Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why can Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and more be Muslim countries....but Israel wanting to be a Jewish country is the end of the world? Hypocrisy.
Syria murders over 200,000 of their own citizens. Literally slaughters them. And the west barely makes a fuss. Or does anything meaningful about it. Hypocrisy.
Why is it that Hamas, a recognized terrorist group can have a charter to kill all Jews and destroy Israel....that builds tunnels to kidnap and murder innocent people...and Hamas sends hundreds upon hundreds of rockets onto innocent people...and Hamas does nothing for their people....yet they get a free pass? Why is it that the Palestinian Authority can reject solutions multiple times which offer them virtually every thing they ask and not be criticized? Why is it that all the Palestinians can incite murder and hate in their mosques, schools, and media and get a pass? Hypocrisy.
Israel is not perfect.
But they have a thriving democracy. Elections. LGBT rights. Women rights. Over 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs...with full voting rights and full representation in the Parliament.... Most Nobel prizes per capita in the world....Enormous contributions to science, medicine, computer technology,,,"the start-up nation"....And what do the Muslims noted above have...autocrats....dictators...that kill their own people...hang them, stone them, lash them...and more.
There are more Muslims in Israel then there are Jews in the entire Middle East.
Why?
Because it's OK for these Middle East Muslim countries to kill Jews. Kick Jews out. And yes, do the same to the Christians.
Where is the UN on really pushing these matters. Where is the EU?
They do the opposite: They blame the ONLY country that actually lives the values of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights.
Imperfectly?
Yes. The US isn't perfect
But no one, no one has massacred their own people and has executed essentially a war among themselves and the modern world like the Middle East Muslim countries
Stop being a hypocrite. Start looking at facts.
One word: Nakba.
No conversation can begin until this event is addressed. You attempting to claim victimhood is similar to a person poking a bear with a stick for 70 years and claiming victimhood when it gets upset at you. None of those people should have been dispossessed to begin with. If Jewish people wanted to live there, a conversion encouraging integration program should have been offered initially.
If Israel offers mass conversion opportunity to the Palestinians, so that they may join the "Jewish State" as first class citizens, then that would be the second step.
The third step can be later conceived once we sum the results from steps one and two.
Would Israel leave millions of atheist sons and daughters of Jewish mothers in the Gaza strip? They would not. Thus, doing so for Arabs is clearly a racial decision. If Israel is going to make decisions based on race, then its supporters should state as much.
Israeli Jews can't stand Christians nor do they eschatologically hold that they can continue to reside in Israel in the long term. Stop manipulating your audience.
Whereas there would have been a Western outcry if Jews were being beheaded and crucified anywhere, Israel has done nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Middle east. They won't allow a single refugee into Israel, and Israel borders Syria. Instead, Diaspora Jewish organizations continue to pressure Europe to take these refugees because of "human rights". To further illustrate the double standard: they damn the Trump wall while excusing the Netanyahu fence.
Stop using all of the liberal code words "freedom, human rights, democracy, etc" to attempt to social signal your way into a winning argument. Israel is a theocratic ethnostate. The concept of Israel is the opposite of anything broadly considered liberal today. I'd have more respect for you and them if you would admit what you are and attempt to cuddle up to conservatives rather than to paint yourself to be liberal. However, that would put liberal Zionist Jewish people in the diaspora, which is most of them, in an awkward position; would it not? It's hard to support an admitted ethnostate and broadly push for "human rights" and "multiculturalism" in the diaspora without coming off as self interested and hypocritical. It would also allow for a precedent for everyone else to claim justification for ethnostates. That would make things uncomfortable for the diaspora. I understand. So, what's the answer? Support Zionist style nationalism in the nations? No. Never. It's easier to deny the reality of Israel. I get it.
We're perfectly okay on our own as far as science is concerned. You arguments in that regard are not compelling, unless all Jews suddenly pick up and move to Israel. As it stands, they can and do apply their science outside of Israel.
I dislike Islam. But what I dislike more is being cynically manipulated with clear misstatements of fact and unevenly applied logic and morality. Israel would gain many more principled supporters, to include myself, if it would be honest about its political nature and demand political consistency from its diaspora supporters. Only reprobates support liars.
Agreed. The status quo cannot continue. The worst is that no Palestinian can sign on any agreement that will end the conflict.
Even if Israel agrees to withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, nobody can guarantee the end to the conflict. Yes, Palestinians in the west back will welcome such move, but that's about it.
Q: What will happen to the millions of Palestinians in the diaspora? Will they be satisfied with a tiny state in the west bank? I seriously doubt it...
There is other factors to consider as well. IMO, the Palestinian Authority is not ready for statecraft, as they are a recipient of foreign aid and energy supplies from yours truly. The Palestinian Authority follows the same strategy as other Arab dictatorships, inflated administrations. The PA would create a large bureaucracy to keep the local populations happy through job creation. Because of this, civil servants as well as Hamas workers haven't received paychecks from the administration. It is suspected that embezzlement has occurred, which is highly likely. Becoming a nation state is much more complicated than removing settlements. It is shown the PA has not used the money for statecraft but for other purposes unrelated. There has been no intentions of PA becoming a state, regardless of where Israel sits.
Abbas could no longer stay rich off the blood of his own people. The "struggle" can no longer garnish sympathy and resources from the gullible world. Folks like Leanme would lend a helping hand to the Palestinians then get abducted by the Islamic Jihad for being an infidel. It's much easier to be the 'victim' and have the world feed me than be responsible for myself. And ofcourse in addition to the follow, it would hurt their beliefs to bow their head to an infidel nation.
[quote=LearnMe;43043678]Just "political stance" you say?
Barack Obama has warned that America's veto in support of Israel at the UN is increasingly "difficult" because of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wavering stance on a Palestinian state.
Mr Obama said the lack of progress in peace efforts, and Mr Netanyahu's apparent about-turn on support for a two-state solution before and after the recent Israel elections, mean Israel is in danger of losing "credibility".
Okay. I must admit I am a bit dismayed at this question, and I thought that so much I have posted here might help in terms of understanding the answer is really a simple one, though of course profoundly difficult to accomplish after far too many decades the world has endured this festering problem...
What Israel stands to gain is peace, also better support from the world community, including the U.N.
Israel simply must come to understand that her conditions to negotiate peace are entirely unreasonable given the history we should all consider very seriously. You simply cannot reasonably expect those who feel they have had their land taken from them to honor what you have done, even recognize your existence. You simply cannot expect the Palestinians to change these deep-seeded feelings born from so much violence and war over these many decades -- that is not going to happen!
You're saying that Israel gets peace, but then you're saying that the Palestinians don't have to recognize Israel's right to exist. These two things are not compatible. If Palestine doesn't have to recognize Israel, then it just sets the stage for further attacks and eventual full-scale wars. If Palestine does not recognize the state of Israel and agree to its right to exist, then Israel certainly does not get peace.
Yes, the Palestinians can suck it up, swallow their pride and recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist. That cannot be left out of any peace agreement or the peace agreement won't be worth a damn. Remember, Israel would be handing over land they won in wars -- wars in which they were the ones being attacked. Israel's giving up a lot. It just so happens that these are Israel's true ancestral lands too. Having ridiculously low expectations for a prospective nation of Palestine is just going to result in Israel rejecting the deal and walking away.
If the Palestinians cannot accept Israel's existence then they're not going to get jack squat. Israel would be crazy to not insist on full recognition and acceptance.
Quote:
You CAN however, agree to a peace that accepts these feelings about one another will not change. The terms of that peace will require concessions by Israel as so many world leaders have long insisted. Once those concessions are agreed upon, new final boundaries accepted, a manner in which to respect one another as adversarial neighbors, the new two-state solution -- the only viable solution -- will emerge.
Any peace agreement must do better. You can't just say, "I hate you forever you evil monsters, but we'll try really hard to stop killing you." Sure you can't force the people to change their feelings, but you must begin the process of mending those bitter feelings. Peace and healing must happen from the top down. The government of Palestine must make it clear that they fully intend to have friendly relations with Israel. They can and should set the tone for peaceful feelings. In time, that can and will work it's way down to the Palestinian people. It might take 50 years or more, but you've got to start rooting out the hatred somewhere.
Any two-state agreement that does not at least begin the healing process isn't worth considering.
Quote:
Once that is agreed upon and finalized, Israel and the Palestinians are to be held to their end of the bargain, to stop the killing of one another and work instead toward maintaining the peace -- even as of course there will be incidents of "vigilantes" who will continue their errant acts of violence in the aftermath. A resolve toward maintaining the agreed upon two-state solution must not be broken.
Held accountable by whom??
A cessation of violence is a perfectly reasonable prerequisite. As I've said, Israel is handing over their sacred ancestral lands. They'd really rather not. We all know this. One of the biggest problems up to this point: The Palestinian government and leadership hasn't actually done anything to discourage terrorist attacks. To the contrary, they've been leading the charge attacking Israel in far too many cases.
Israel would need to have some kind of assurances that the new nation of Palestine would actively track down and eliminate terrorists intending to attack Israel. There would need to be big consequences if Palestine fails to uphold their end. One way of going about it: Israeli troops remain in Palestine in an inactive "do nothing" status for a set period of time. Let's say 5 years. They are to remain inactive unless they are attacked. Palestine will handle the policing and military needs, etc. They will be withdrawn if/when Palestine can meet certain specified metrics/requirements for eradicating terrorism -- as measured by a neutral third-party entity such as NATO or the UN. If Palestine fails, the agreement is voided, the troops return to active occupation status and the nation of Palestine ends. It's ugly, but it gets the job done. Israel's reasoning for continued occupation of the West Bank is for military defense purposes. This would put their withdrawal from the a self-defense posture on a logical process and timetable. If Palestine can prove that Israel has nothing to more to fear, then the troops must leave.
If the Israeli military misbehaves then they must withdraw immediately without conditions.
This would require a neutral third party. That'll be hard to do. UN troops, for example, won't want to hang out in what has been a killing zone for generations. But somebody has got to be there to observe. Wait a minute, I have it! The French can send in the Foreign Legion to play referee! Not sure if they'd be neutral enough, but it's a thought.
Quote:
Of course, "the Devil is in the details," and I am the last one to suggest what agreement or what concessions will be easy to arrive upon, but it's most certainly doable as far as any objective assessment can conclude. Talks are the first step -- again -- without conditions.
Those conditions that Israel continues to insist upon are the first thing that needs to go -- obviously, or everyone would just be kidding themselves that any sort of "promise" or rhetoric along those lines can somehow be considered binding.
Ultimately, though of course all this is one "tall order," if considered from a practical realistic reasonable standpoint, the negotiations, the agreement, the two-state solution provides NO MORE a prospect of ongoing violence that the Israelis and Palestinians have been inflicting on one another for far too long now! IOWs, they and the world at large has much to gain by finally coming to terms and/or much to lose if the status quo continues.
In the past, whenever Israel has come to the table to negotiate, terror attacks drastically increased. Largely this was due to organizations like Hamas who consistently refuse to settle for anything less than total Israeli withdrawal from the entire Holy Land.
The Palestinian people need to let it go. They need to accept that Israel is actually holding all the cards here. Their as-yet-nonexistent nation is under military occupation. They might not get any of Jerusalem at all. They might get less than the lines on the map of the West Bank as presently constituted. At the end of the day, having a nation to call their own is going to require some unpleasant sacrifices and that probably means getting less land.
For a people who can't seem to accept anything less than Israel ceasing to exist, I'm not holding my breath. I don't think the Palestinians are currently capable giving sufficient concessions, so I don't think it's going to work. But for the sake of the suffering Palestinian people I hope I'm wrong.
No conversation can begin until this event is addressed. You attempting to claim victimhood is similar to a person poking a bear with a stick for 70 years and claiming victimhood when it gets upset at you. None of those people should have been dispossessed to begin with. If Jewish people wanted to live there, a conversion encouraging integration program should have been offered initially.
The history books have already covered this subject. The Nakba "Day of Catastrophe" is on the same day as Yom Ha'atzmaut "Israeli Independence Day". While its the Palestinian day of the exodus, its also at el the sadden day that Israel became a nation state.
The history books tells us that a series of events occurred in Palestine, and an explosive triadic relationship between the Jews, Arabs and British. The Jewish contribution to the British war efforts and Churchill's trust in Jewish development to advance its interests lead to the British policy of creating a Jewish state. The Arabs at first had no problem with Jewish immigration as long as they were to remain a minority. The Islamic religion and culture must remain dominate, collect taxes from the infidels (Jizya) and keep their religion and customs as the primary rule. A Jewish majority would jeopardize their way of life. On the other hand, The rise of Anti-Semitism and Hitler's reign caused an influx of Jews to make Aliyah to the region. If the Spring of Nations gave birth to ethnic states in Europe, why can't Jews return to their ancestral homeland Theodore Hertzl wrote. Arab leaders, which the Arab High Committee was a loose organization if that, was angered by the influx of Jewish immigration.
A "Conversion encouraging integration program" did occur, it was called the British Mandate. A mandate that allowed Arab Muslims to be equal citizens and protected under the Jewish State. Since tribalism was dominate, Arabs in Palestine could not have an infidel culture and religion rule over them. Violent clashes broke out on many fronts, which would take to long to write. But while Israel did some unfavorable things, majority of the Arabs fled on their own accords, thanks to Arab Leaderships call to fight Israel. The outcome would of been different if they accepted one of the state proposals.
Quote:
If Israel offers mass conversion opportunity to the Palestinians, so that they may join the "Jewish State" as first class citizens, then that would be the second step.
The third step can be later conceived once we sum the results from steps one and two.
Israel did offer more immigration for Arabs within the UNGA 181 frameworks, but Arab leadership rejected, thus rejecting the whole bill. 25% of Israel today is Arab Muslim, proof that the "ethnic cleansing" and the theories of the "Nakba" are false.
But it's to late for the "right of return". Palestinian immigration to Israel would turn into another power struggle like Lebanon.
Quote:
Would Israel leave millions of atheist sons and daughters of Jewish mothers in the Gaza strip? They would not. Thus, doing so for Arabs is clearly a racial decision. If Israel is going to make decisions based on race, then its supporters should state as much.
Israeli Jews can't stand Christians nor do they eschatologically hold that they can continue to reside in Israel in the long term. Stop manipulating your audience.
Any proof of this or are you just talking out your @ss?
Quote:
Whereas there would have been a Western outcry if Jews were being beheaded and crucified anywhere, Israel has done nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Middle east. They won't allow a single refugee into Israel, and Israel borders Syria. Instead, Diaspora Jewish organizations continue to pressure Europe to take these refugees because of "human rights". To further illustrate the double standard: they damn the Trump wall while excusing the Netanyahu fence.
Stop using all of the liberal code words "freedom, human rights, democracy, etc" to attempt to social signal your way into a winning argument. Israel is a theocratic ethnostate. The concept of Israel is the opposite of anything broadly considered liberal today. I'd have more respect for you and them if you would admit what you are and attempt to cuddle up to conservatives rather than to paint yourself to be liberal. However, that would put liberal Zionist Jewish people in the diaspora, which is most of them, in an awkward position; would it not? It's hard to support an admitted ethnostate and broadly push for "human rights" and "multiculturalism" in the diaspora without coming off as self interested and hypocritical. It would also allow for a precedent for everyone else to claim justification for ethnostates. That would make things uncomfortable for the diaspora. I understand. So, what's the answer? Support Zionist style nationalism in the nations? No. Never. It's easier to deny the reality of Israel. I get it.
More verbal diarrhea.
Your historical knowledge of the Middle East is very poor!
Part of the reason why Israel initiated the 1982 Lebanon War was to rescue persecuted Christians. If you read the memoires of Menachem Begin, he felt compelled to intervene and hopefully fulfill a minority coalition.
Anyway, prove that Benjamin Netanyahu forced Europe to take Syrian refugees. Ironically, the typical IhateIsrael crew like yourself would cry fowl of Israeli intervention if Israel were to get involved in Syria.
Quote:
We're perfectly okay on our own as far as science is concerned. You arguments in that regard are not compelling, unless all Jews suddenly pick up and move to Israel. As it stands, they can and do apply their science outside of Israel.
I dislike Islam. But what I dislike more is being cynically manipulated with clear misstatements of fact and unevenly applied logic and morality. Israel would gain many more principled supporters, to include myself, if it would be honest about its political nature and demand political consistency from its diaspora supporters. Only reprobates support liars.
Your accusing the said poster of Logic and Morality and manipulation yet you provided nothing but a repeated diatribe against the Jews and Israel. Even worse, you suggested that the whole country absolves and moves because "science is outside of Israel." Logical and Moral alright.
Suspecting your just a troll all along, I have followed along with your game. Your Anti-Israel agenda fools no one.
Would you care to explain yourself with this statement? What have I done other than express my opinion in response to the other posts here?
Again (and again and again), I am critical of Israel's policies and actions related to Palestine. Nothing more and nothing less. Surely all the comments I have posted in this thread attempt to explain my reasons in every manner I know how given what I have to work with here.
Any need or want to twist or misrepresent my comments or motives any differently smacks of what I better understand to be "trolling," disingenuous in any case...
You're saying that Israel gets peace, but then you're saying that the Palestinians don't have to recognize Israel's right to exist. These two things are not compatible. If Palestine doesn't have to recognize Israel, then it just sets the stage for further attacks and eventual full-scale wars. [b]If Palestine does not recognize the state of Israel and agree to its right to exist, then Israel certainly does not get peace.
Wrong.
Or at least to better clarify..., Israel gets the promise of peace, the hope of peace, rather than the sure continued violence that the status quo will all but guarantee if not make worse.
The "compatibility" of not expecting Israel to change it's justification for Zionism and/or Palestine to accept Israel's right to exist because of Zionism is simply a practical realization that neither is going to accept the other's position in these regards, but this does not mean a peace between the two is impossible.
There have been many cases in history where two enemies are divided by a boundary and ideology, but share that boundary in peace nevertheless. In fact, this state of affairs exists in large part between Israel and Palestine today, the two in present form existing side-by-side without any sort of full-fledged war presently waged between them. What has to stop are what you might consider border "skirmishes" that all told threaten to bring on that greater war that also no one wants.
To use another analogy, maybe back to my tree house analogy..., say push comes to shove, and after I continue to build more and more levels of my tree house in your tree, we finally go to blows. We beat the crap out of one another over the course of many years. Finally, although we both hate each other with every fiber in our body, wishing the other would just die, we agree that we will surround the base of the tree with a four-sided barrier. The land and the tree enclosed in that barrier will belong to no one, and I will dismantle the tree house I built in your tree.
Neither of us is happy, neither of us accepts anything about the other, but for the sake of our own quality of life and that of our children and grand children, we come to terms and stop the fighting.
This in essence is exactly the sort of thinking -- changed thinking -- that Israel and Palestine will need to accept before any real progress is even possible let alone actually achieved.
Think about this another way..., just because either side says what the other side wants to hear, even if they write it down or swear in blood, until both sides are accepting of the terms (not necessarily accepting of one another), no peace is possible. It's really that simple...
Also, I might add, the rest of the world and whatever "peace-keeping" forces might be applied to enforce this peace are far more likely to be made available and viable if the brokered peace makes sense in the eyes of the world community, not just the Israelis or the Palestinians.
Any two-state agreement that does not at least begin the healing process isn't worth considering.
In my opinion and that of many world leaders, ONLY a two-state solution is viable, and serious concessions will be necessary for both sides (not change of feelings or rhetoric). Once there is such a solution brokered, a "healing" process can begin.
What I think is VERY important to understand here is that if such a solution can be agreed upon, regardless what feelings or rhetoric to the contrary, over time the younger ones -- on both sides -- forget these "hang ups" that their predecessors clung to without quarter for so long. This is the "healing" process that only time will bring after a peace is brokered, even if those who broker that peace today hate one another and are not about to suggest otherwise...
