Israel: An issue many in the liberty movement get wrong

[pcosmar]

I accept Israel a a fait accompli.

Oh,,, I accept it.. like Obama's presidency. or Cancer. It is a reality that must be dealt with as it is.

I just don't support it in any way.

Palestinians younger than 67 have no right to restitution for wrongs committed in the past. I would be open to discussions for restitution to older Palestinians removed from their homes in 1947.

What about those that have suffered abuse and lost homes and lands more recently? Like currently?

 

[Number19]

Quite a bit, actually.

Are you aware of the founding of the Islamic Courts Union, Al-Shabab; that the United States trained many a mujahideen in bomb making and counterintelligence, that many of those 'Afghans' went off after the war and trained many more? What of the history of AQI or AQAP are you aware of? What of the relationship with the House of Saud do you know about? Are you aware of the no bid contracts and recycled foreign military aid that keeps dictators in power and American corporations busy?

What does this have to do with militant Islam? A lot. These policies are foolish, turn by and large entire populations against America, and promote a breeding ground for radical Islam to have a greater effect.

These half-wits are teaching them to build bombs.

I have no disagreement with your commentary. My comments are directed against only those jihadi whose militarism is solely based on their interpretation of the Quran. How much this interpretation may be the result of middle eastern interventionism dating back a hundred years or more is something impossible to determine. This interventionism also must be accepted as a fait accompli and decisions today can only be made based on the current situation. A start would be for the United States to change its foreign policy to one of non-interventionism. But this won't happen, so pcosmar is pretty much right on.

 

[pcosmar]

But this won't happen, so pcosmar is pretty much right on.

I suspect my observations are very close.. and I take no joy in that.

I base my observations on history and prophecy and current events.

We are living in interesting times.

 

[Number19]

What about those that have suffered abuse and lost homes and lands more recently? Like currently?

Yes

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I have no disagreement with your commentary. My comments are directed against only those jihadi whose militarism is solely based on their interpretation of the Quran. How much this interpretation may be the result of middle eastern interventionism dating back a hundred years or more is something impossible to determine. This interventionism also must be accepted as a fait accompli and decisions today can only be made based on the current situation. A start would be for the United States to change its foreign policy to one of non-interventionism. But this won't happen, so pcosmar is pretty much right on.

The radicalization of many is directly related to the fact that they watch their fellow countrymen incinerated in errant strikes. It is because there is an occupying force on their land conducting hundreds of midnight raids monthly shooting innocents and terrorizing the populace. It is because of the decades of complicity in torturous regimes and the language commonly used by neoconservative war mongers here. We can speculate on the exact extent that this plays a role but regardless it is clear that it has played a considerable one. The backing of various radical factions and the direct and predictable consequences thereof cannot be understated. From Al Shabab's ascent to being the player that it is from a band of disorganized low level jihadists to the current fiasco in Iraq. I mean, this isn't happening within a vacuum nor is it largely happening because of the more fundamentalist view of the Quran. These countries were some of the most advanced in the region and have been decimated in every sense of the word.

Perhaps we are in agreement. That being that our alliance with Israel is foolish and has caused quite a few problems for us, that the military and foreign aid needs ended for everyone, immediately, that the United States ought withdraw from the United Nations, and that many of the current administration, and the previous administrations ought be tried for their crimes by a competent court within the United States. Now the reality is that none of these things will happen, of course, but regardless it is what should happen if there is to be remotely a semblance of justice. And sure, we will still be attacked periodically by rogue cells. We have courts capable of handling this. If the folks overseas were brought home, the level of attacks, simply through eliminating opportunities, would decrease. Perhaps the children whose families were blown up by Hellfires won't grow up to wage war against the citizens of this country. Who am I kidding though, they kicked hornet's nests for the past 70 years to enrich a few at the expense of many and to ensure global hegemony.. this 'war' will be going on in perpetuity until the United States is bankrupt and the dollar removed from its position of prominence. And when that happens, and the people have amply starved, they will be begging for a world government based upon socialism, fractional reserve fiat ethics and the 'safety' only a totalitarian would promise.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

This seems like as good a place as any to stick this. George Galloway 'The Crisis of Palestine'.

 

[cindy25]

is Israel a friend because of the aid? at one time Israel's closest allies were Czechoslovakia and France. Ike was on the side of Egypt during Suez.

Israel is not the bastion of freedom it is portrayed as. brutal conscription, high taxes, socialized health care and education.

 

[robert68]

You continue to be one who has given some thought to the consequences of a changed foreign policy; and I tend to agree that Israel's economy would suffer with the withdrawal of U.S. support. I also agree that numbers of Israelis would leave.

But now, what you have remaining is an entrenchment of the hardcore nationalists supported by a war economy and from abroad.

It is from this point - an Israel under siege - than I am concerned.

Now, kcchiefs6465, says he doesn't give a "fuck" what happens. If nuclear fallout drifts over Europe, or drifts east toward India and China, he doesn't care.

Who would have thought that the assassination of an Austrian archduke would have triggered WW1? What would be the unintended consequences of an Israel under siege? Should we care?

The past can't be undone. A solution can only come by going forward from today. The negotiation of this solution is what interests me.

Who would hardcore nationalists target with nukes, if no states were attacking Israel, but it was losing foreign investment and this was causing its standard of living to drop and a significant number of Israeli’s to leave?

Furthermore, libertarianism is about individual rights, and no party can negotiate away the individual rights of the Palestinians, especially US bribed Palestinian quislings. Those “negotiations” are always charades.

I've read a good deal of the land the Palestinians were driven from in ‘48 remains sparsely populated or owned by the state, and that 80 percent of the population in pre 67 territory is concentrated in 2 metropolitan areas. Even Abba Eban (if you know who he is) years ago advocated some return of land to the Palestinians in the Galilee (or somewhere). Israel opposes any return of Palestinians to pre 67 territories only because it will diminish the Jewish majority they have.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

is Israel a friend because of the aid? at one time Israel's closest allies were Czechoslovakia and France. Ike was on the side of Egypt during Suez.

Israel is not the bastion of freedom it is portrayed as. brutal conscription, high taxes, socialized health care and education.

True. They were not always "our only ally" and the "only non-racist democracy" in the mideast.

The threat of sanctions worked against Israel in 1956 — and it can work again

Jinan Bastaki on July 30, 2014

In 1957, President Eisenhower addressed the US public:

“Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? If we agreed that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order.
If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing world order. The United Nations must not fall. I believe that in the interests of peace the United Nations has no choice but to exert pressure upon Israel to comply with the withdrawal resolutions.” [1]
​

Eisenhower was referring to the 1956 Suez crisis, when France, Britain and Israel invaded and occupied the Suez canal, parts of the Sinai and Gaza. Gamal Abdel-Nasser, the charismatic and Pan-Arab leader of Egypt, had nationalized the Suez Canal on the 26th of July 1956. This especially antagonized Britain and France, and France was already wary with Nasser over his support of Algerian fighters. As scholar Avi Shlaim writes, on the 24th of October 1956 in Sevres, France, Britain and Israel met for secret talks to plan to attack Egypt. The goals included capturing the Sinai and Suez Canal, as well as toppling Nasser’s government.
And on 29 October, Operation Kadesh began with the invasion of the Sinai by Israel.

The US’s role and sanctions

The United States submitted a draft resolution to the Security Council on 30 October, calling upon Israel “immediately to withdraw its armed forces behind the established armistice lines”. However, France and Britain vetoed the resolution. The matter was then transferred to the General Assembly. The next day, the General Assembly adopted, on the proposal of the United States, resolution 997 (ES-I), calling for “an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of all forces behind the armistice lines and the reopening of the Canal.”

However, it seemed that the invading powers did not want to budge. Israel refused to withdraw from Gaza and from the Sinai, and Britain from the Suez. President Eisenhower threatened sanctions against Israel, but was thwarted by the pro-Israel lobby in Congress. Eisenhower demanded throughout January and February of 1957 that Israel withdraw from the Gaza strip.

Finally, it was the threat of sanctions that forced Israel in March 1957 to withdraw. Eisenhower threatened that the US would cut off all private assistance to Israel, which amounted to $40 million in tax-deductible donations and $60 million annually in the purchase of bonds. He would also terminate shipments of agricultural products and all military assistance, including deals already in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. The threat of sanctions in the form of a resolution to the UN requiring the termination of all aid to Israel by UN members if it failed to withdraw was also decisive.


U.S. had emergency plan for attacking Israel in 1967

Apr 23, 2007 - For some time, the United States had had an emergency plan to attack Israel, a plan updated just prior to the 1967 war, aimed at preventing Israel from expanding westward, into Sinai, or eastward, into the West Bank.
In May 1967, one of the U.S. commands was charged with the task of removing the plan from the safe, refreshing it and preparing for an order to go into action.

 

[Number19]

Who would hardcore nationalists target with nukes, if no states were attacking Israel, but it was losing foreign investment and this was causing its standard of living to drop and a significant number of Israeli’s to leave?

