• 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.
The Fool said:
OK...so its not your opinion....but you claim that Israel feels justified to use Nuclear weapons in response to the list of actions you gave....Is this a mind reading claim or can you make a case in support of this rather extreme Idea?
Click to expand...

What I said was that I could justify nuking Israel using the same justifications Israel has used for its murderous rampages.

I did that.
 
angrysoba said:
This is invalid reasoning. Someone can have the ability to read but the good sense to ignore most of what you write.

From what little (albeit way too much) that I have read of yours it's clear you are a fully-fledged Jew hater. It's just sad for you that nuclear weapons won't be used against Israel no matter how much you beg them to be.
Click to expand...

If in fact Zionism is Judaism then antisemitism is in fact a moral imperative.

A Jew is only a person who observes the law of Moses, period. A jewish "people" is the invention of Zionism and also used by the Nazis talking about a german "people." There is no difference. They are both laughable ideas.

Communism, zionism, nazism and a host of other -isms are suitable only for the garbage heap of murderous political ideas. The only good ismist is a dead ismist.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Dane said:
The great thing about nuking Israel is that you can give the land back to the Palestinians.

The ones that haven't been killed by the shockwave will be easily recognised as they are wandering around blind and you can also find them by following the trail of hair they lost.

Depending on where the explosion was, you might also have a pretty cool wailing wall at the site where the Dome of the Rock once was.
With the shadows of the some Muslim worshippers burned into the wall for dramatic effect.

Brilliant idea there Matt, have you mailed the Arab league yet?
Click to expand...

The literate know I was using Israel's excuses for its actions.

Israel will not expel the 2M non-Jews because it needs them as hostages. However it may thin out the ranks by half just to keep it a pure blooded Aryan land, Blut und Erde and all that, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
Oh come on, the only difference between this and the established anti-Israel orthodoxy is a matter of degree. From establishing a port where Hamas could smuggle in weapons, to supporting smuggling through tunnels from Egypt, from claiming Palestinians should not be responsible for anything before achieving statehood, from claiming Israel will just have to put up with continued violence even after coming to a peace agreement, to condemning each and every measure Israel takes to defend itself from violence...the message is clear. Any and all violence against Israel is okay, and any measure Israel takes to mitigate it is not.
Click to expand...

To repeat I pointed out that a few thousands of dollars/euros even shekels this week worth of property damage over ten years was used as justification for the last rampage in Gaza. That killed about 1000 defenders against Israeli aggression and destroyed an unassessed value of property.

As we all know by international law the Gazans and in fact all Palestinians have the right to use deadly force against the occupying power your objection is only to the exercise of that right. That is not honest.

But if you mean to say that because Israel imports weapons with which to oppress millions of Palestinians that attacks upon Israel are justified then we are in agreement.

Palestinians and Israelis have identical rights in every respect and without exception. The Israeli suppression of the human rights of Palestinians is not acceptable to anyone but the Israelis and their huggers.
 
Puppycow said:
You can't "drive it through" when both sides are against it. Bill Clinton tried under much more favorable circumstances and failed. There's nothing to do now but wait for both sides to elect governments that want peace. That may have to wait for a future generation.
Click to expand...
And Bill Clinton pointed out the culprit as to why his negotiations failed. Read back on that particular process and see if you can try the same moral equivalence and blaming both sides drivel then....
 
1967 borders with agreed land swaps

Read that carefully. It does not say the Palestinians have to agree to the Israeli demands.

Israel wants east Jerusalem. Please tell me what is of equal value to East Jerusalem that would cause the Palestinians to agree. Equal quality and value are the obvious basis for any exchange. It is difficult to see how anything short of west Jerusalem is worth east Jerusalem.

Israel wants to keep its squattertowns? They are on the best land and water rights. What parts of Israel of equal land value and water rights it is going to offer in exchange?

BTW: It is already on the table that the PA will not participate in Israel's ethnic cleansing and so will not accept land with primarily Palestinian populations.

It means if there is no agreement on what to exchange then the 1948 borders are the only acceptable division.

Israel is the party beyond the 1948 borders. It is up to Israel to come up with something which will cause the Palestinians to agree with the exchange. If it cannot then those are the borders.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Here's another off-the-wall reaction:
...
Apparently the 1967 borders have something to do with Auschwitz and therefore president Obama is a Nazi?? :confused:
Click to expand...
That phrase was coined by Abba Eban following the 6-day war. Its not the issue of calling anybody a Nazi but the concept behind being indefensible:

Abba Eban: the June 1967 map represented Israel's "Auschwitz" borders
"We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history."
- Abba Eban, Israeli Statesman, in Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969
Click to expand...
Still trying to locate his UN address about the matter post-67.

