely unclear in the reverse whether it would be the same way).

Not only have you characterized why the state was created in the first place. There is a good solution to the points you give. It is called 2 state solution, yet Israel continues to settle in one of the territories that the other side would control in a 2 state solution.

D. finally, i hope you guys aren't actually naive enough to think that israel does "ethnic cleansing" or even does anything what so ever to stop the growth of the arab population.

All I know is that Israel is a Jewish state and will do what ever it needs to in order to maintain a Jewish majority because they believe it is their god given right. I'm not naive enough to say they would never consider "ethnic cleansing" by murder. They clearly don't need to consider it at this point because they have full control of their borders and can ensure the purity of their citizenship with in their percentage tolerances, but why is ethnic cleansing by policy any better?

In fact every child an arab has, comes with money for alot of years just as it does for the jews. So this whole "policy" your talking about is nothing so bad all it is, is that 1.israel tries encouraging jews to move to israel,2. it doesn't want to annex the west bank for that reason that it would make the arabs almost 40% of the country which they would rather not do,3. and it want's to be recognized by their so called peace parters as the jewish state in the place of the arab vision of over running israel with millions of refugees. (A discussion in it's own right, refugees what the hell, 70 years later you're still living in a d.p camp, grow up and move on).

So then why the outrage when the West Bank was referred to as an "occupied territory". Israel is clearly not prepping it for a 2 state solution. They still rule with an iron fist such as demolition any house or building where proper permits were not obtained. They control much of the West Bank. If it looks and smells like a duck then it is a duck.

Just to make one point about you're last remark. A normal person doesn't give a country to people who hate you and create a terrorist state. Israel has absolutely no reason to assume that Palestine would not become just that. That is a simple reality.
If the future Palestinian state wouldn't be a terrorist state there would't be a problem with settlements, there's one and a half million Arabs living in Israel why can't a few hundred thousand Jews live in Palestine. The answer is that it would't be safe because it will be run by terrorist organizations.

Perhaps Palestinians are considered "terrorists" by Israel precisely because of grievances stemming from their lack of statehood.

As it is, there is an ideological inconsistency here - Jews need a Jewish state, but Palestinians do not, because they are "evil terrorists", damned their culture, ethnicity, claim, etc...

The "terrorist" argument was ridiculous when Bush II used it, and it's ridiculous now when you're using it. Terrorism is just another form of violent resistance, like trench warfare or air superiority. You make use of what you got, and for the poor, the default option has always been guerrilla warfare - oh excuse me, "terrorism".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 8:30:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, if the minority population was colonizing the majority population's land, under the threat of a British gun, then I think the more prudent question would be to ask whether opposing this foreign minority is a moral thing to do.

So your saying the arabs were justified to kill jews then and now. Proving my point exactly why it would be reckless for israel not to try to keep the status quo of the jews being in charge.

I'm not "saying" anything, I just want to make sure we are viewing this through the proper lens. I mean, using your logic, we can justify Nazi Germany's brutalization of Jews in the Ghettos, because after all, it would be reckless for the Nazi's to keep the status quo against a bunch of hostile Jews.

Interesting, though I would reverse it. After all, it is/was foreign Jews who colonized and overran the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

You keep returning to history 80 years ago. Now a days the vast majority of israelies are native born and the Jews are the major majority

To this day, Israel still demolishes homes and confiscates Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza, to make way for Jewish only settlers/infrastructure. Also, including the West Bank and Gaza, (territories Israel occupies), there are more Palestinians then Jews, as there has been for hundreds of years.

There seems little point in "creating a state" for an oppressed people, when doing so results in the systematic oppression of another people.
There's no systematic oppression of any arabs in israel. The only ones persecuted are terrorist thank g-d.

I deal with the oppression of Israeli-Arabs below. In the case of Palestinian oppression within the Israeli occupied territories, there is ample evidence to suggest your full of it.

Palestinians regularly have there land confiscated and/or homes bulldozed to make way for Jewish only settlers. Hundreds of Palestinians (even minors) are held in Israeli prisons without charges/evidence, and are subject to torture, a system Human Rights Organizations have called one of the worst in the world. Palestinians in Gaza are subject to economic blockade, that prevents basic food/medicine from being imported/exported. Israel reserves the right to assassinate any Palestinian they feel is a threat, without providing evidence. I could go on for pages, though I suspect you will call them "terrorists", with no evidence, aside from an Israeli Army press release.

Israel treats a minority of the Arabs it controls (Israeli Arabs) well, though to say it grants them "full/equal rights" is demonstrably false. There are a variety of institutionalized laws in Israel-proper that discriminate against any non-Jew.

Give me one law except for the law of return.

Here's 50. http://adalah.org...

Israel treats the rest of its Arabs (West Bank, Gaza), far worse then most countries treat their respective minorities, especially in relation to its majority.

Israel hasn't annexed the west bank and therefor there are different systems in place. Mainly the palistinian authority has autonomy in the cities and they get their funding from israel and the usa. Gaza is run by a terrorist organization who openly call for the destruction of israel. That is the only reason why the arabs suffer in gaza.

Israel defines itself, and is defined by the world, as the occupying power of the West Bank and Gaza, and exercises sovereignty over them. Yes, there is a "different system in place", its commonly referred to as Apartheid. Jews who colonize the West Bank/Gaza live under one set of laws as full citizens of the state of Israel, while the native Palestinians who live there live under military law, with few rights or resources allocated to them, as they are walled off in "autonomous" ghettos.

Most of the world doesn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but even so, so what? Israel inflicts far more terror then Hamas ever has, but I doubt you would suggest starving/assaulting the citizens of Israel? Regardless, Gaza suffered long before Hamas even existed.

Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean Israel is attacking Palestinian children, it means they expel Palestinians (under pain of death) from Palestinian lands, so they can confiscate it for Jewish-only use.

A.Are you once again referring to history 70 years ago B. i could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in most places in 1948 we didn't tell them to leave. we actually sent them over the radio over and over again that whoever stays will be protected. While it's true we didn't let them come back but can you blame them. When israel asked for a list how many people ran away instead of a list of between 500,000 to700,000 the arabs signed up over 1.2 million arab names, (there was no proper documentation of the population at the time)

I'm referring to Israel's entire history. To this day, Israel expels Palestinians from their homes and land, to make way for Jewish only settlements, and kills/imprisons those who resist. The definition, of ethnic cleansing.

I would love to see you prove anything "beyond a shadow of doubt", though I'd settle for some basic facts at this point.

Its also somewhat disgusting to have an anonymous commentator tell war refugees to "grow up and move on". I daresay you wouldn't dream of imparting such advice on Jewish-Holocaust survivors.

I sure would, in fact all 4 of my grandparents spent a few years in dp camps between the years 1946 and 1954 all of them ended up in america. Hundreds of thousands of jews were in dp camps in that time period with nowhere that they could call home. Alot of them went to israel most didn't. I have no sympathy for someone who can't get his life together and move on. You just don't stay in a dp camp for 70 years.

I'm glad your grandparents "ended up in America", but I hope you can grasp that for most refugees, its not that easy. Many refugees, the Palestinians especially, don't have the luxury that the Jewish refugees had, namely, hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations, a state created for there shelter, and a Western audience who actually cares.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 3:05:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll respond to one at a time. Mr wrich you disgust me by comparing terrorism to guerrilla warfare. Terrorists kill children, terrorists blow up pizza shops, terrorists make no distinction between innocent and guilty. Guerrilla warfare is attacking legitimate targets just not in an open battle field.

You claim that the only reason they commit terror is because we occupy their land. What if your wrong and the reason is because, their against any Israeli presence in any shape. I'm sure your aware that the PLO Palestinian liberation organization was established in 1964 and committed countless terrorist attacks before 1967. I'm sure you know that Hamas says openly that they will not stop terrorism until the entire state of Israel seizes to exist. Perhaps you don't know how likely it is they will be the ruling power in this future Palestine.

So i repeat my argument no normal country would create a country if their convinced that it will attempt to destroy their own country.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 4:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do not have the patience to deal with every peace of propaganda that you quote. But i will touch upon them.

You keep returning to history 80 years ago. Now a days the vast majority of Israelis are native born and the Jews are the major majority

To this day, Israel still demolishes homes and confiscates Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza, to make way for Jewish only settlers/infrastructure. Also, including the West Bank and Gaza, (territories Israel occupies), there are more Palestinians then Jews, as there has been for hundreds of years.

