Merged Stolen Palestinian Land

[tomwaits]

TFT ridicules Pardalis for not knowing the difference between "Zionism" and "zionism", which would supposedly help his understanding of TFT's posts.

Then, a few posts later, he says the term "zionism" doesn't matter because it is "just a deflection, a diversion".

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what it is like to argue with TFT.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well I'm going to invent a new word for those Zionists who do want Israel to have hegemony on the middle east and want take all of Palestine by persecuting the Palestinians, stealing their land, apartheid, bloody slaughter, etc,etc

There's an old Marxist meme you could use: imperialist.

No need to invent a word when a handy one is sitting there, waiting for you to call it in for your third down and seven situation here.

DR

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Again, you're contradicting yourself. It's the contention of Israel's enemies that the very inception of the state was illegal, that the very place where Israel sits right now is "stolen land" (not the illegal settlements, but the entire State of Israel), and therefore Israel has (in their minds) no right to exist.

In other words, Hamas and Iran and most of the Muslim world don't agree with 1) because in their minds the very existence of Israel is intrinsically defined as 2). You can't have it both ways.

For them, there is no "zionism".

I'm not contradicting myself at all. There's a difference between having a right to exist and the methods entailed in creating that existence. If you can't understand that basic notion then there's no hope.

 

[Thunder]

Again, you're contradicting yourself. It's the contention of Israel's enemies that the very inception of the state was illegal, that the very place where Israel sits right now is "stolen land" (not the illegal settlements, but the entire State of Israel), and therefore Israel has (in their minds) no right to exist.

In other words, Hamas and Iran and most of the Muslim world don't agree with 1) because in their minds the very existence of Israel is intrinsically defined as 2). You can't have it both ways.

For them, there is no "zionism".

Israel itself is not stolen land. But many of the Jew-only settlements exist on private Arab property..and the Israeli govt. knows it.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, of course not. Are you unable to read or are you just being obtuse?

I said I haven't found TWO definitions. TWO.

There is Zionism. That's it. No Zionism and zionism.

I have not come across two distinct definitions.

I think he is trying to distinguish between the hard core Zionists, who are quite prepared to break their own law and steal land, and those who would not.

 

[a_unique_person]

Again, you're contradicting yourself. It's the contention of Israel's enemies that the very inception of the state was illegal, that the very place where Israel sits right now is "stolen land" (not the illegal settlements, but the entire State of Israel), and therefore Israel has (in their minds) no right to exist.

In other words, Hamas and Iran and most of the Muslim world don't agree with 1) because in their minds the very existence of Israel is intrinsically defined as 2). You can't have it both ways.

For them, there is no "zionism".

You don't see theft of land as provocation?

 

[marksman]

Which contradicts their usual position that Israel is blameless in all actions and can do no wrong.

I don't believe that to be their position, any more than I believe that anybody on the other side of the debate is seeking Israel's utter ruin. I don't think that accusations like this does anything to further whatever position you might take in this thread. it doesn't convince me that Skeptic or Yairhol have the position you credit to them. It does indicate to me that your statements are being colored by your own prejudices.

I am afraid when you keep the results secret and do nothing to remedy them, you lose that credit. It makes them complicit. If the justice department had done a study in the 30's and found that lynchings were a bigger problem than they thought, but did nothing to stop the lynchings and suppressed the results of the survey, I would conclude that they were condoning the practice.

I agree. I think it is a good thing that they investigated and a bad thing that they tried to bury the results of that investigation. The government is clearly complicit.

Israelis are quite prone to criticize their government internally, but tend to close ranks when there is outside criticism. I have found this to be the case with some of my Jewish friends as well.

I've noticed that amongst many groups. In fact, I'd say I find "closing ranks" to be a nearly universal human trait.

 

[The Fool]

On this topic the conga line appears to have adopted the "whistle a happy tune, look the other way" approach.

 

[gdnp]

I don't believe that to be their position, any more than I believe that anybody on the other side of the debate is seeking Israel's utter ruin. I don't think that accusations like this does anything to further whatever position you might take in this thread. it doesn't convince me that Skeptic or Yairhol have the position you credit to them. It does indicate to me that your statements are being colored by your own prejudices.

A reasonable point. I am willing to be proven wrong.

Could someone link to a post where Yairhol or Skeptic criticizes an action of the Israeli government, or an Israeli soldier, taking the side of the Palestinians?

 

[gumboot]

Someone else who doesn't know the difference between zionism and Zionism

It's like this whole other level of semantics!

Perhaps you can also explain for us the difference between Zionism and zIonism? Or perhaps ZIONISM?

 

[marksman]

A reasonable point. I am willing to be proven wrong.

Could someone link to a post where Yairhol or Skeptic criticizes an action of the Israeli government, or an Israeli soldier, taking the side of the Palestinians?

I'm finding this obsessive need of the politics forum to consistently personalize discussions disturbing. Just take positions as they come. What's the point of having me comb through yairhol's 1,050 posts or Skeptic's 9,521 posts? What's your goal? To humiliate them personally? To shame them?

This is not the yairhol and skeptic forum. It isn't the Tin Foil Timothy, The Fool, gdnp, or Clen forum.

If you want to talk about the article in the OP, great. That's what the forum is for. If you want to talk about specific members and their decision to post or not post, then go to a forum that is about that. I don't see how it has a damn thing to do about "Politics".

 

[Cleon]

It's like this whole other level of semantics!

Perhaps you can also explain for us the difference between Zionism and zIonism? Or perhaps ZIONISM?

It's really just a debate about where to put the Capital.

 

[Stout]

I think he is trying to distinguish between the hard core Zionists, who are quite prepared to break their own law and steal land, and those who would not.

I'll but that. I've never seen the big z little z differentiation before, but for the purposes of discussion it makes sense.

Ummmm yea, the stolen land.

What's Israels plan here ? if they let the illegal settlements continue then how on earth do they plan on implementing the two state solution ? With reduced holdings for the Palestinians ? Or, to explore the absurd, do they hope the Palestinians will just up and leave into the arms of their welcoming Arab neighbours ?

Or maybe this is one issue that politicians hope to "ignore" until their terms of office are up and they can leave it to "the next guy" to deal with.

 

[Cleon]

What's Israels plan here ? if they let the illegal settlements continue then how on earth do they plan on implementing the two state solution ?[/ With reduced holdings for the Palestinians ? Or, to explore the absurd, do they hope the Palestinians will just up and leave into the arms of their welcoming Arab neighbours ?

Those who actively support the settlement programs are not for a two-state solution. They believe that the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Samaria, which now comprise most of the West Bank, is promised to the Jewish people.

As for the Palestinians, opinions are divided. Some support "transfer," a euphemism for the forcible expulsion of the entire Arab population. Others don't care if the Arabs stay, as long as they accept second-class status under a Jewish Israeli state.

The settlement movement is very much a right-wing, racist, religious fundamentalist movement.

Disclaimer: This is not to say all of the settlers are of this ilk. Many of those who move to the settlements do so because there are serious financial incentives to do so. But those who promote, organize, support, and build the settlements have a very clear ideological purpose.

 

[marksman]

What's Israels plan here ? if they let the illegal settlements continue then how on earth do they plan on implementing the two state solution ?

I think the problem is that there are element of Israeli society who want to derail the process and see settlements as a way to do that.

If this really was a full-blown Israeli scheme, they wouldn't have asked for a listing of the violations in the first place. That's clearly one element of the government not realizing that another element of the government was breaking the law. The coverup could have been the first element shutting down the second's investigation, or a third group trying to keep a lid on it until they can figure out how to deal with it.

That's one of the problems with individuals. They don't always do what they're told, or what's right. And now it's a huge mess.

Or maybe this is one issue that politicians hope to "ignore" until their terms of office are up and they can leave it to "the next guy" to deal with.

There's probably an element of that. Of course, if they were entirely hoping to ignore the problem, they wouldn't have investigated it in the first place.

 

[gdnp]

What's Israels plan here ? if they let the illegal settlements continue then how on earth do they plan on implementing the two state solution ? With reduced holdings for the Palestinians ? Or, to explore the absurd, do they hope the Palestinians will just up and leave into the arms of their welcoming Arab neighbours ?

The hard core zionists think they are entitled to all the land and therefore are trying to occupy as much of it as possible to make it as hard as possible to give back. They are hoping that 50 years from now we will be discussing whether to return to the 2009 borders or the 2027 borders, rather than 1967. The more people they can get into these settlements, the more people will vote to retain them.

The moderates may be tolerating the settlements for two reasons: to keep the support of the hard core zionists that they need to maintain their coalition governments, or to use as bargaining chips with the Palestinians. It is simply not good politics to send troops in to evict illegal settlers.

As to what they expect the Palestinians to do, I'm not sure they think that far ahead. Many probably realize that eventually it will lead to more bloodshed, but when God is on your side, I guess that's OK.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I'll but that. I've never seen the big z little z differentiation before, but for the purposes of discussion it makes sense.

Ummmm yea, the stolen land.

What's Israels plan here ? if they let the illegal settlements continue then how on earth do they plan on implementing the two state solution ? With reduced holdings for the Palestinians ? Or, to explore the absurd, do they hope the Palestinians will just up and leave into the arms of their welcoming Arab neighbours ?

Or maybe this is one issue that politicians hope to "ignore" until their terms of office are up and they can leave it to "the next guy" to deal with.

The the big Z little z differentiation is a distinction between the actual proactive Zionist Movement - That's the one that created Israel by stomping over the people that really owned the land and is continuing to persecute them, ghettoise them, implement apartheid and continuing to steal their land. - and the term for someone who simply believes Israel has a right to exist.

It's common for some people trying to divert or stifle criticism of the Zionist movement by crying "Hey! zionism is simply a belief that Israel has a right to exist. Criticize that and you're anti-semitic!"

Criticizing the behavior of Zionism does not mean that one is against Israel's right to exist.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

No, of course not. Are you unable to read or are you just being obtuse?

I said I haven't found TWO definitions. TWO.

There is Zionism. That's it. No Zionism and zionism.

I have not come across two distinct definitions.

Hopefully after you've finished your dissertation you'll have more of a clue.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Consider that a strategy in place by the Israeli government might be "keep the forever war going" at the slow burn level until the Pals eventually get tired of it. The gamble there is that the Israeli population get tired of it first, or another larger war starts. IF that happens, Israeli emigration begins anew, and the second great growth of the diaspora begins. How many Israelis have an out? Where is it?

If that is the strategy, then the West Bank settlement initiative, which is a couple of decades old, is a long term strat, not subject to short term considerations.

Can one say with any confidence that, from one government to the next, the above sketched in strategy has such continuity?

How does one support that thought?

DR

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Those who actively support the settlement programs are not for a two-state solution. They believe that the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Samaria, which now comprise most of the West Bank, is promised to the Jewish people.

As for the Palestinians, opinions are divided. Some support "transfer," a euphemism for the forcible expulsion of the entire Arab population. Others don't care if the Arabs stay, as long as they accept second-class status under a Jewish Israeli state.

The settlement movement is very much a right-wing, racist, religious fundamentalist movement.

Disclaimer: This is not to say all of the settlers are of this ilk. Many of those who move to the settlements do so because there are serious financial incentives to do so. But those who promote, organize, support, and build the settlements have a very clear ideological purpose.

And this is what has led to the creation of the Zionist Movement and the plans to create Israel and ensure it's expansion past the initial stepping stone of the UN Plan.

The talk of a 2 state solution by Politicians is complete BS. The agenda, as Cleon has said in his/her first paragraph, is for Israel taking the lot.

Good post by Cleon there.