As a note on this subject, I can't locate the NYT article with the 1st article stating Netanyahu's reaction, but I was appalled by the lack of knowledge of these writers when they swapped the terms borders, armistice lines, and boundaries as if they meant the same thing. Legally, they are in different ballparks, but one of the blog entries you gave above, 1949 armistice line (between Israel-Jordan) = pre-1967 war lines = '1967 boundaries'. The track they take is interchangeable, the term meanings, however, do not mean the same thing, legally, if you follow.

I agree that the international media outlets have taken an irresponsible step in stating something Obama didn't, but I do believe that Obama's speech is not entirely the same policy the US has followed in the past. And Obama could have taken a harder line against Hamas in stating that its motivation was the destruction of Israel and not simply a refusal to recognize Israel.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Well, if we're going to make predictions, keeping it just to people on this forum, I predict we will see nothing we haven't seen in the past. Which means that nobody will associate anything with the 1967 borders except possibly bigjelmapro might refer to them as "armistice lines", which he often does.

So, what shall we wager on this?
Click to expand...
:D I guess I'm predictable since I call it as it is and not what I wish it to be. This follows the correct premise that the land in question is disputed.

Pssst: what's the wager up to? :p
 
Defensible borders scam

Back in the good old days of 1948 when it was first raised defensible borders meant rivers and such as the lessons of WWII had not yet been learned by the politicians.

Lets get this off the table first, defensible borders does not mean larger borders, period.

In terms of Israel as it exists today there are no possible defensible borders. The idea is as silly as claiming the US has defensible borders with Canada and Mexico -- and vice versa.

In terms of the middle east and land forces from pre-WWII days the desert is the only defensible border. That means Israel would (gladly) claim all of Jordan to the eastern desert.

To the north there is only good land and the defensible border would be the Black Sea. One assumes even the most rabid izziphile sees that as impractical.

To the south there is the Negev but along the southwest border there is arable land as an land invasion route. The entire coast of Africa is arable so one assumes izzies will not pretend there should be defensible borders in that direction.

Given the reality of the post WWII world it is not possible to give Israel defensible borders save against WWI style armies.

Now if Israel really wants defensible borders in WWI terms then it will retreat to Judea and Samaria and leave the rest to the Palestinians. That is a pocket of hill country between the coastal plain and the Jordan. That has been a defensible territory going back some 2100 years.
 
The birds are dead

Some may remember a family of criminal squatters, the Vogels, were killed a few months ago by Palestinian resistance fighters. Remember, they would all be alive today if they had stayed in Israel where they belonged. The alleged perps were arrested by the Israeli military.

Now the military courts have decided to seek the military death penalty in this case.

Is there anyone who is still going to claim the Palestinians are not living under a jewish military dictatorship?
 
 
Some may remember a family of criminal squatters, the Vogels, were killed a few months ago by Palestinian resistance fighters.... Now the military courts have decided to seek the military death penalty in this case.
Click to expand...

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

How awful.
 
BeAChooser said:
Perhaps it would help to recognize why the 1967 borders are called the Auschwitz border?
Click to expand...

its called "fear-mongering".

a nation with nuclear weapons, does not have "Auschwitz borders".

never mind the fact that everyone expects Israel and Palestine to do a 5% to 10% land swap. So the literal 1967 borders will not be returned to.

but again, how can nation with 100+ nuclear weapons, talk about itself like its a powerless victim surrounded by stronger enemies?

talk about chutzpah.
 
bigjelmapro said:
:D I guess I'm predictable since I call it as it is and not what I wish it to be. This follows the correct premise that the land in question is disputed.

Pssst: what's the wager up to? :p
Click to expand...

No wager yet. I predict the Fool will quietly forget he made this ridiculous prediction in exactly the same way he's forgotten he suggested Israel might use nuclear weapons to address a "demographic threat" from Palestinians.
 
Yes, because nukes are the ideal weapon for that.

"Joe, bad news. Another black family moved into town. There goes the neighborhood."
"Don't worry. I've got a nuke in the basement, I'll use it on their apartment. I'm 200 feet away and it's a really small warhead, so no biggie."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom