General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Virus said:
History's dirty little secret that the anti-Israel left don't want you to know:

Palestinians were better off under Israeli occupation.

They were three times richer.

Life expectancy went up.

They were ruled by a less corrupt civil administration.

They had more freedom than under the Arafat gangsters.

Israel brought in millions in investments. They built roads, water treatment plants, TV stations and other infrastructure. Tourism flourished.

Palestinians could cross the border and work in Israel. Earning good wages.

The Palestinians gave it all up in the Intifada.

A Palestinian state would be a corrupt Arab dictatorship. Everyone knows this. But we're told to want one anyway.
Click to expand...
I think you would be much better off under foreign occupation too. Why don't you shop around to see who's little minion you would prefer to be?
 
Denying it? Please explain how the Palestinians became better off under Fatah and Hamas gangsters.
 
Virus said:
Denying it? Please explain how the Palestinians became better off under Fatah and Hamas gangsters.
Click to expand...
Not denying anything...I just think that economically we would also be better off in Australia under foreign occupation.


you will be fine...don't worry....
Bend over please......
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
what do you suggest? or is fear of expressing an opinion going to keep you silent?
Click to expand...

Oooh, another zinger from the Fool! That's the kinda thing that makes one doubt your sincerity in wanting a "serious discussion", that everything you say seems to be geared towards baiting the other person into a quarrel rather than discussing anything.

A "compromise" is when you give up a part of what you want in exchange for the greater goal of peace. You just described a couple aspects of peace and called it "compromise", which would only make sense if you believed violence itself was a goal of Palestinians, which you've denied so far.

So...and it seems silly to pander to this idea that you really can't think of any compromises on your own, but you claim that's true...obvious areas ripe for compromise would be any territory, East Jerusalem in particular, state sponsored hate propaganda, militarization, and Palestinian demands for "Right of Return". I'm sure anybody could add to that list significantly without trouble, but that should be enough to get your "serious discussion" rolling if you want it to.
 
Virus said:
Good.
Click to expand...
you forgot to tell me which foreign armies you would be content to live under if it produced a better economy.

Or is the requirement to be happy smiling people holding hands under foreign occupation only apply to Palestinians?
 
Mycroft said:
Oooh, another zinger from the Fool! That's the kinda thing that makes one doubt your sincerity in wanting a "serious discussion", that everything you say seems to be geared towards baiting the other person into a quarrel rather than discussing anything.

A "compromise" is when you give up a part of what you want in exchange for the greater goal of peace. You just described a couple aspects of peace and called it "compromise", which would only make sense if you believed violence itself was a goal of Palestinians, which you've denied so far.

So...and it seems silly to pander to this idea that you really can't think of any compromises on your own, but you claim that's true...obvious areas ripe for compromise would be any territory, East Jerusalem in particular, state sponsored hate propaganda, militarization, and Palestinian demands for "Right of Return". I'm sure anybody could add to that list significantly without trouble, but that should be enough to get your "serious discussion" rolling if you want it to.
Click to expand...
OK...you want them to relinquish any claim on east Jerusalem and abandon any right of return claims.....Plus a potential list of other things that I would classify as simply obeying international laws......So I guess The jerusalem thing is ok for the Israelis to say is non negotiable but not the palestinians...

I don't really want the palestinians particularly to have restrictions on free speech as you seem to want....how would that be enforced?

as for militarization....are they allowed a defence force??

oh yes....any compromises you think the Israelis should do??
 
a_unique_person said:
So there was a military occupation? Just wanting to make this clear.
Click to expand...

Before the Oslo Accords. When Israel captured territory from the war the Arabs started.

Hardly a "gotcha" since nobody ever denied this.
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
OK...you want them to relinquish any claim on east Jerusalem and abandon any right of return claims.
Click to expand...

They need to abandon Right of Return since the demand to accept 4.7 million "refugees" is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
They need to abandon Right of Return since the demand to accept 4.7 million "refugees" is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
you are correct....4.7 million is rediculous...what about something around 100,000? or is it an absolute no no???
 
a_unique_person said:
Not any sort of a "gotcha". There seems to be a lot of consusion about the issue.
Click to expand...
No confusion that I can see, unless it's yours... or maybe mine. Can you cite some posts in this thread that discuss the occupation you have in mind, and that exhibit the confusion you refer to?

In what way is it now ended?
Click to expand...
Is what now ended, exactly? When you say "occupation", what, exactly, are you referring to? On what date do you consider it to have begun? What specific characteristics do you consider to be ongoing?
 
Virus said:
Before the Oslo Accords. When Israel captured territory from the war the Arabs started.

Hardly a "gotcha" since nobody ever denied this.
Click to expand...

However, I do agree that open borders and free transit of people was a much better situation, and conducive to helping move towards a peaceful resolution of the issue. There were weird conditions on that situation, such as people being able to work in Israel during the day, but not being able to stay overnight, which was criminal, but it did encourage the growth of wealth.

The infrastructure is another issue. For example, the water infrastructure was designed to take water from the West Bank into Israel proper. The Palestinians had wells destroyed. The amount of water available for their use, from their land, is, IIRC about 20% of what Israeli's get.
 
Bikerdruid said that Hamas' declarations about the desire to kill the Jews shouldn't be taken seriously because these "Middle Eastern" types are braggarts and don't really mean it, so it's not fair to use such declarations as evidence that, er, they want to kill Jews. It's true, but, they're also intellectually inferior to the White man and constantly want to rape white women, so Israel should be killing them off anyway, and...

...what? Oh, I forgot. Only stereotypes that are useful to the "Hamas is just fine" camp are allowed to be considered "factual". Never mind that they only "work" by making Arabs and/or Muslims into children, creatures that aren't responsible for their own statements and actions.
 
There's no point in asking BD to support his claims, he still has yet to provide a source for his claim of 800 children dead during Cast Lead.

We all know it's never going to come.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
There's no point in asking BD to support his claims, he still has yet to provide a source for his claim of 800 children dead during Cast Lead.

We all know it's never going to come.
Click to expand...

wrong...see above.
as for the 800 children, everyone claims that that claim is inflated...ok.
so are 400 dead children more acceptable?
they are only palestinians, after all.
we all know that killing palestinians is just fine.
(i'm learning skeptic's rhetorial technique.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom