palestine/israel, what would it take?

[Marsupial]

Moral equivalence? Please tell me where I've applied this notion?

Why reply to Zoti pointing out the fact that Hamas is raining missiles on Israel every day by saying "the settlements still exist, prospering every day" if not to draw some kind of moral equivalence? (As if the rocket attacks are because of the settlements and are somehow comparable, both of which are not true).

Next, the fact that you even use the term "disputed lands" just spells out you are not looking at all of this " down the middle".

No, it's quite objective to state that the land is disputed and has been for some time.

Try this: put the phrase "disputed land" into a Google search and check the results that come up. The second-from-top result that I got was a Wiki link entitled 'List of territorial disputes' on which, amongst many entries, I found "The Palestinian Territories". The fact that there are many such disputes, but an enormous amount of international attention, ongoing violence and hysterical responses here centred around only one is noteworthy, but a subject for another thread. (Can't remember the last time I saw a War Room thread about Kashmir.)

I acknowledge the Palestinians not helping & disgustingly firing missiles & rockets towards Israel, the very same I acknowledge there are renegade Israeli Settlers illegally living on & occupying Palestinian land.

Right, you acknowledge both the indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilians and the construction of Israeli settlements but you deny you're drawing any kind of moral equivalence between the two. Does that mean you're further acknowledging, implicitly, that one is morally far worse than the other?
I, obviously, feel firing rockets at civilians is a far worse crime than building houses in an area that other people would rather you didn't. Are we in agreement there?

Why acknowledge one wrong & not the other?

Settlements are, in my view, an unwise venture that have done Israel enormous harm internationally, and they are plainly anatagonistic to the peace process. However, they are also far overblown as a transgression and too often wheeled out as an excuse for Palestinian intransigence and morally bankrupt attempts to justify the terrorism and war crimes directed at the state of Israel.

They are also, plainly, not the reason that Hamas fires rockets at Israel or kidnaps and murders Israeli civilians.

If anyone thinks Hamas' mass violence towards Israel would cease following an immediate end to the occupation of Judea and Samaria, the abandonment of all settlements, and a lifting of the legal blockade of Gaza, they are basically deluding themselves. Hamas seeks a Jew-free solution to the conflict, the destruction of the state of Israel, Islamist rule over all of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, and the "usurpers" (i.e. Jews) to be either returned to their proper place of subjugation as previously under Islamic rule, driven out of the land completely, or killed outright. This they have stated many, many times (despite inveterate liars like Pallywood Nicky claiming they're looking to make peace with Israel).

 

[Rod1]

Why reply to Zoti pointing out the fact that Hamas is raining missiles on Israel every day by saying "the settlements still exist, prospering every day" if not to draw some kind of moral equivalence? (As if the rocket attacks are because of the settlements and are somehow comparable, both of which are not true).



No, it's quite objective to state that the land is disputed and has been for some time.

Try this: put the phrase "disputed land" into a Google search and check the results that come up. The second-from-top result that I got was a Wiki link entitled 'List of territorial disputes' on which, amongst many entries, I found "The Palestinian Territories". The fact that there are many such disputes, but an enormous amount of international attention, ongoing violence and hysterical responses here centred around only one is noteworthy, but a subject for another thread. (Can't remember the last time I saw a War Room thread about Kashmir.)



Right, you acknowledge both the indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilians and the construction of Israeli settlements but you deny you're drawing any kind of moral equivalence between the two. Does that mean you're further acknowledging, implicitly, that one is morally far worse than the other?
I, obviously, feel firing rockets at civilians is a far worse crime than building houses in an area that other people would rather you didn't. Are we in agreement there?



Settlements are, in my view, an unwise venture that have done Israel enormous harm internationally, and they are plainly anatagonistic to the peace process. However, they are also far overblown as a transgression and too often wheeled out as an excuse for Palestinian intransigence and morally bankrupt attempts to justify the terrorism and war crimes directed at the state of Israel.

They are also, plainly, not the reason that Hamas fires rockets at Israel or kidnaps and murders Israeli civilians.

If anyone thinks Hamas' mass violence towards Israel would cease following an immediate end to the occupation of Judea and Samaria, the abandonment of all settlements, and a lifting of the legal blockade of Gaza, they are basically deluding themselves. Hamas seeks a Jew-free solution to the conflict, the destruction of the state of Israel, Islamist rule over all of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, and the "usurpers" (i.e. Jews) to be either returned to their proper place of subjugation as previously under Islamic rule, driven out of the land completely, or killed outright. This they have stated many, many times (despite inveterate liars like Pallywood Nicky claiming they're looking to make peace with Israel).

