General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Skeptic]

By all means, if I have misunderstood you, then please take this opportunity to clarify. I am unable to parse I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. to mean anything other than you don't think anything should be required of Palestinians to acquire statehood.

Of course, this right overrides all other rights -- in particular, it overrides the right of the Jews to live in anything like reasonable safety. Apparently the Palestinians have a right to a state but the Jews do not have a right to live.

That's not so far-fetched. Right now Gaza is "allowed" to bomb Israel with impunity in the sense that anything Israel does about it gets condemned. Would that change if Gaza were part of a new Palestinian state? I don't think so, do you?

But it's just dead Jews. You're speaking as if they have a right to live or something, when the Palestinian leadership made it quite clear this is unacceptable.

 

[bikerdruid]

But it's just dead Jews. You're speaking as if they have a right to live or something................

please, could you strive a little harder for pathos?
you play the victim card better than anyone else here.
is there a forum award for that?

 

[Mycroft]

please, could you strive a little harder for pathos?
you play the victim card better than anyone else here.
is there a forum award for that?

I think Skeptic is 100% correct.

Matt Giwer says it openly, that Israel is 100% at fault and the Palestinians can do no wrong, that's basically an accurate description of the far-left position. They're concerned about Palestinian rights, and rightly so, but they speak as though Palestinians are the only ones to have rights.

Israelis have rights too. Among those rights are the expectation of safety and security. A basic human right that is denied by people like the fool, who put no obligations on Palestinians in their quest for statehood, and Giwer who says, "the resistance can do no wrong."

And far from playing the "victim card", the real issue here is that in Israel there are Jews who refuse to be the victims and take their security into their own hands. They don't rely on the uncertain (and often completely absent) goodwill of the western world. Sure, that means they forgo the pity and compassion they had when they were being slaughtered by the millions, but that's a pretty small price if it means they don't have to rely on that fickle compassion to prevent that slaughter.

 

[WildCat]

wildcat, that is not remotely what he said....and you are well aware of it.
what gives?

Perhaps The Fool speaks a language only you and he understand... maybe you can translate "requirements for what? Statehood? I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else" into English where it means he does expect the PA to meet requiremnents to become a state.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course, this right overrides all other rights -- in particular, it overrides the right of the Jews to live in anything like reasonable safety. Apparently the Palestinians have a right to a state but the Jews do not have a right to live.

Interesting. You are prepared to believe and accept Mycrofts complete misunderstanding of what Fool said, but refuse point blank to believe what Fool himself said, and clarified, to clear up the misunderstanding.

 

[Skeptic]

The reaction of the usual gang to a Palestinian state attacking Israel will be the same as that as their reaction to Hamas in Gaza doing so: utter silence.

Their reaction to any Israeli reaction except for quietly dying would be the same as their reaction to Israel fighting in Gaza: outrage.

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps The Fool speaks a language only you and he understand... maybe you can translate "requirements for what? Statehood? I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else" into English where it means he does expect the PA to meet requiremnents to become a state.

People have rights. This, for example, :We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Unalienable, that is, you have rights, such as the right to self determination, regardless of anything else.
People have Responsibilities. That is, they have to behave within the boundaries of international law.

The two statements do not contradict each other.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I'm not absolutely sure but I think I am required to hold the opinion that a palestinian state would be the only one in the world that is allowed to shell their neighbors with impunity...

You have it backwards. It is occupied Palestine that has an absolute right to shell Israel with impunity.

 

[Matt Giwer]

The only difference between what you say here and what comes from the typical anti-Israel leftist is that you say it more openly. We can infer they think Israel can do no right because we can't find anything Israel does that they don't condemn, but you just go straight for it.

It is also what the anti-occupation Israelis say but in a very circumspect manner.

The fact is we know from WWII that the occupied can do anything they want to their occupiers and be considered heroes. Just as the Irgun and Stern Gang members are considered heroes for that matter.

The occupation can do no right. It is in all the history books.

But I am willing to learn. Please name ANY occupation that history considers good, moral and above reproach. I am not hung upon those three terms so you have plenty of latitude in finding an occupation that history praises. I will even spot you the Austrian occupation of Italy if you like as it was great for the arts particularly opera but if you wish to use it I reserve the right to quote Garibaldi.

I do not see how you get "leftists" into this. Eisenhower, Patton, Churchill, Stalin and DeGaulle were about as right wing as you can get and they had no problem destroying the civilians of the occupying powers.

PS: I do not see a difference between finding good things about Zionists and good things about Nazis. What is the point but to make evil look good?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Of course, this right overrides all other rights -- in particular, it overrides the right of the Jews to live in anything like reasonable safety. Apparently the Palestinians have a right to a state but the Jews do not have a right to live.

But it's just dead Jews. You're speaking as if they have a right to live or something, when the Palestinian leadership made it quite clear this is unacceptable.

Why should thieves and murderers, see second url in my sig if you disagree, have a right to live in safety on stolen property? Return the property to its rightful owners, make amends for decades of banishment, apologize and ask forgiveness. Then and only then can we ask the Palestinians to forgive the Jews for their behavior and for leniency in their punishment of israel war criminals.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I think Skeptic is 100% correct.

Matt Giwer says it openly, that Israel is 100% at fault and the Palestinians can do no wrong, that's basically an accurate description of the far-left position. They're concerned about Palestinian rights, and rightly so, but they speak as though Palestinians are the only ones to have rights.

Thieves and murderers have no rights.

NO ONE, absolutely no one FORCED Jews to go to Palestine. No one forced them to expel the Palestinians. No one forced them to steal the private property of Palestinians.

But they did. That is 100% at fault.

Israelis have rights too. Among those rights are the expectation of safety and security. A basic human right that is denied by people like the fool, who put no obligations on Palestinians in their quest for statehood, and Giwer who says, "the resistance can do no wrong."

They have no expectation of safety while retaining stolen property, causing millions to remain refugees from their homes and property in Palestine, and continuing to maintain a military dictatorship in ways that were cited as war crimes at Nuremberg.

And far from playing the "victim card", the real issue here is that in Israel there are Jews who refuse to be the victims and take their security into their own hands. They don't rely on the uncertain (and often completely absent) goodwill of the western world. Sure, that means they forgo the pity and compassion they had when they were being slaughtered by the millions, but that's a pretty small price if it means they don't have to rely on that fickle compassion to prevent that slaughter.

One can only look at the zionist to ridicule the stereotype that Jews are smart. They know they themselves are thieves. They know they are holding stolen private property. They know the owners have the right to use deadly force attempting to regain what has been stolen. They know it is the government of Israel which coordinates and makes possible the continuation of this theft yet they expect the victims of the Jews to acknowledge everything was stolen fair and square and to give up all rights to return to them homes.

To put is simply, they expect Palestinians to forego, abjure and renounce the exact same things Israel and Jews demand from Europe in the name of justice.

See the 2nd url in my sig if you have some new slant on why Jews deserve justice and Palestinians deserve nothing. Tell me your new explanation as to why Jews can steal and murder with impunity and Palestinians have to take up the ass.

You folks never address the facts of the case. You always try to play the "poor Jews" card.

BTW: The second quote from your post is the same thing Union of South Africa whites said so precedent says it is BS.

 

[Matt Giwer]

The reaction of the usual gang to a Palestinian state attacking Israel will be the same as that as their reaction to Hamas in Gaza doing so: utter silence.

Their reaction to any Israeli reaction except for quietly dying would be the same as their reaction to Israel fighting in Gaza: outrage.

So? That is what the Jews chose when they went to Palestine.

Are you claiming they were stupid? Are you claiming they did not know that is the way people would view them for their actions?

It was their free choice. They should live with the consequences they KNEW would come as a consequence of their actions instead of whining about it.

 

[The Fool]

Perhaps The Fool speaks a language only you and he understand... maybe you can translate "requirements for what? Statehood? I believe its the right of the palestinians to have a state. I don't put requirements on rights. It should just be done....then....the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them, as it is with everyone else" into English where it means he does expect the PA to meet requiremnents to become a state.

well it certainly doesn't appear to be a language you understand.

you
"where it means he does expect the PA to meet requiremnents to become a state"
me
"the responsibilities of statehood should be required of them"


man oh man....thats word for word, Thats as much as I'm prepared to play this game as you appear determined to manufacture whatever argument you wish to oppose....

 

[Matt Giwer]

Israeli war crimes #3 and #4 for May 2011

#3 residency

A quarter million Palestinians who left the West Bank were deprived of the right to return to their homes. It is a war crime to expel the citizens from occupied territory.

#4 occupied Jordan valley

Squatter farmers are given water equivalent to 1/3 of all of the West Bank to produce high value export crops. It is a crime to exploit the natural resources of an occupied territory. It is a crime to do anything that is not to the benefit of the occupied people save for military necessity as long as fair compensation is paid.

#3a. Germany expelled Poles from the part of Poland it annexed to Germany. Annexation of conquered territory is also a war crime, see also Golan Heights and East Jerusalem as further examples of war crimes.

#4a. Germany is best known for taking oil and iron ore from occupied territories although other resources were taken without compensation even though a military necessity.

 

[Skeptic]

Matt wants Israel destroyed and gone and says it. The usual gang of "anti-zionists" (not all critics of Israel, as I often noted) wants Israel destroyed and gone and use euphemisms, obvious double standards, and fake outrages to try and hide it.

How can you tell the difference between the two groups of Israeli critics? Let me put it this way, using an analogy. (And no, I don't think Palestinians are really rapists; I am using an ANALOGY, OK, so don't write in.)

Suppose someone who says that sometimes rapists can be rehabilitated, or that even rapists, in prison, should be treated humanely. Such a person, needless to say, is not necessarily encouraging rape.

But suppose someone thinks a violent rapist, who openly declared his desire to rape you, repeatedly, simply has a right to live next to you and that all your concerns about possible safety don't matter, and what's more, are just signs of your "racism", and that any action you might take for your safety will be condemned, while no conditions at all are made about the rapist's behavior, except for vague promises that they are sure that, some time, some day, if you give him anything he wants, he might change.

Would you say such a person really cares about prisoners' rehabilitation into society, or is just using that as an excuse to make sure you get raped?

 

[The Fool]

Matt wants Israel destroyed and gone and says it. The usual gang of "anti-zionists" (not all critics of Israel, as I often noted) wants Israel destroyed and gone and use euphemisms, obvious double standards, and fake outrages to try and hide it.

surely these feeble people cannot survive your mind reading skills?

come on son....lets sort them out, what are their names?

 

[a_unique_person]

Matt wants Israel destroyed and gone and says it. The usual gang of "anti-zionists" (not all critics of Israel, as I often noted) wants Israel destroyed and gone and use euphemisms, obvious double standards, and fake outrages to try and hide it.

How can you tell the difference between the two groups of Israeli critics? Let me put it this way, using an analogy. (And no, I don't think Palestinians are really rapists; I am using an ANALOGY, OK, so don't write in.)

Suppose someone who says that sometimes rapists can be rehabilitated, or that even rapists, in prison, should be treated humanely. Such a person, needless to say, is not necessarily encouraging rape.

But suppose someone thinks a violent rapist, who openly declared his desire to rape you, repeatedly, simply has a right to live next to you and that all your concerns about possible safety don't matter, and what's more, are just signs of your "racism", and that any action you might take for your safety will be condemned, while no conditions at all are made about the rapist's behavior, except for vague promises that they are sure that, some time, some day, if you give him anything he wants, he might change.

Would you say such a person really cares about prisoners' rehabilitation into society, or is just using that as an excuse to make sure you get raped?

. Your post is not very clear. Are you comparing people who implement apartheid to rapists? I don't think that is appropriate for many reasons.

 

[a_unique_person]

surely these feeble people cannot survive your mind reading skills?

come on son....lets sort them out, what are their names?

Skepticism is based on evidence. There is no evidence other than those mindreading skills. To date, no mindreader has won the million dollars.

 

[a_unique_person]

Matt wants Israel destroyed and gone and says it.

You see, if that is true, then that is evidence. He has said it. If someone hasn't said it, then you don't have evidence. What you have is something internal to yourself that needs to believe it for some other reason. I have no idea what that reason is unless you tell people what it is.

 

[Skeptic]

You see, if that is true, then that is evidence. He has said it. If someone hasn't said it, then you don't have evidence.

Funny standard of "evidence" you have here. According to it, it's OK to act in a grossly unfair manner towards Israel, to support its mortal enemies, to ignore their openly-stated genocidal intentions, to condemn it whenever it defends itself in any way, to constantly go on and on about how its very founding and existence are based on injustice and sin; but, so long one never OPENLY SAYS one wants Israel destroyed, one's home free because one didn't say the magic words.

Does it apply to other groups as well? Suppose someone goes on and on about how many criminals are Black; cries tears of rage for every neighborhood which used to be White and now was occupied by those evil Black people; excuses and supports the KKK's violence against Blacks as being all due to the "root cause" of Black crime; but never actually says the magic words, "I hate Blacks". That man, I suppose, is not really a racist. I mean, where's the evidence, right? He didn't say it!

Oh wait -- (most) Blacks aren't Jews, so the magic "it doesn't count until I openly say it" rule doesn't apply.