• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain.Sassy said:
What do you make of the following?

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat on Sunday also commented on Nakba Day events, telling Israel Radio, "This is the day of my nakba, it is the day when my nation was interrupted.
Click to expand...
I can't read that any other way than Erekat considers all of Israel to be "his nation", IOW all of Israel is "occupied Palestinian territory".

What do you make of it?
 
Mycroft said:
Seriously?

Don't you think it's rather telling that you would rather take your toys and go home than just name some of these obligations you think will be imposed on a Palestinian state? How can you claim to be "misunderstood" or "misrepresented" when you could put the whole issue to rest by just naming some of these obligations?
Click to expand...
It doesn't appear The Fool was misunderstood at all.

He thinks the coalition of terrorists should get their own nation, their own seaport, and any weapons they like to carry out their dream of destroying Israel.
 
Aepervius said:
I am not sure if there are Israeli hater in this thread or not, but you realize that saying some action by a government were not correct and quite bad, is not the same as saying you hate the people inhabiting that country , right ?

Criticizing for example the foreign politic of the USA, does not make one an American hater.
If anything, that attempt of congruence between the two, is a very transparent attempt at deflecting the issue and avoid discussing it. Just call the person a xxx-hater , and there is no need to discuss it anymore, except as an irrational emotion.

A very transparent tactic. Too bad it usually works.
Click to expand...

People who have a rabid, fevered hatred of Israel tend towards rabid, fevered accusations. They can't help it and it gives them away all the time.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
What do you make of the following?

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat on Sunday also commented on Nakba Day events, telling Israel Radio, "This is the day of my nakba, it is the day when my nation was interrupted. Sixty-three years later, we're still interrupted, we're still under occupation. If I want to go to Jerusalem, I still need to ask permission from one of your kids, your soldiers."

Commenting about a plan in which Israel would agree to a Palestinian state on 1967 borders if the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Erekat said "Your title is the State of Israel, and that is how we recognize you.
Click to expand...

Whining about getting his ass kicked from the war he started.
 
a_unique_person said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben_Gurion
Click to expand...
Hack, chop, chop....

Here's the full quote, still trying to locate the ebook since its out of print:

I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: they think we have taken their country.

Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?

There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.

Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.
Click to expand...
Changes the argument a bit, doesn't it? Introduce pan-Arabism and Islamism (since this quote supposedly occurred in 1956) and one can actually see where Ben Gurion is coming from.

Or are we pulling another hack-job on quotes to fit our views? ie Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, and Morris (before he smartened up)
 
bigjelmapro said:
I don't see the word 'unarmed' there, but not surprised by this addition. Not the first time armed militants or whatever you want to call them, have taken advantage of protests to launch attacks. Or we going to pretend that this hasn't been the case in the past?
Click to expand...

No, the specific word "unarmed" isn't in there, but the quote does say "mass demonstrations, on purpose without weapons".

Though the "on purpose" part is far more on point to what Barak was saying than the "without weapons" part. It's obvious it's a provocation tactic (or, at least, Barak sees it as such), so the Palestinians can later complain about the Israelis shooting unarmed protesters...regardless of what the protesters were actually doing or the threat they actually posed. You don't have to carry weapons to be dangerous, especially in large numbers, after all.
 
Matt Giwer said:
I have no control over your deliberate misreading of what I posted. Rule 12 prohibits me from doing more than complimenting you on your courage in using an adolescent trope among adults.
Click to expand...

So it's still a no then.

Thank you for playing :)
 
WildCat said:
It doesn't appear The Fool was misunderstood at all.

He thinks the coalition of terrorists should get their own nation, their own seaport, and any weapons they like to carry out their dream of destroying Israel.
Click to expand...

Since he specifically denied that they should be able to do anything against international law, which includes destroying Israel, I think you need to stop the circle jerk of just inventing whatever you need to make yourselves feel good.
 
Aepervius said:
by the way one could very well consider all government you cited *and* Israel, to all behave badly to a certain degree (some worst than other).
Click to expand...

100% correct of course, but I am not talking here about the fact that someone can be, say, against Syria's dictator and also critical of Israel on certain points. Many people on this forum are.

I am pointing out something else: that some of the people who claim to be "against evil" seem to be solely against Jewish evil, which they massively exagerrate to mean "anything the Jews do to defend themselves", while caring not one whit about far worse evils.

This leads me to suspect that in their case the claim that they are "against evil" is an excuse, and they're really against Jews.

The point is that when someone says he is against
It is not an either/or , false dichotomy, it could be both. ETA: for example I would call France's action with the rainbow warrior very bad and terrorism. It does not matter that it is my country and i love it. It was a **** up.
Click to expand...