You are dellusional to other facts too.

-Oppression begets violence, when the apartheid was at its worst the resistance was also at its worse. Mandela used to be a terrorist FYI.

-You really cant compare which side gets the worse of the violence, the death toll is extremely sided against palestinians.

-Violence against palestinians is worse than rockets, thats a fact.

-Israel is against international law in this one, it cant complain the other side doesnt plays fairly as long as it does itself.

-If Israel withdrew from west bank, im pretty sure nobody would complain if they bombed the palestinians back to the stone age until they stopped sending rockets.

 

[A Muse of Fire]

Your location indicates : "brightest heaven of invention" which is probably Colorado and you must be stoned as shit.

Ha. It may seem odd, but giving people public goods and the like makes them easier to conquer. Look at how the Russians pacified Cheknya. They fund public goods andreduce unemployment. They also cut a deal with a former rebel. Kadyrov used to be a islamic militant fighting the Russians, but he got co opted by Moscow. Now he helps Putin control Crimea by sending soldiers.

Similarly Al Assad seems to be helping one group of rebels attack another. He partially ceded territory to one group to weaken another enemy. It is a classic stratagy. Make an enemy into an ally to attack a bigger enemy and to stop him from trying to kill you.

 

[Marsupial]

-Oppression begets violence, when the apartheid was at its worst the resistance was also at its worse.

Arab violence toward Jews in the area predates the occupation, and even the creation of modern Israel. Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arab counter offer was to start a war to expel or kill them all.

You really cant compare which side gets the worse of the violence, the death toll is extremely sided against palestinians.

It's not a game that boils down to numbers. If the death toll was perfectly even, would you be perfectly neutral? (If more Israelis had died, would you be pro-Israel?)

Besides, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups often invoke the Islamist refrain of how they love death more than their enemies love life. That attitude, combined with a penchant for cowering behind human shields and deliberately provoking a more powerful military force, will inevitably lead to unnecessary civilian casualties. This is what groups like Hamas want, however. They use the deaths of the people they purport to represent as currency in their war against Israel. Strategic nihilism.

Violence against palestinians is worse than rockets, thats a fact.

Israel is against international law in this one, it cant complain the other side doesnt plays fairly as long as it does itself.

Where does international law stand on launching rockets at a civilian populace (from within a civilian populace), as well as kidnapping and murdering civilians?

(Hint: It's a lot more clear cut than the issue of whether or not you can build houses in disputed territory.)

If Israel withdrew from west bank, im pretty sure nobody would complain if they bombed the palestinians back to the stone age until they stopped sending rockets.

I'm very confident that you're entirely wrong about that. Hamas throws rockets at Israel, kidnaps and murders kids, cowers behind human shields, incites genocide and issues racist proclamations incessantly, and all the time the useful idiots who hate Israel continue to solely blame the Jewish state for the ongoing conflict.

 

[A Muse of Fire]

Arab violence toward Jews in the area predates the occupation, and even the creation of modern Israel. Jews accepted the Partition Plan, the Arab counter offer was to start a war to expel or kill them all.



It's not a game that boils down to numbers. If the death toll was perfectly even, would you be perfectly neutral? (If more Israelis had died, would you be pro-Israel?)

Besides, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups often invoke the Islamist refrain of how they love death more than their enemies love life. That attitude, combined with a penchant for cowering behind human shields and deliberately provoking a more powerful military force, will inevitably lead to unnecessary civilian casualties. This is what groups like Hamas want, however. They use the deaths of the people they purport to represent as currency in their war against Israel. Strategic nihilism.



Where does international law stand on launching rockets at a civilian populace (from within a civilian populace), as well as kidnapping and murdering civilians?

(Hint: It's a lot more clear cut than the issue of whether or not you can build houses in disputed territory.)



I'm very confident that you're entirely wrong about that. Hamas throws rockets at Israel, kidnaps and murders kids, cowers behind human shields, incites genocide and issues racist proclamations incessantly, and all the time the useful idiots who hate Israel continue to solely blame the Jewish state for the ongoing conflict.

Do you see any sort of victory for Isreal, or do you just hope thing go on the way they are now with unending war? Any way are you personally connected to Isreal in some way?

 

[Zoti]

Marsupial is spot on in every one of his last posts.

 

[Zoti]

Ha. It may seem odd, but giving people public goods and the like makes them easier to conquer. Look at how the Russians pacified Cheknya. They fund public goods andreduce unemployment. They also cut a deal with a former rebel. Kadyrov used to be a islamic militant fighting the Russians, but he got co opted by Moscow. Now he helps Putin control Crimea by sending soldiers.