Furthermore, libertarianism is about individual rights, and no party can negotiate away the individual rights of the Palestinians, especially US bribed Palestinian quislings. Those “negotiations” are always charades.

I've read a good deal of the land the Palestinians were driven from in ‘48 remains sparsely populated or owned by the state, and that 80 percent of the population in pre 67 territory is concentrated in 2 metropolitan areas. Even Abba Eban (if you know who he is) years ago advocated some return of land to the Palestinians in the Galilee (or somewhere). Israel opposes any return of Palestinians to pre 67 territories only because it will diminish the Jewish majority they have.

My post #194 was in reply to your post #190. In post #194 I implied that, faced only with a Gazan threat, Israel would respond with conventional weapons. I then stated that, if confronted with a united middle-eastern threat and its existence was threatened, Israel would respond with nuclear weapons. I also mentioned in post #204 that only when confronted by a multi-nation attack would they resort to nukes.

Faced with the severe sanctions you mention, the Israelis which do not leave the country would unite and entrench themselves under a severe war time economy. If faced with no attack, they would persevere. But your premise, as stated in post #190, is that the Palestinians would wage a high tech guerrilla war against Israel. I responded in post #194, that under these circumstances, Israel would be much more severe in its counter-measures and that the death totals would drastically increase, on both sides. You state that Israel would, eventually, just give up the fight and surrender its sovereignty. I don't believe this will be the case. It's much more likely that nations will be drawn into the conflict and this is when nukes would be used.

But this is all just hypothetical. The U.S. will not abandon its commitment to Israel.

I am not a citizen of Israel and I presume neither are you. So in the grand scheme of middle-eastern politics, you and I have no impact or influence on outcomes. However, I am very much interested in reading about honest proposals which could lead to a peace in the region, however unlikely.

I also believe, that as a libertarian, it is in my personal interests to do, however little, whatever I can to help prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

And just to remind everyone, on numerous occasions, I've stated that I am a non-interventionist when it comes to American politics. I exercise this belief at the ballot box.

And addressing post #249:

"...“Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its own withdrawal? If we agreed that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing world order. The United Nations must not fall..."

Sounds like Eisenhower was an early proponent of the new world order.

 

[squarepusher]

 

[twomp]

If only that were true. The majority of the world could care less about Palestine or the civilians there. The Israeli PR machine has made it so the world believes that everyone in Palestine is a terrorist and every death just means the death of another terrorist. Remember, the Israelis are the victims here. All they want is peace.

 

[squarepusher]

If only that were true. The majority of the world could care less about Palestine or the civilians there. The Israeli PR machine has made it so the world believes that everyone in Palestine is a terrorist and every death just means the death of another terrorist. Remember, the Israelis are the victims here. All they want is peace.

This is not accurate, the world mostly sides with Palestine, with the exception of the US which compared to the rest of the world, is more likely to support Israel.

 

[robert68]

... But your premise, as stated in post #190, is that the Palestinians would wage a high tech guerrilla war against Israel.

I regret initially suggesting a high tech guerrilla war against Israel would be the first negative consequence to Israel from a non interventionist US foreign policy. And I should have been clear it wasn’t my premise in my last post. I haven’t gone into this subject in a while.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

[Snipped for space]

I am not a citizen of Israel and I presume neither are you. So in the grand scheme of middle-eastern politics, you and I have no impact or influence on outcomes. However, I am very much interested in reading about honest proposals which could lead to a peace in the region, however unlikely.

I also believe, that as a libertarian, it is in my personal interests to do, however little, whatever I can to help prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

[Snipped for space]

The way to promote peace is to promote a free market and set an example for other nations to follow. After decades of their meddling they figure the only way for peace is more [foolish] meddling. They aren't wise enough to foresee [and plan for] the infinite scenarios that could occur when human actions are involved. Any step of the way, things could go wrong. In fact, given the current outcome, one could comfortably argue that their failure is inevitable. Unless it was done on purpose, though even then I don't think they are wise enough to purposely fuck something up in such a way.

It isn't as if because they have gone about this path for so long that it must be continued. American's safety is jeopardized by their actions. The argument literally boils down to, "Well, they've completely made the wrong choices for the right or wrong reasons, world affairs are in relative shambles, but let us trust them to make the right choices this time. The other outcome would be chaos and possible global annihilation."

I've seen this argument manifest itself in various forms. From the case against immigration, to the case for worker benefits, to the case for tariffs and other protectionist policies, to foreign policy. It's the all encompassing sophistic retort. "Well we can't do this, though I agree it should be done, until this is done, which won't be done, so therefore we ought keep the current pace." And while one argues for this, another argues for that.

My two cents on the matter, anyways.

 

[philipped]

I find the entire post rather insulting, of both intelligence and motivation of the members here.

Yeah this was bumped and I'll say is this...as a non-religious person I chose to not get personally involved in a civil war that's one way painted as assistance to our greatest ally in the region AND painted as our country may have enabled this entire land grab. I don't support Aid and I do not see any validity in an alliance with them. As someone else posted earlier, we are SOVEREIGN.

 

[maybemaybenot]

Axis of Evil: US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

(Their governments, not necessarily their people--however their/our people do make up the government.)

Does this mean I think Iran, North Korea and Iraq are wonderful? Fuck no--but I hold us and our allies to higher standards. Should I not?

So what would you do differently if you were in Israel's position? Its nice to criticize from afar, and ignore Palestinian missiles and terror tunnels from afar, but Israelis can't live in your fantasy. They have to deal with those rockets.

If that is the case, why no Israeli troops stood with American troops on frontlines in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom?

How many terror attacks against America took place before and after America started funding Israeli occupation of Palestinians?

Do you believe arabs and jews are equal as races or one is more chosen than the other... in other words, do you support or oppose zionism?

Just to understand where you are coming from.

Israel gives intelligence and training, they can't send troops to an Arab war zone allies with the US, because then any US-Arab coalition will fall apart. The vast majority of Muslim nations refuse to recognize Israel or fight alongside them, and whenever the US intervenes in the Middle East they're trying to win the hearts and minds. So no Israeli troops.

Btw, Zionism doesn't put Jews above Arabs, Islamism puts Muslims above non-Muslims. Muslims vote in Israel, own land, go to Islamic public schools, use Sharia law family courts, go to Mosque, etc. Jews aren't allowed to do that in Palestine. Hence Israel take your advice and surrender to Islamic rule.

You're right, and this is why we are so disappointed and outraged. We have been enablers. The Jewish settlers made up 8% of the total population and inherited 55% of the land under the 1947 UN plan, yet they continue to seize and occupy more and more, and we have emboldened it....

You don't know what you're talking about, and your first map up there is a total falsehood. The first map takes Jewish owned land and calls it "Jewish land," then it takes Muslim land and govt-owned lan and calls it "Palestine." Its bigoted, AND it doesn't represent any actual borders or boundaries whatsoever, its a total fiction. 85% of southern Isrsel, the Negev desery. was owned by the British govt. So to say it was Palestine, and separate out Jewish land, is just bullshit. Further, Maps 3 and 4 both represent Arab invasions where Israel expanded its territory, AND Israel offered all the conquered land back for peace, but the Arabs refused, continuing to promise (and wage) endless war to destroy Israel. Oh, and you ignore Jordan getting 75% of the Palestine Mandate, so to say the Jews got the majority of it is just silly.

I like to keep my knows in domestic policy - but, this whole Palestine and Israel mess is making me sick as does ALL killings. I've seen dozens of pictures/videos of dead children in the past week from Palestine ... parents claim it's Israel doing the killing. Then, I see pictures/video from Israel saying they ARE doing the killing !!! WTF !!!

Sooo, I stopped reading this OP at "You can disagree with actions that Israel takes in terms of military strategy without expressing hatred of Israel and their people."

I disagree 100%. 100% I tell ya.

It takes some sick POS to target an kill children for ANY reason what so ever .. and even sicker POS to defend that action. If you care to know what I think.

Israel does not target Palestinian children, Hamas targets Palestinian children. Hamas stores weapons in schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, homes. Hamas owns empty land, but they purposely fire from residential areas to get their own ppl killed. Ffs you ppl practically endorse Hamas by ignoring this. Using human shields does not make someone immune from being attacked. Hamas is responsible for the absurd number of civilian casualties, they literally tell ppl to go where Israel says they're going to attack.

Thoughts ?

http://youtu.be/iXRO1YFreNA


Make note what the lady at the end of this video says ...

Remember what Ron Paul said about Hamas (?) Interesting huh ?

http://youtu.be/27esxkQtfTc

Lol your video iis so stupid is ridiculous. It says Israel's justification for the Gaza bombardment is three Israeli teens dying (a stupid myth ppl here love to repeat). No, actually its the 1,500 rockets Gaza fired into Israel. You ppl just ignore this and talk about the three teenagers all day. Gaza has been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for yrs. That's why Israel destroys their rocket launchers and their weapons storage. Second, the video says ISrael has no proof that Hamas killed the 3 teens, and started giving evidence why. Well guess what. While you were busy not giving a shit about the Israeli-Arab conflict (which is fine, they haven't earned our attention), Hamas admitted that their members committed the murders. So your conspiracy video is just silly. Hamas admitted this, and you're still arguing that they didn't do it, its delusional.

Oh, and what Paul said about Israel creating Hamas is just stupid. Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a massive Egyptian group thats in dozens of countries, founded in 1929(ish?). Hamas is just a Palestinian chapter of MB. This isn't even a conspiracy theory, everyone admits this.

I saw this video posted by someone under the headline, "The Most Important Video About Israel Ever Made", and watched it.



And then I did a search on "middle east before 1948" and among the returns was this page: http://dlhak.wordpress.com/.../a-history-lesson-for.../ which includes images from old books, including a color map from a 1921 book:

http://dlhak.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/me1920-2-0022.jpg <=== for some reason this pic won't display correctly, so here is a link to it instead.

As nearly as I can determine, from the video above and the link in this comment, the United Nations voted to create the modern state of Israel without the consent of the people who actually lived there (in 1921 Palestine was a sub-area of "Arabia") and the people who actually lived there have been fighting it ever since. [which is perfectly understandable; who is the United Nations to tell someone that they have to give up their land to make a new country for someone else?]

Does this sound right?

Nope, it does not sound right, it sounds like a fictional version of history. Palestine was and is a sub-area of Arabia, that never changed, unless you're implying Arabia was a country, which it wasn't. It was part of Turkey. Not Arabia. Turkey lost the Arab world. In Turkey's place, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon was created. No one's land was stolen. Muslims are pissed that Sharia law wasn't maintained in the land that became Israel, which violates the Quran, so they invaded Israel. The creation of Israel did not mean anyone had to "give up their land." In fact, Israel was the only country there affording equal rights to each group. Your entire argument is that Muslim control must be permanent, even if we're inventing countries to replace old ones. Btw, I acknowledge all these countries were created illegally. So why don't you, instead of singling out Israel? Lol you complain that the ppl there didn't agree to it. Out of all those countries illegally invented, Israel is the only one with democratic elections, including Muslim voters, and you call THEM the country where ppl didn't agree to their govt?

You have got to be kidding or deliberately trolling. The stated goal of AQ, Hamas, Fatah, the government of Iran etc and so on is to remove the Israeli regime and give the Palestinians a country. Our support of the Israeli regime has caused the Iranian hostage crisis, 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan and all sorts of other conflicts in the middle east.

Lol destroying Israel (and stripping the Jews of their rights or outright murdering them) is "THE stated goal," therefore its all Israel. So the US and the WWI/II allies invent every country there, stick military bases everywhere, including Saudia Arabia in order to get to their oil. Muslims bitch about ALL foreign intervention (rightfully so), and you think its just Israel? You think the US/UK gave the Saud family a country and military support for Israel? Btw, I admit that supporting Israel (at least as strongly as we currently do) hurts our image in the Middle East, for sure, but to say its just Israel is absurd. You basically nod your head whenever a terrorist complains about Israel. They complain about all Western countries on Muslim land.

I don't like Israel because their excuse to exist there is that they are descendants of German concentration camp survivors and yet they themselves also run a couple concentration camps.

Ron Paul refers to Gaza Strip as a concentration camp:

Zionism started in the 1880's, not the 1940's. Oh, and they don't run concentration camps, they fight a war against invaders that refuse to surrender. So, more war. What would you do differently when Palestine attacked in 1967? Actually answer the question, don't just bitch, what would you do. You'd lay down and die? You'd pretend Palestine signed a peace treaty and wasn't firing missiles at your ppl?

Well, I can't speak for green73, but I can't stand Israel and I'm unapologetic about it...to me, given all the harm that it's caused in the Middle East and to the US, Israel is like the ring of Sauron...or the Beast in Revelations that deceives the whole world.

No hyperbole, it's truly this wicked and troublesome.

Lol the Arabs invaded Israel before Israel stole land from anyone. The Arabs promised to kick every Jew out, and to implement Sharia law over all. Yes, they all hate Israel. Acting civilized pisses off Middle Easterners, what can I tell you. Granting voting, property and religious rights to each group pisses off Middle Eastern Muslims. If you went to the Middle East and exercised freedom of speech, they'd attack you just like they attack Israel.

Stop spreading lies.

Also, in the first map, 1946, the maps takes Jewish-owned land and calls it Jewish, then takes Muslim owned land and govt-owned land an calls it "Palestine." As if Muslims are entitled to public land but not Jews. Its bigoted AND its a complete falsehood.

 

[amy31416]

I'm convinced. Israel is always wonderful all the time, and they've never taken welfare checks from US taxpayers or gotten us into wars on their behalf. The Lavon Affair is complete rubbish and bombing the crap out of the USS Liberty was really just an "oops."

Quit taking US taxpayer money, using our military, using human shields, stealing land, and buying our congress. No problem--until that happens, you can go place your fingers in your nether regions repeatedly.

Nobody buys your bullshit, son.

 

[maybemaybenot]

I was once an Israel supporter, but I can no longer say that I am. I cannot support a government that denies basic rights to it's inhabitants. It's just like South Africa pre-1994.

No, you're confusing Israel with Palestine. Israeli Muslims vote, own property, go to Islamic public school, go to mosque. In Palestine, Jews can't live there or own land, they execute ppl for converting away from Islam or selling land to Jews, they don't allow freedom of speech, and 13 yr old girls are sold off as "wives" (sex slaves) to be raped by guys who can't get laid consensually.

Most people wouldn't simply call a truce if their family were murdered. Our support of Israel, as well as many other foolish policies in the Middle East and the North/East of Africa incites many and actually plays into the hands of Jihadist recruiters.

The CIA meddling, their training of the Mujahideen, their training "Afghans" (these people traveled from everywhere and eventually, largely, dispersed) in the art of bomb making, counter intelligence, etc. the radicalized text books and propaganda afforded through US tax dollars. These issues aren't going to go away. Regardless of whether or not the United States comes home today. You kick hornet's nest all year long, what outcome was ever expected?

And I'm rather short in this response but could reply more in depth if you wanted. The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson comes to mind. William Blum has had a few on the matter.

Palestine invaded Israel before Israel stole any land from anyone! Palestine promised to kick out every Jews. Muslims start conflicts, lose, then bitch that they're the victims. Stop starting wars then bitching about the other side being better than you. lol "most ppl wouldn't simply call a truce if their family was murdered." Gaza's govt promises to kill every Jew! Palestine started this whole thing.

Israel is an apartheid state with unbounded racism and hate towards the Palestinians. Israel was formed by aggressively forcing the Palestinians out of their land and murdering anybody who got in their way. Our continued support of them and their behavior is a large part of why that region hates us. (That, and we drop bombs on them, which also doesn't help)

No, Israel is not an apartheid state, Palestine invaded Israel for the stated purpose of implementing apartheid. Israel's Muslims vote, go to public school, own land, etc. Palestine doesn't allow Jews to live there. Before Israel stole any land from anyone, Palestine invaded Israel promising to kick out every Jew. Israel is not apartheid. Palestine is. You're welcome.

This is what happens after 66 years of Israeli/AIPAC indoctrination. There are two sides to every story and you have gotten all your facts from one side only. You sound like Dianne Sawyer and the rest of MSM news anchors crying about the pain and devastation that the Israeli have to go through while totally neglecting the Palestinian civilians who are going through FAR worse than the Israeli citizens.

There is a bully and a victim. You are siding with the bully.

Lol you're criticizing someone else for where they get their facts from? You refuse to acknowledge that Hamas uses human shields, or fires missiles into Israel. You're delusional.

The dead children stirred no hornet's nest. What stirred a hornet's nest to come would be the support of Israel as they commit these sorts of atrocities. The children's machined gunned, mangled corpses will be spread throughout all of West Asia and North, West, Central, and East Africa.

We're talking over 90% civilian mortality rate with the other 10% being arguable at best.

The hell are you babbling about, "Palestinians"? As if this was some concerted, country wide attack.

They have a high civilian casualty rate because Hamas tries to get them killed. Hamas owns tons of land, and they fire weapons from schools, hospitals, mosques, churches. All they have is a propaganda war, so they maximize their deaths and call them martyrs. They admit all of this. You have to at least place some of the blame for this on Hamas. And if not, then stop pretending to give a f*ck about Palestinians.

Lol Israel doesn't want Africa. They gave away the majority of their land, in Africa, for peace. So no, they don't want Africa. Oh and Gaza's government is attacking Israel, Hamas is their govt, they're not just some group somewhere.

Wrong.
Some Syrians consider Palestine theirs. And possibly some Egyptians too. Maybe some Jordanians as well. They all have interests there.

The Zionists are the new kids on the block,, and they are not making friends.

No, you're moving the ball, He brought up history: there's never been a Palestinian state before 1947, ever. He brought up Syria because Syria, the Levant WAS a country before Arabia (or Turkey?) took it over, and it included the region of Palestine, Hence if there was a backup nation-state after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it would be Syria. All the other Muslim countries invented at that time were just that, inventions, just like Israel. The fact that the land was called Palestine simply acknowledges that the residents used words to describe places, it was never a state or a nation.

Texas has been part of Spain, Mexico and France. Since 1845 it has been one of the United States. Does that mean it doesn't exist? Does that mean it didn't exist until they got sick of being mistreated by Mexico?

If you want to argue with someone and call them ignorant, why not start with T.E. Lawrence of Arabia?



http://www.pef.org.uk/profiles/lt-col-te-lawrence-lawrence-of-arabia-cb-dso-1888-1935

When the British Colonial Office appointed governors of Palestine and put it on their maps of the British Empire, was that an Arabian PR stunt?

Yes! This is our entire argument! The British invented Palestine as a territory/nation/state! When the British took over, the map started to say Palestine! Not before.

Zionists love to play the “American Indians” card on Americans. But just one of the differences between the two situations is if the Palestinians had the citizenship rights the Native Americans do in the US, the Palestinians would have an easy voting majority in their native land Palestine, almost flipping the Jewish/Palestinian demographic balance that presently exists in Israel.

North Dakota is largely uninhabited. Should we relocate them all and shoot the ones that won't go to make room for the embattled Kurds?

After all, technically they aren't North Dakotans, they're Americans...

That's not what happened! In fact, that's what Palestine promised to do to Israel when they invaded in 1947! They promised to kick out every Jew. Jews moved and bought land, then started a country when there was no country, when all those countries were being invented. They didn't kick out Muslims until after the Muslims invaded and promised to kick out every Jew (it doesn't justify kicking put 80% of the Muslim population, but your version of events is just bullsh!t).

Some perhaps. But most of it was like the Railroad at the James Farm.

Much like they are still being pushed out today.

No, his statement is factual, Jews didn't steal an inch of land before 1948. That is a fact. No pushing out, no James Farm, nothing. You're just lying.

Zionists love to play the “American Indians” card on Americans. But just one of the differences between the two situations is if the Palestinians had the citizenship rights the Native Americans do in the US, the Palestinians would have an easy voting majority in their native land Palestine, almost flipping the Jewish/Palestinian demographic balance that presently exists in Israel.

If Palestine is their native land, why aren't you complaining about Jordan? Muslims in Israel have full citizenship rights, Jews aren't allowed to live in Palestine at all. Palestine invaded Israel because Israel gave voting/property/religious rights to everyone. If anything you're arguing for stripping ppl of their rights. Palestine doesn't have some right to invade a foreign country to implement borders that never existed in the history of the planet, and then treat non-Muslims like second class citizens.

The fact is Jews held around 7% of the land in Palestine in 1947, and most of that land was acquired from absentee landlords, not the true owners.

And Muslims held at most 20% of the land, it was almost all govt owned, and Jews were a majority of the land that they claimed in 1947. And your argument about absentee landlords is totally valid, minus the part where you single out Israel. The entire Middle East had absentee landlords with legal title to the land, so that the true owners, legally "tenants," wouldn't have to pay a special tax or serve in the military. Out of all the land in the entire region, you single out the land purchased by Jews as the questionable title. Bullsh1t. If you're going to call out the JNF's land purchases because of the Ottoman land system, then call out the entire former Ottoman Empire, OR show evidence that Jews did this more than others.

New law dividing Christian, Muslim Arabs legalizes inequality



I guess there goes your "we are all eqaul in Israel" argument now doesn't it? Quick go ask your handler or FOX News how you should reply.

http://972mag.com/new-law-seeks-to-divide-christian-muslim-arabs/87705/

But there's no difference in how they're treated. The major purpose for classifying based on religion is for the separated religious family courts, which Muslims support more than anyone else (so do Orthodox Jews). Muslims want Sharia law as far and wide as possible, Israel gave it to them as far as family courts (and the Orthodox right, I don't mean to leave them out in this). That's what this is for. Now, whether or not to separate Christians from Arabs, and the whole "Jew cannot be Arab and vice versa" is very political, but it has nothing to do with reduced rights.

You are confused. Historically it's been Christians who hate Jews. Jews and Muslims have peacefully coexisted in the Mideast for 1500 years. It's Israelis that Muslims hate.

Nope, your PC liberal friends have whitewashed Muslim history. The Quran calls on Muslims to kill every Jew. When they say Muslims and Jews got along, they mean it in a condescending way where they expect less from Muslims. The Ottoman Empire charged an infidel tax, regulated where infidels could live, regulated how and where they could build religious facilities, limited worship in public, they condoned anti-Jewish violence. They did not live in peace. In Israel, on the other hand, Jews and Muslims exercise the same rights. Hence every Muslim neighbor invaded them before they stole any land from anyone, promising to kick out every Jew.

When you say stuff like this:


It pretty much invalidates what you say when you say this:


You can't say something stupid like all Muslims "are raised to hate Jews with a passion" then say you want to be "honest and fair." You sound like Fox News, "Fair and balanced" when that is the furthest from the truth. Your hatred of all things Muslim shows your Israeli/AIPAC/MSM indoctrination. The Israeli carry the biggest stick on the block and on top of that, they have big brother U.S.A watching their back along with NATO and the EU yet you are here playing the Israeli victim card. More Muslim civilians have been killed by Israelis than Israeli civilians have been killed by Muslims.

The score card isn't even REMOTELY CLOSE. Go to almost any other internet website and you will find see how many other Israeli firsters like you are out there. You will find much more sympathy for your cause there. Like I said, around here. Our eyes are open.

Muslims ARE raised to hate Jews with a passion! Palestinian public TV says Jews eat Muslim babies, that killing Jews is a good thing, this is throughout the region. They are. You believe in a fictional, delusional version of this conflict. YOu literally refuse to acknowledge that Hamas uses human shields or fires rockets into Israel, then you call other ppl indoctrinated?

Lol.

You laugh at this anti-Jew, but every argument you make was handed to you by Muslim bigots who believe far worse. When you say this conflict is about Israel stealing land, you demosntrate that you only listen to bigots, or to other ppl that listen to bigots. Only a bigot thinks that putting up a Jewish flag (instead of an Islamic one, not instead of no religion) is "stealing land" when no one's land was stolen. I'm not saying you're a bigot, I'm saying your sources are.

What is worse than state-sanctioned murder?

So Gaza fires rockets into Israel and promises to kill every Jew, and if Israel destroys their capabilities its "state-sanctioned murder." Do you think Palestinian attacks are at all relevant here?

One assumption in your argument is that with a non-interventionist US foreign policy, the state of Israel would be able to survive. There are around 9 million Palestinians in and near historic Palestine, and between 5 and 6 million Israelis there. Firstly, Israel has never gone without western military and financial backing. Secondly, the Palestinians are weak and defenseless against the state of Israel, their tormentors and occupier, precisely because of US intervention in the region.

It only took a few hundred Hezbollah fighters with some hi-tech defensive weapons to stop Israel’s invasion of Lebanon a few years ago. It’s US intervention in Jordan (2/3 Palestinian), Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Mediterranean Sea, Turkey, Iraq, and it’s enormous support for the state of Israel, that prevents millions of Palestinians from having hi-tech weapons and waging a successful guerrilla war against the occupiers of their land.

No economy stays afloat in war, and even the expectation of an unending guerrilla war with millions of Palestinians would tank Israel’s economy, over night. Palestinians have nothing to lose in fighting their occupiers, the state of Israel; they already have a low standard of living and no rights on their native land. Israeli’s on the other hand, live 1st world comfortable with all the rights, and the loss of that 1st world comfort, will cause many Israeli’s to grab those passports for other countries that they’ve maintained for an emergency, head to the airport and leave. As this all continues, many Israeli soldiers, knowing Israel is all alone in this unending struggle, would desert in increasing numbers. Eventually Israel, the settler colony/apartheid Jewish state in historic Palestine, would go the way East Germany did.

Wtf are you talkiing about with 9 million Palestinians and 5-6 million Jews? THere were far fewer than that. Give us a source for these numbers. Btw, Iran gives weapons and funding to Palestine, and using human shields isn't guerrila warfare, its just a crime against humanity.

 

[maybemaybenot]

If only that were true. The majority of the world could care less about Palestine or the civilians there. The Israeli PR machine has made it so the world believes that everyone in Palestine is a terrorist and every death just means the death of another terrorist. Remember, the Israelis are the victims here. All they want is peace.

Wait. Not only do ppl not say that every Palestinian is a terrorist. You deny that they use human shields, and deny that they fire rockets into Israel. You're delusional.