No need for elaboration you have shown your true colors here. These are simply fabrications which have no place in reality. The hundreds of thousands of jews in the settlements did not raze down palistinian houses. The arabs call it stolen land in the sense that the area of the west bank belongs to them. In the few cases where files are sued that a settler built on private arab property, it's not that anyones house was razed down. It's simply that when it's built within two or three miles of an arab settlement theirs always arabs who claim that the land was theirs. And unfortunately many times the court rules in their favor, just last week 28 israeli houses were razed to the ground.

You say including gaza and the west bank there's more arabs than jews, that's a fabrication including all those arabs the arabs make up about 44% of the total population.

There seems little point in "creating a state" for an oppressed people, when doing so results in the systematic oppression of another people.

Palestinians regularly have there land confiscated and/or homes bulldozed to make way for Jewish only settlers. Hundreds of Palestinians (even minors) are held in Israeli prisons without charges/evidence, and are subject to torture, a system Human Rights Organizations have called one of the worst in the world. Palestinians in Gaza are subject to economic blockade, that prevents basic food/medicine from being imported/exported. Israel reserves the right to assassinate any Palestinian they feel is a threat, without providing evidence. I could go on for pages, though I suspect you will call them "terrorists", with no evidence, aside from an Israeli Army press release.

The Arabs are shameless lairs it's unbelievable. Terrorists have it so good in Israeli prisons that there's probably no prison in america which is so comfortable.I'll just give you 2 links http://www.israelnationalnews.com...
http://www.frontpagemag.com...

Yes you are right when Israel assassinates a terrorist there is no trial but i think by definition an assassination doesn't have a trial, and yes i call them terrorists, those butchers who scheme how to kill small children.

You are right there's a blockade but hundreds of trucks of food and supplies is brought in every week from israel. The only thing there short on is construction supplies, because israel was reluctant to give hamas free donations to build tunnels etc., so israel only supplied to international organizations building in gaza. But now they have eased up restrictions for the private sector as well in 2013 every month about 70,000 ton of construction supplies to gaza and for the private sector 17,000 tons. Another important point while israelis pay through the roof for water carefully measuring how much they use, the arabs in gaza get it for free, so much so that they opened a water park, not to mention their electricity is footed by israel (you didn't really think that Hamas was paying Israel. http://www.btselem.org...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com...

Israel treats a minority of the Arabs it controls (Israeli Arabs) well, though to say it grants them "full/equal rights" is demonstrably false. There are a variety of institutionalized laws in Israel-proper that discriminate against any non-Jew.

Give me one law except for the law of return.

Here's 50. http://adalah.org...

I have very little patience for your propaganda anymore but i'll go on for a tiny drop longer. I didn't have time to go through all 50 so i'll just discuss a few on the first page.
Amendment 40 and 43 giving authority to the prison director to limit the number of lawyers coming to visit the terrorist this law is readily understood after reading amendment 40 which talks about the planing of terrorist attacks with visitors. The anti boy cott law making it against the law in Israel for an organization of Israeli citizens to call for a boycott this law is relevant to tens of thousands of very left wing Israeli Jews and is has nothing to do with discriminating against Arabs. The admissions law that a settlement has the right whether to allow someone to join the settlement Israeli Arabs have that same right when they make a village or settlement or whatever to decide who to let in. Citizenship law that the court has the right to strip a serious terrorist of his citizenship what are you pro terrorists or something. The court has yet to enforce that all interrogation have to be audiovisual recorded so what that has nothing to do with discriminating against Israeli Arabs. If you quote a particular law we can discuss it, please don't just bring me some Palestinian site which between thousands of laws and court deliberations tries drawing pictures of a reality which is simply not true.

to be continued
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 3:05:26 PM, mendel wrote:
I'll respond to one at a time. Mr wrich you disgust me by comparing terrorism to guerrilla warfare. Terrorists kill children, terrorists blow up pizza shops, terrorists make no distinction between innocent and guilty. Guerrilla warfare is attacking legitimate targets just not in an open battle field.

Do us all a favor, and give us an example of a "guerrilla warfare" operation, or any military operation, that didn't intentionally target civilians. For example, call Israeli's military aggression what you want, but they have killed 10x as many Palestinians civilians, as Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

You claim that the only reason they commit terror is because we occupy their land. What if your wrong and the reason is because, their against any Israeli presence in any shape. I'm sure your aware that the PLO Palestinian liberation organization was established in 1964 and committed countless terrorist attacks before 1967. I'm sure you know that Hamas says openly that they will not stop terrorism until the entire state of Israel seizes to exist. Perhaps you don't know how likely it is they will be the ruling power in this future Palestine.

You do realize that all of Israel is essentially a giant occupation, right? I mean, the country was founded on the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, and on land that was only 7% Jewish owned, where Jews were the minority population. There is a legitimate argument that any and all resistance to Israel (yes even its existence) is a moral struggle.

The PLO's struggle against Israel pre-1967 was before Israel was recognized as being the legal owners of the Palestinian land they stole in the 1948 war.

Hamas has been on record since 2007, as being willing to accept a two-state solution on the legal pre-67 borders (putting them in line with the entire UN and World Court), IF such a measure is approved by a Palestinian vote (and not just a PLO ruling). Until Israel agrees to this world consensus, they say they will continue to resist the illegal occupation. We can disagree about they ways and means they use, but their position seems both morally and legally sound.

So i repeat my argument no normal country would create a country if their convinced that it will attempt to destroy their own country.

Agreed, though once again, this argument can extend not just to Israeli, but Nazi Germany, and pretty much every other oppressive regime. The safety of the oppressor shouldn't be a major concern of morally/legally driven observers.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 11:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:37:20 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 5/18/2014 3:05:26 PM, mendel wrote:
I'll respond to one at a time. Mr wrich you disgust me by comparing terrorism to guerrilla warfare. Terrorists kill children, terrorists blow up pizza shops, terrorists make no distinction between innocent and guilty. Guerrilla warfare is attacking legitimate targets just not in an open battle field.

Do us all a favor, and give us an example of a "guerrilla warfare" operation, or any military operation, that didn't intentionally target civilians. For example, call Israeli's military aggression what you want, but they have killed 10x as many Palestinians civilians, as Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians.

That's a preposterous statement to make, that normal countries and militaries intentionally target civilians. I guess what your talking about is collateral damage, meaning that an army is targeting an enemy combatant but being that there's civilians in the area they get killed. The Israeli army has never targeted civilians, whereas terrorists target civilians. here's a link to Civilian casualty ratios http://en.wikipedia.org...
Take notice how most armies like america etc. it something like two to one (28,000 combatants to 13,000 civilians) while Israel depending on the year in gaza is about 1 to 3 ratio in 2006/7, one to 28 in 2005, one to 30 in 2008/9 and in the war in 2009 it was about 1 to 3, unfortunately the wikipedia article doesn't give numbers for the intifada period between 2000 to 2005 but you can be rest assured no civilians were specifically targeted and their deaths are not celebrated in any way in Israel.
it's a ridiculous thing the fact, that in the article it bring casualties from the intifada, that out of 1010 Jews killed 773 were civilians, resulting in this and this ratio of casualties. Hello, civilians were not collateral damage they were the target, family meals were blown up, buses, cafes, malls ,children were slaughtered in their beds. This is not collateral damage.

You claim that the only reason they commit terror is because we occupy their land. What if your wrong and the reason is because, their against any Israeli presence in any shape. I'm sure your aware that the PLO Palestinian liberation organization was established in 1964 and committed countless terrorist attacks before 1967. I'm sure you know that Hamas says openly that they will not stop terrorism until the entire state of Israel seizes to exist. Perhaps you don't know how likely it is they will be the ruling power in this future Palestine.

You do realize that all of Israel is essentially a giant occupation, right? I mean, the country was founded on the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, and on land that was only 7% Jewish owned, where Jews were the minority population. There is a legitimate argument that any and all resistance to Israel (yes even its existence) is a moral struggle.

The PLO's struggle against Israel pre-1967 was before Israel was recognized as being the legal owners of the Palestinian land they stole in the 1948 war.

Hamas has been on record since 2007, as being willing to accept a two-state solution on the legal pre-67 borders (putting them in line with the entire UN and World Court), IF such a measure is approved by a Palestinian vote (and not just a PLO ruling). Until Israel agrees to this world consensus, they say they will continue to resist the illegal occupation. We can disagree about they ways and means they use, but their position seems both morally and legally sound.

So i repeat my argument no normal country would create a country if their convinced that it will attempt to destroy their own country.

Agreed, though once again, this argument can extend not just to Israeli, but Nazi Germany, and pretty much every other oppressive regime. The safety of the oppressor shouldn't be a major concern of morally/legally driven observers.

I will not deal right now with every peace of nonsense that you say. But just two points.

One, Hamas openly says today that they will never seize to try to destroy Israel in any border. Your story of them being on record etc. excuse my french is pure crap. here's hamases charter http://www.fas.org... i'll just copy paste for you one paragraph "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all

contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing

any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the

nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the

movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the

banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is

the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

My second point is that you succinctly summed up the issue very well. Anyone who supports a Palestinian state does not care about Israeli safety and security. You think that Arab terrorism is justified and therefore think we should create a Palestinian state even though it will be a mortal to the Jewish people in the holy land.
At least you'r honest.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 12:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 8:30:03 AM, HPWKA wrote:

Now we continue...

Israel treats the rest of its Arabs (West Bank, Gaza), far worse then most countries treat their respective minorities, especially in relation to its majority.

Israel hasn't annexed the west bank and therefor there are different systems in place. Mainly the palistinian authority has autonomy in the cities and they get their funding from israel and the usa. Gaza is run by a terrorist organization who openly call for the destruction of israel. That is the only reason why the arabs suffer in gaza.

Israel defines itself, and is defined by the world, as the occupying power of the West Bank and Gaza, and exercises sovereignty over them. Yes, there is a "different system in place", its commonly referred to as Apartheid. Jews who colonize the West Bank/Gaza live under one set of laws as full citizens of the state of Israel, while the native Palestinians who live there live under military law, with few rights or resources allocated to them, as they are walled off in "autonomous" ghettos.

A few points are in hand. To say that few rights or resources are allocated to them is quite simply not true. A, the vast majority of them are ruled by themselves, the PA or Hamas and while it's true that they don't have to many rights, that;s because the pa and Hamas don't really believe in freedom of expression and many other rights, nothing to do with Israel. B. no resources, how much of money of the Israeli tax payers do you think the Palestinian authority should be getting they get more than a hundred million dollars every month from Israel, and that's besides for all the international money going to them billions of dollars (check it up on wikipedia).

Any restrictions in place are do (and i quote an article from the jewish virtual library) to the fact that "The situation of Palestinians in the territories is different. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip openly refuse to recognize Israel"s right to exist; by contrast, non-whites never sought the destruction of South Africa, only of the apartheid regime.

Unlike South Africa, where restrictions were totally racially motivated, Israel's restrictions in the territories - such as checkpoints and the security fence - was forced by incessant Palestinian terrorism. Israel has consistently demonstrated a willingness, however, to ease restrictions when violence subsides.

Meanwhile, Palestinians from the territories are allowed to work in Israel and receive similar pay and benefits to their Jewish counterparts. They are allowed to attend schools and universities. Palestinians have been given opportunities to run many of their own affairs. None of this was true for South African blacks.

Even such, 98% of the Palestinians in the territories are governed by the rules of the Palestinian Authority, which amazingly do not permit their own resident with freedoms of speech, religion, assembly or other rights taken for granted by Westerners and guaranteed in Israel."

About the Palestinians living in autonomous ghettos as you called it. Hello, where are you living, in the west bank most of Israeli settlement are surrounded by barbwire fences or electric walls of whatever to protect them from terrorist. Find me even one Arab village or anything which is surrounded by walls or fences for protection. The Arabs can drive and go wherever they want in the west bank. But on the other hand a few miles outside of ramallah there's a huge green highway sign no Israelis past this point.

Most of the world doesn't classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but even so, so what? Israel inflicts far more terror then Hamas ever has, but I doubt you would suggest starving/assaulting the citizens of Israel? Regardless, Gaza suffered long before Hamas even existed.

Ethnic cleansing doesn't mean Israel is attacking Palestinian children, it means they expel Palestinians (under pain of death) from Palestinian lands, so they can confiscate it for Jewish-only use.

A.Are you once again referring to history 70 years ago B. i could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that in most places in 1948 we didn't tell them to leave. we actually sent them over the radio over and over again that whoever stays will be protected. While it's true we didn't let them come back but can you blame them. When israel asked for a list how many people ran away instead of a list of between 500,000 to700,000 the arabs signed up over 1.2 million arab names, (there was no proper documentation of the population at the time)

I'm referring to Israel's entire history. To this day, Israel expels Palestinians from their homes and land, to make way for Jewish only settlements, and kills/imprisons those who resist. The definition, of ethnic cleansing.

I would love to see you prove anything "beyond a shadow of doubt", though I'd settle for some basic facts at this point.

Ignorance is bliss, let know one confuse you with the facts, all you have to know is that the Jews in the twentieth century have finally showed their true colors as murderers and marauders, and who did they think they were to point an accusing finger to the non Jews for two thousand years and preach morality. (it's pathetic)

Anyway here are some basic facts about the refugee thing i'll give you a link. But please if you want to attack it please attack the sources that are being quoted http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Its also somewhat disgusting to have an anonymous commentator tell war refugees to "grow up and move on". I daresay you wouldn't dream of imparting such advice on Jewish-Holocaust survivors.

I sure would, in fact all 4 of my grandparents spent a few years in dp camps between the years 1946 and 1954 all of them ended up in america. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were in dp camps in that time period with nowhere that they could call home. Alot of them went to Israel most didn't. I have no sympathy for someone who can't get his life together and move on. You just don't stay in a dp camp for 70 years.

I'm glad your grandparents "ended up in America", but I hope you can grasp that for most refugees, its not that easy. Many refugees, the Palestinians especially, don't have the luxury that the Jewish refugees had, namely, hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations, a state created for there shelter, and a Western audience who actually cares.

You don't need an audience that cares to pick yourself up and move on. Just for your information my grandparents started out with nothing they were the poorest of the poor. How naive, do you actually think that individual Jews were receiving checks with money or something. And nobody said that it's so easy, it's just the normal thing to do.(Also it was not for nothing that i wrote that most didn't end up in Israel, my point was that without an Israel they were able to move on).

Just to add one more point, what you just said proves that the Arab world (as well as the western world) doesn't care about the Palestinians, they just care about destroying Israel. If they truly cared about the Palestinians they would have granted them citizenship and allowed them assimilate into the Arab world.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 9:10:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That's a preposterous statement to make, that normal countries and militaries intentionally target civilians. I guess what your talking about is collateral damage, meaning that an army is targeting an enemy combatant but being that there's civilians in the area they get killed. The Israeli army has never targeted civilians, whereas terrorists target civilians. here's a link to Civilian casualty ratios http://en.wikipedia.org...
Take notice how most armies like america etc. it something like two to one (28,000 combatants to 13,000 civilians) while Israel depending on the year in gaza is about 1 to 3 ratio in 2006/7, one to 28 in 2005, one to 30 in 2008/9 and in the war in 2009 it was about 1 to 3, unfortunately the wikipedia article doesn't give numbers for the intifada period between 2000 to 2005 but you can be rest assured no civilians were specifically targeted and their deaths are not celebrated in any way in Israel.
it's a ridiculous thing the fact, that in the article it bring casualties from the intifada, that out of 1010 Jews killed 773 were civilians, resulting in this and this ratio of casualties. Hello, civilians were not collateral damage they were the target, family meals were blown up, buses, cafes, malls ,children were slaughtered in their beds. This is not collateral damage.

Various Human Rights Organizations and UN investigations and commissions have determined that Israel intentionally and systematically targets and kills civilians and their infrastructure. Israel has bombed schools, farms, mental health clinics, hospitals, and UN facilities. Israel demolishes Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish only settlers, and kills/imprisons Palestinians who resist. To say Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians is ridiculous, and supported by nothing other then unsubstantiated Israeli press-releases.

Also, I don't know of a country, and you gave no specific examples, that doesn't intentionally target civilians. The US's stated policy during Vietnam was to target civilians populations, as they were the major base supporting North-Vietnam. The US sanctioned Iraq, killing 500,000 civilians out of starvation, despite all experts telling the US the above would be the result. I could go on about other countries as well.

One, Hamas openly says today that they will never seize to try to destroy Israel in any border. Your story of them being on record etc. excuse my french is pure crap. here's hamases charter.

In 2010 Hamas stated that their charter is a piece of history and no longer relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Regardless, I don't think statements drawn up in a decades old document, should be given more weight then current positions. I mean, according to the British national document, Britain is a country for Anglo-Saxons. Does that make Britain racist? Fact is, Hamas has been on records since 2007, as accepting a two-state solution, bringing them in line with every country/court in the world, accept Israel.

On another note, its amusing that you would disqualify Hamas as a serious political party, due to their bellicose statements, but not disqualify Israel as a serious country, for their bellicose acts. I mean, let's be frank. Hamas talks about destroying Israel, and Israel has actually physically destroyed Israel. Be consistent.

My second point is that you succinctly summed up the issue very well. Anyone who supports a Palestinian state does not care about Israeli safety and security. You think that Arab terrorism is justified and therefore think we should create a Palestinian state even though it will be a mortal to the Jewish people in the holy land.
At least you'r honest.

I wouldn't say pro-Palestine people "don't care" about Israeli safety/security, they just don't think the safety/security of an oppressive colonial occupier should trump the human rights of Palestinians.

As an analogy, anti-Nazi people weren't unconcerned with general German well-being, but they were more pre-occupied with dismantling a violent regime, and yes, doing so would naturally result in a decrease of status/power/safety for the average German.

Furthermore, I would say that there's a good case to be made, that Arab terrorism against Israel is justified, as long as Israel refuses to obey international law, and/or the international consensus, and accept a viable two-state solution.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 9:18:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I have time, I'll reply to your other comments, but readers should know that Mendel's latest comment is almost entirely drawn from Jewish Virtual Library. This site is defines itself as a "American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Project", meaning, a propaganda arm for Israel.

I suppose I could drudge up some radical-Hamas literature describing Jews as irrational animals and Israel as the worst thing-ever, but unfortunately, that wouldn't give readers a fair look at the conflict.

Anyway, this is the kind of rabbit-hole you must trudge, to arrive at such a radical pro-Israeli position. You have to disregard what the Palestinians say (the other party to the conflict), which I suppose is fine. You have to disregard what UN nations and investigations say (not fine), and you have to disregard what various Human Rights Organizations say (including Israeli organizations (not fine). All you can rely on, are these press clippings from unsubstantiated Israeli government officials, which needless to say, is ridiculous.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
mendel
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 10:40:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 9:10:12 PM, HPWKA wrote:
That's a preposterous statement to make, that normal countries and militaries intentionally target civilians. I guess what your talking about is collateral damage, meaning that an army is targeting an enemy combatant but being that there's civilians in the area they get killed. The Israeli army has never targeted civilians, whereas terrorists target civilians. here's a link to Civilian casualty ratios http://en.wikipedia.org...
Take notice how most armies like america etc. it something like two to one (28,000 combatants to 13,000 civilians) while Israel depending on the year in gaza is about 1 to 3 ratio in 2006/7, one to 28 in 2005, one to 30 in 2008/9 and in the war in 2009 it was about 1 to 3, unfortunately the wikipedia article doesn't give numbers for the intifada period between 2000 to 2005 but you can be rest assured no civilians were specifically targeted and their deaths are not celebrated in any way in Israel.
it's a ridiculous thing the fact, that in the article it bring casualties from the intifada, that out of 1010 Jews killed 773 were civilians, resulting in this and this ratio of casualties. Hello, civilians were not collateral damage they were the target, family meals were blown up, buses, cafes, malls ,children were slaughtered in their beds. This is not collateral damage.

Various Human Rights Organizations and UN investigations and commissions have determined that Israel intentionally and systematically targets and kills civilians and their infrastructure. Israel has bombed schools, farms, mental health clinics, hospitals, and UN facilities. Israel demolishes Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish only settlers, and kills/imprisons Palestinians who resist. To say Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians is ridiculous, and supported by nothing other then unsubstantiated Israeli press-releases.

Also, I don't know of a country, and you gave no specific examples, that doesn't intentionally target civilians. The US's stated policy during Vietnam was to target civilians populations, as they were the major base supporting North-Vietnam. The US sanctioned Iraq, killing 500,000 civilians out of starvation, despite all experts telling the US the above would be the result. I could go on about other countries as well.

One, Hamas openly says today that they will never seize to try to destroy Israel in any border. Your story of them being on record etc. excuse my french is pure crap. here's hamases charter.

In 2010 Hamas stated that their charter is a piece of history and no longer relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Regardless, I don't think statements drawn up in a decades old document, should be given more weight then current positions. I mean, according to the British national document, Britain is a country for Anglo-Saxons. Does that make Britain racist? Fact is, Hamas has been on records since 2007, as accepting a two-state solution, bringing them in line with every country/court in the world, accept Israel.

On another note, its amusing that you would disqualify Hamas as a serious political party, due to their bellicose statements, but not disqualify Israel as a serious country, for their bellicose acts. I mean, let's be frank. Hamas talks about destroying Israel, and Israel has actually physically destroyed Israel. Be consistent.

My second point is that you succinctly summed up the issue very well. Anyone who supports a Palestinian state does not care about Israeli safety and security. You think that Arab terrorism is justified and therefore think we should create a Palestinian state even though it will be a mortal to the Jewish people in the holy land.
At least you'r honest.

I wouldn't say pro-Palestine people "don't care" about Israeli safety/security, they just don't think the safety/security of an oppressive colonial occupier should trump the human rights of Palestinians.


Furthermore, I would say that there's a good case to be made, that Arab terrorism against Israel is justified, as long as Israel refuses to obey international law, and/or the international consensus, and accept a viable two-state solution.

As i said in my previous post if you have a specific thing you want to say against Israel we will discuss it and it can be proven the facts, just to go on a tirade about how Israel intentionally kills Palestinian civilians and razes down their homes to make room for Israeli settlement without any evidence to support it is stupid.

I said in my last post that Israels collateral damage rate is at war and violent times about 1 to 3, and i brought what it is for other countries. What was your response, that all countries do attack civilians intentionally without regard whether there are combatants there. (while i find that hard to believe that the government of normal countries would want to kill civilians) It's irrelevant to the conversation you make the accusation that Israel targets civilians,Israel denies it, you have to prove it. One of the major proofs that i have that Israel is telling the truth, is the fact that we have on record the number of people killed and Israels rate of civilians per combatants is better than most countries.

I'll just add one point that i didn't make in my last post and that is that Israels rate is even more remarkable, considering the fact that Hamas shoots it's missiles from densely populated areas (which is a war crime) and they very often use schools and hospitals as their launching points, and even when they launch from the farms most of time they bring children and civilians with them as protection. The purpose of this of course is they know that Israel will not bomb a hospital or school if they know it's in session.(The unfortunate asma school incident that 3 people were killed in. A.the terrorist shot missiles from there B.the school was not in session, and the UN only informed Israel that they were using it as a shelter after the incident).

Compare this with Hamas which openly says that they target men women and children there is no moral comparison what soever.

You are obviously totally ignorant of Hamas, what it has done and what it does to this day. You're description of Hamas as just talking as opposed to doing anything is crazy. Hamas has murdered about 1500 Jews in Israel and maimed many times that amount. Hamas practices what it preaches. You will not find me one Hamas official who in an official capacity says they will accept the right of Israel to exist. The closest you'll get to is this, where Hamas will accept a Palestinian state while retaining their jihad against Israel (woopy doo that's all we need)
http://www.haaretz.com...
To talk about Hamas without terrorism is like talking about religion without g-d or like saying vegetarians for meat, the very essence of the organization is the destruction of Israel.

By the way i have been heavily involved in all this stuff for many years and didn't just copy off my information from the jewish virtual library. However with that being said information can only be disqualified if a site just says things without siting where it got it from but when it gives you the source then you could check it up yourself and you don't have to rely on them.

The same cannot be said for your propaganda. From now on with you i will only engage in a conversation when you site particular things, Like the name of hospital that was bombed or the school or the Palestinian village that was razed down.
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 8:17:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/31/2014 8:18:53 AM, slo1 wrote:
Chris Christie had to apologize for saying,

"I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, and just felt personally how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day".

It is amazing how American politicians are forced to support Israel unquestioningly. Ironically, Christie offers full support, but used a non-politically correct adjective and noun to describe the West Bank or suffer the wrath of conservative Christian voters.

How did it get to the point where even questioning Israels tactics is considered taboo in the US? It is almost practically impossible to question their policies and heavy handed tactics in the name of security without being called an anti-Semite. Why?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Because Israel holds the Usa economy in their hands and so Usa have to act according to their interests. Usa is a big beautiful American car, and Zionists fill the gas thank and drive it. My opinion is Usa will collapse in the future on its own. The World history is replete with examples of this.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 6:51:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 11:57:13 PM, mendel wrote:

Anyway here are some basic facts about the refugee thing i'll give you a link. But please if you want to attack it please attack the sources that are being quoted http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org......

Interesting post from the online library. I love how the US renamed the UN palestine refugee movement had to be called the new UNRWA just to depoliticize the issue of giving money to "terrorists". They did that by removing the word Palestine from the relief fund and to the more politically impotent UNRWA. Lol