Similarly Al Assad seems to be helping one group of rebels attack another. He partially ceded territory to one group to weaken another enemy. It is a classic stratagy. Make an enemy into an ally to attack a bigger enemy and to stop him from trying to kill you.

It's not odd. But I think the chance of doing that is long gone. Right now, there is no way Israel can let Palestinians come work in Israel in masses. The terror threat is too big. Israel has replaced most if the Palestinian work force with foreign workers from China, Romania, Thailand etc.

 

[A Muse of Fire]

It's not odd. But I think the chance of doing that is long gone. Right now, there is no way Israel can let Palestinians come work in Israel in masses. The terror threat is too big. Israel has replaced most if the Palestinian work force with foreign workers from China, Romania, Thailand etc.

I meant more building schools and hospitals in west bank, subsidising bread and fuel etc. They could do the same in Gaza.

 

[LordBloodraven]

Dissolve the current state of Israel and have a legitimate UN organised definition of borders for the states of Palestine and Israel. The state of Israel is the last major historical landgrab, countries were too preoccupied with WW 2 and were recovering financially and redefining borders of many countries. In light of this atmosphere and the brutal treatment of Jewish peoples across Europe a more concerted push for a Jewish state turned into invasion and insurgency, it all stems back to this. The foundation of the current state of Israel is illegal and immoral.

This can only happen with a USA backed United Nation declaration towards Israel, unfortunately this won't happen.

 

[SammyPops]

LOL, of course,when you can't refute what I have to say, just call me a troll and slink off. LOL at me getting owned. By who? You and Nicky? Please.

there was nothing to refute. You degenerated to calling all palis terrorists and ignored everything else.

How many pali women and kids has Israel murdered over the past feewdays?

 

[SammyPops]

btw the term "pali" is actually a slur so i'd appreciate it if you didn't use it. i didn't know it was a slur for a long time so i'll assume you didn't either. but as it turns out, it is.

I got your back, Nicky.

seriously? I had no idea!

I did not even know the term until I read Nicky using it lol

 

[Byron Carter]

You have one side that won't play to win. (Isreal) They simply won't do what is required to achieve absolute victory. Nor should they.

And you have another side who will never surrender, unless absolutely crushed.


The Muslims are morally right. It's wrong for Israel to take their shit and kick them out. But.. at some point this group has to cut their losses and rebuild. Focus on strengthening their society. Much like African Americans did in the U.S. - blacks were treated horribly in this country for hundreds of years. Enslaved, beaten, humiliated, dehumanized.. And then MLK came along and preached peace and forgiveness, and the prospect of a brighter tomorrow for white AND black TOGETHER. Black people in this country would have been absolutely morally justified if they had followed Huey Newton or the slew of other black radicals of the time into violent revolt... but it doesn't mean it would have been the right thing to do.


The Middle East badly needs an MLK.

 

[Phlog]

I don't think I've ever spoken to anyone who believes Israel is in the right who wasn't Jewish.

The world pretty much views the whole thing as an invasion, now the world's largest concentration camp.

I'm of Irish stock and the whole thing rings bells for me.

Oh and on the whole moral equivalency issue: There is none, Israel kills and harms many more than Palistinians do. America supplying Israel with nukes and supporting them militarily is the only reason this hasn't already resolved itself.

 

[Byron Carter]

I don't think I've ever spoken to anyone who believes Israel is in the right who wasn't Jewish.

The world pretty much views the whole thing as an invasion, now the world's largest concentration camp.

I'm of Irish stock and the whole thing rings bells for me.

Oh and on the whole moral equivalency issue: There is none, Israel kills and harms many more than Palistinians do. America supplying Israel with nukes and supporting them militarily is the only reason this hasn't already resolved itself.

Does ring a lot of bells with the IRA come to think of it.. right down to the fact that they're murdering and torturing each other's children.

History does repeat itself.

 

[evansusmc2]

I always love it when people take terrorists side. It really shows how isolated the people of the US are.

Sadly this makes sense since only 7% of Americans own a passport.

Edit: 7% is probably a high estimate too.

 

[computer fogie]

I don't think I've ever spoken to anyone who believes Israel is in the right who wasn't Jewish.

The world pretty much views the whole thing as an invasion, now the world's largest concentration camp.

Oh and on the whole moral equivalency issue: There is none, Israel kills and harms many more than Palistinians do. America supplying Israel with nukes and supporting them militarily is the only reason this hasn't already resolved itself.

It does seem this way.

Don't forget the US gov't vetoing every UN sanction against Israel for a multitude of crimes. Every single one. If not for the US gov't, the Israeli gov't would have nobody in the world on their side. They are too aggressive, dishonest, and uncooperative to ever be a part of a modern civilization.

Without the US gov't protecting them, the whole world would come down hard on them for what they do. That is a fact, and is probably what makes so many supporters of the Israeli gov't so defensive and ready to attack anyone who doesn't love what their favorite gov't does.

 

[Byron Carter]

It does seem this way.

Don't forget the US gov't vetoing every UN sanction against Israel for a multitude of crimes. Every single one. If not for the US gov't, the Israeli gov't would have nobody in the world on their side. They are too aggressive, dishonest, and uncooperative to ever be a part of a modern civilization.

Without the US gov't protecting them, the whole world would come down hard on them for what they do. That is a fact, and is probably what makes so many supporters of the Israeli gov't so defensive and ready to attack anyone who doesn't love what their favorite gov't does.

When is the last time the whole world has come down on ANYONE?

Look at North Korea, Saudi Arabia, every African country...

There are three nations in this world with any teeth.

 

[weed]

Why reply to Zoti pointing out the fact that Hamas is raining missiles on Israel every day by saying "the settlements still exist, prospering every day" if not to draw some kind of moral equivalence? (As if the rocket attacks are because of the settlements and are somehow comparable, both of which are not true).



No, it's quite objective to state that the land is disputed and has been for some time.

Try this: put the phrase "disputed land" into a Google search and check the results that come up. The second-from-top result that I got was a Wiki link entitled 'List of territorial disputes' on which, amongst many entries, I found "The Palestinian Territories". The fact that there are many such disputes, but an enormous amount of international attention, ongoing violence and hysterical responses here centred around only one is noteworthy, but a subject for another thread. (Can't remember the last time I saw a War Room thread about Kashmir.)



Right, you acknowledge both the indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilians and the construction of Israeli settlements but you deny you're drawing any kind of moral equivalence between the two. Does that mean you're further acknowledging, implicitly, that one is morally far worse than the other?
I, obviously, feel firing rockets at civilians is a far worse crime than building houses in an area that other people would rather you didn't. Are we in agreement there?



Settlements are, in my view, an unwise venture that have done Israel enormous harm internationally, and they are plainly anatagonistic to the peace process. However, they are also far overblown as a transgression and too often wheeled out as an excuse for Palestinian intransigence and morally bankrupt attempts to justify the terrorism and war crimes directed at the state of Israel.

They are also, plainly, not the reason that Hamas fires rockets at Israel or kidnaps and murders Israeli civilians.

If anyone thinks Hamas' mass violence towards Israel would cease following an immediate end to the occupation of Judea and Samaria, the abandonment of all settlements, and a lifting of the legal blockade of Gaza, they are basically deluding themselves. Hamas seeks a Jew-free solution to the conflict, the destruction of the state of Israel, Islamist rule over all of what is now Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, and the "usurpers" (i.e. Jews) to be either returned to their proper place of subjugation as previously under Islamic rule, driven out of the land completely, or killed outright. This they have stated many, many times (despite inveterate liars like Pallywood Nicky claiming they're looking to make peace with Israel).

- why not? if not to point out Israel herself isn't free of any wrong doing? I'm not trying to justify Palestine's actions by bringing up the settlements, but merely to illustrate "it takes two to tango". what''s most disgusting is that we, the US, are vehemently supporting one of them.

- oh, forgive my impudence, I have shamed myself in a manner in which I will never be able to redeem myself. I forgot Israel is able to do as she feels where UN resolutions & international law do not apply, as opposed to the rest of the civilized world - for Israel is above & beyond all laws made by man.

- again with this "moral equivalence"? please refer to my first point. also, thank you for admitting to & proving my point, you see nothing wrong with the illegal settlements, & that Israel will always be the only victim in all of this.


also, thanks for conveniently ignoring all the while indirectly answering my final question - you exercise bigotry & prejudice towards the Palestinian people, being that praising Israel & those of the Jewish religion serve to be the anchor of your moral compass.

 

[weed]

-If Israel withdrew from west bank, im pretty sure nobody would complain if they bombed the palestinians back to the stone age until they stopped sending rockets.

motherfucking seriously

 

[ripskater]

what would it take? It would take it's neighbors to stop attacking Isreal. That will never happen though. Peace rests in the hands of the ones who instigate the violence.