General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Matt Giwer]

Several of the usual gang of idiots have yet to post a single word in the thread: "Syria- 650 killed, 9000 arrested / Syria shelling residential areas"

Yet the shootings of a dozen or so "protestors" on Israels borders elicits a couple pages worth of ranting here in JREF official ongoing anti-semitic hissy fit thread.

It's revealing that those who proclaim themselves crusaders against islamophobia don't give a flying fig about gunning down protestors unless they can be used as a club against the jews.

Once more a ziophile attempts to equate what a country does to its own people with what a country does to those who are not its citizens.

Again it is fortunate intelligent people do not fall for such nonsense.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Funny, I can think of a nation that not only has killed unarmed civilians (and quite recently, too), but that still is the one and only nation to have actually killed unarmed civilians using nuclear weapons.

And it's not Israel.

Agreed. What Israel does is no better than nuking Japan. Now you understand the condemnation.

 

[Matt Giwer]

The Israelis are capable of murdering unarmed civilians. They've done it many times.

With that in mind, do you believe Israelis can be trusted?

Please. You should know better. Every time it happens Israel expresses deep regret the dead forced Israelis to murder them.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Except you have shown no evidence of this. I don't remember if it was this thread or another one where your own link showed civilan deaths in Cast Lead were wildly exaggerated.

The people of Gaza have a civil obligation to repel invaders.

The people of Gaza have a moral right to kill Israelis.

The people of Gaza have a legal right in international law to kill Israelis.

Therefore they were all murdered by Israelis regardless of the number.

 

[applecorped]

Agreed. What Israel does is no better than nuking Japan. Now you understand the condemnation.

If a nuke was used against Israel would you condemn it?

 

[WildCat]

they killed 20+ unarmed civilians a mere few days ago.

What were those civilians doing? Having a peaceful sit-in?

 

[WildCat]

To play devil's advocate here; if US border agents shot and killed 20 Mexicans running across the border I think plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable.

True, but Mexicans typically don't attack the border guards with rocks and such. Of course, when they do... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10271034

 

[Matt Giwer]

Nope, sorry. Once they grouped together and charged through an international border, they are no longer 'civilians', but are instead 'invaders'.

I challenge you to find an incident where hundreds of individuals charged through an international border crossing and were not confronted with force.

But it's only bad when Israel does it, right?

While one agrees the ships filled with Zionists trying to enter Palestine during British mandate times should have been sunk and the passengers left to drown it is unclear why you think Israel could get away with it when the British could not.

 

[WildCat]

If the border agents were outnumbered significantly? And the Mexicans were charging towards them? You think?

ETA: You're probably right. Plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable. But would that be the correct reaction?

It happens, and not infrequently:

Mexico has demanded a full inquiry after a Mexican teenager died after a US border patrol agent opened fire from the US side of the border.
The youth, believed to be 14 or 15, was found on the Mexican side under a bridge linking Ciudad Juarez with El Paso.

US authorities said the agent was defending himself and colleagues after they came under attack from people throwing stones and rocks.

...Mexico's foreign ministry says its records show so far this year 17 Mexican nationals have been killed or injured by US immigration authorities, up from 12 last year and five in 2008.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Murder the owners and steal their land

Between 1949 and 1956, in what Israel calls "retribution operations," thousands of Palestinians, who did not come to attack, were killed on the borders. Hundreds of others, probably fewer, who came to kill or steal or take what was theirs, were also killed. Those thousands were all killed, and others were imprisoned, because the new state's laws categorized them as "infiltrators."

As I said, Israeli newspapers discuss the land theft and the murders almost every week.

Only illiterates could fail to know what I say about Israel is true.

 

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=221182

IDF representative in Moscow deported for spying. Clearly, the charges are based on anti-Semitism.

 

[Matt Giwer]

If a nuke was used against Israel would you condemn it?

Depends who starts the fighting.

Should Israel invade Lebanon again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Gaza again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Jordan again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Egypt again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iraq again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iran there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a US ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a Turkish ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.

I presume you have no problem with those reasons.

 

[Virus]

Alleged spying.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Alleged spying.

John Wilkes Booth the alleged assassin of Abraham Lincoln.
Osama bin Laden the alleged mastermind of 9-11.
Benyamin Netanyahu the alleged PM of Israel.

 

[Matt Giwer]

"Let them eat lead

So now we have an opportunity to see how Americans will react. We've asked the Palestinians to lay down their arms. We've told them their lack of a state is their own fault; if only they would embrace non-violence, a reasonable and unprejudiced world would see the merit of their claims. Over the weekend, tens of thousands of them did just that, and it seems likely to continue. If crowds of tens of thousands of non-violent Palestinian protestors continue to march, and if Israel continues to shoot at them, what will we do? Will we make good on our rhetoric, and press Israel to give them their state? Or will it turn out that our paeans to non-violence were just cynical tactics in an amoral international power contest staged by militaristic Israeli and American right-wing groups whose elective affinities lead them to shape a common narrative of the alien Arab/Muslim threat? Will we even bother to acknowledge that the Palestinians are protesting non-violently? Or will we soldier on with the same empty decades-old rhetoric, now drained of any truth or meaning, because it protects established relationships of power? What will it take to make Americans recognise that the real Martin Luther King-style non-violent Palestinian protestors have arrived, and that Israeli soldiers are shooting them with real bullets?

 

[The Fool]

Depends who starts the fighting.

Should Israel invade Lebanon again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Gaza again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Jordan again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel invade Egypt again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iraq again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack Iran there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a US ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.
Should Israel attack a Turkish ship again there is no problem nuking Israel.

I presume you have no problem with those reasons.

There is always a problem with using nuclear weapons as it would seem to me to be hard to describe it as a proportionate response. You seem rather keen on a nuclear war in the middle east. Where do you live? Happy to be nuked if your government "attacks" a single ship?

 

[angrysoba]

There is always a problem with using nuclear weapons as it would seem to me to be hard to describe it as a proportionate response. You seem rather keen on a nuclear war in the middle east. Where do you live? Happy to be nuked if your government "attacks" a single ship?

It's not "nuclear war in the middle east" he wants. He wants Israel to be nuked. I'll give you one guess why.

 

[Matt Giwer]

There is always a problem with using nuclear weapons as it would seem to me to be hard to describe it as a proportionate response. You seem rather keen on a nuclear war in the middle east. Where do you live? Happy to be nuked if your government "attacks" a single ship?

I was asked about the use of nukes against Israel. Planning ahead, I gave justifications for nuking Israel that I can justify by citing Israeli positions.

Care to give it a try?

 

[Matt Giwer]

It's not "nuclear war in the middle east" he wants. He wants Israel to be nuked. I'll give you one guess why.

Anyone who can read with comprehension does not have to guess.

Anyone who has to guess is illiterate.

 

[The Fool]

I was asked about the use of nukes against Israel. Planning ahead, I gave justifications for nuking Israel that I can justify by citing Israeli positions.

Care to give it a try?

what do I have to give a try? If you think you can justify nuclear weapons as a responce to an attack on a single ship go ahead....knock yourself out....I would love to read the justification.