If such a peace is not brokered, however, the young ones grow up with the same loss of family and friends that also turns them into mortal enemies, or they are killed or mutilated themselves. No real forgetting or healing can ever be expected on either side if the fighting continues, as these decades of senseless violence have well proven.
No conversation can begin until this event is addressed.
All the talks about the "nakba" are just an attempt to reverse the results of 1948 war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
You attempting to claim victimhood is similar to a person poking a bear with a stick for 70 years and claiming victimhood when it gets upset at you. None of those people should have been dispossessed to begin with. If Jewish people wanted to live there, a conversion encouraging integration program should have been offered initially.
If Israel offers mass conversion opportunity to the Palestinians, so that they may join the "Jewish State" as first class citizens, then that would be the second step.
The third step can be later conceived once we sum the results from steps one and two.
Conversion? There are rules for gyur, and any person is welcomed to obey them and become a Jew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Would Israel leave millions of atheist sons and daughters of Jewish mothers in the Gaza strip? They would not. Thus, doing so for Arabs is clearly a racial decision. If Israel is going to make decisions based on race, then its supporters should state as much.
If there were atheists or jews in Gaza, there wouldn't be a problem from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Israeli Jews can't stand Christians nor do they eschatologically hold that they can continue to reside in Israel in the long term. Stop manipulating your audience.
Most of the Israelis have no problem with Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Whereas there would have been a Western outcry if Jews were being beheaded and crucified anywhere, Israel has done nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of Christians from the Middle east. They won't allow a single refugee into Israel, and Israel borders Syria. Instead, Diaspora Jewish organizations continue to pressure Europe to take these refugees because of "human rights". To further illustrate the double standard: they damn the Trump wall while excusing the Netanyahu fence.
Stop using all of the liberal code words "freedom, human rights, democracy, etc" to attempt to social signal your way into a winning argument. Israel is a theocratic ethnostate. The concept of Israel is the opposite of anything broadly considered liberal today. I'd have more respect for you and them if you would admit what you are and attempt to cuddle up to conservatives rather than to paint yourself to be liberal. However, that would put liberal Zionist Jewish people in the diaspora, which is most of them, in an awkward position; would it not? It's hard to support an admitted ethnostate and broadly push for "human rights" and "multiculturalism" in the diaspora without coming off as self interested and hypocritical. It would also allow for a precedent for everyone else to claim justification for ethnostates. That would make things uncomfortable for the diaspora. I understand. So, what's the answer? Support Zionist style nationalism in the nations? No. Never. It's easier to deny the reality of Israel. I get it.
We're perfectly okay on our own as far as science is concerned. You arguments in that regard are not compelling, unless all Jews suddenly pick up and move to Israel. As it stands, they can and do apply their science outside of Israel.
I dislike Islam. But what I dislike more is being cynically manipulated with clear misstatements of fact and unevenly applied logic and morality. Israel would gain many more principled supporters, to include myself, if it would be honest about its political nature and demand political consistency from its diaspora supporters. Only reprobates support liars.
All of those liberal Jewish organizations are the enemy of Israel also. They are not Zionists. I think you should educate yourself more about this matter.
Would you care to explain yourself with this statement? What have I done other than express my opinion in response to the other posts here?
Again (and again and again), I am critical of Israel's policies and actions related to Palestine. Nothing more and nothing less. Surely all the comments I have posted in this thread attempt to explain my reasons in every manner I know how given what I have to work with here.
Any need or want to twist or misrepresent my comments or motives any differently smacks of what I better understand to be "trolling," disingenuous in any case...
Lol your smart, I will give you that. I called BS on the claims of Israeli apartheid and settlements, get it now? Its not true, its a fabrication and you drank the cool aid. To combat my position, I asked you to prove this and all you came up with is President Obama's Political Stance. In exchange, I gave you an indepth history and sociological perspective of the conflict. You quickly dismissed it as 'bias' because you refuse to accept new information.
Your opinion is baseless because you failed to form a decent argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come again?