Again, no argument, but...

...imagine this: someone constantly and routinely attacks France all the time, declaring its existence is illegitimate, supporting terorrist groups that attack it, and exagerrates any evil it actually does (such as the attack on the "Rainbow Warrior", which I assume for the sake of the argument is evil) to be more or less the worst crime in human history... while at the same time utterly ignoring the crimes of any other nation.

Whould you say someone like that hates evil -- or hates France?
 
Captain.Sassy said:
I didn't realise that the semantics of recognising Israel as specifically a Jewish state were an issue.
Click to expand...

They are a huge issue. It is the core issue in fact -- the constant refusal to recognize the Jews have any right to their state, any historical or moral claim to anything, but are at most to be tolerated temporarily.

When Palestinian demands for Israel's destructions resume after a pseudo-"peace" agreement, their first line would be, "we never recognized Israel is a Jewish state, so we now demand it accept millions of Arab refugees".

To give an analogy, imagine that -- before releasing a would-be murderer after a stint in prison due to attempted murder -- a parole officer asks him if he recognizes that his would-be victim is, at least, a human being.

And the would-be murderer replies, "his social security number is 332-1111-222, and I recognize him as the entity that has that number".
 
Skeptic said:
They are a huge issue. It is the core issue in fact -- the constant refusal to recognize the Jews have any right to their state, any historical or moral claim to anything, but are at most to be tolerated temporarily.
Click to expand...

so you do claim that israel is a jewish state?
that would certainly make non-jews second-class citizens.

apartheid, anyone?
 
ANTPogo said:
No, the specific word "unarmed" isn't in there, but the quote does say "mass demonstrations, on purpose without weapons".

Though the "on purpose" part is far more on point to what Barak was saying than the "without weapons" part. It's obvious it's a provocation tactic (or, at least, Barak sees it as such), so the Palestinians can later complain about the Israelis shooting unarmed protesters...regardless of what the protesters were actually doing or the threat they actually posed. You don't have to carry weapons to be dangerous, especially in large numbers, after all.
Click to expand...
My issue here was the exclusion of terrorist organizations taking advantage of such mass demonstrations, as they have in the past, to attack Israeli targets.
 
bikerdruid said:
so you do claim that israel is a jewish state?
that would certainly make non-jews second-class citizens.

apartheid, anyone?
Click to expand...
False premise yet again. Where does Israel being a Jewish state inherently imply that non-Jews would be 2nd class citizens? It doesn't.

Perhaps the addition of Israel is a Jewish-only state would help your argument, but that would require the fabrication of an argument.
 
mortimer said:
How so? Are non-Anglicans second class citizens in England?
Click to expand...

Where the queen is actually the official head of the church.

One can only imagine the outrage if the Israeli president was required by law to be of a certain religion (as in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. -- funny how that never seems to be a problem...) or had the ceremonial position of chief rabbi (as in England).
 
Protesters...when are they ever going to learn ?

Sure have your marches, wave your flags, paint your faces, bang your drums and chant your chants, have a ball, but one of these days, eventually, maybe, possibly, protesters are going to learn that storming the security perimeter is a guaranteed way to end up in the hurt locker.

Even post revolutionary Egypt got in on a little anti-Israel action.

Wait a minute, wasn't Egypt supposed to open the gates of Gaza and instantly solve that part of the problem ?
 
I am sure everybody in this forum will strongly condemn this violent shooting of protestors in Egypt and Syria.

(Crickets)

Oh wait, no Jews to blame.

If I were a Muslim I'd be deeply offended. Apparently my life would not worthy of notice unless I can be used as an "extra" in a morality play where REAL human beings (Americans, Jews, Europeans, etc.) are given the "good" (pro-Hamas, pro-terrorism "peace activists") or the "bad" (pro-Israel) part.

How many here heard of Rachel Corrie? All of you. How many here actually know the name of anybody killed in the Syrian protests of a week ago? Hello? Hello?! Anybody home? Nobody?

...thought so.

As long as it's merely other "extras" shooting "extras", as in Egypt and Syria, nobody cares. Aren't Muslims sick of being the "red shirts" of the world?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
When Palestinian demands for Israel's destructions resume after a pseudo-"peace" agreement, their first line would be, "we never recognized Israel is a Jewish state, so we now demand it accept millions of Arab refugees".
Click to expand...

So, hypothetically, changing the demographics of Israel via. Arab immigration would change the state's characteristic as 'Jewish'. Would a hypothetical change in Israeli demographics that occurred through natural population growth similarly change the state's 'Jewish' character?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom