Peaceful Palestinians double down, everything was justified

24,708 Views | 358 Replies | Last: 11 mo ago by Terminus Est
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BonfireNerd04 said:

Quote:

oh? please, explain it to the class. how did the people who currently live in the Gaza strip wind up there, without the ability to leave?
Repeated refusals of peace offers and statehood proposals by Palestinian leaders who insist on nothing less than a Judenrein land "from the river to the sea". And attacks on Israeli civilians necessitating tight border controls between Gaza and Israel.


Yes it's as simple as that. It's the same nonsense as blaming society when someone ends up in prison for murder.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
also doesn't explain why those people are in gaza to begin with.

attacks on civilians aren't only on the sides of the Arabs.

Here's some snippets of things that occurred during the 1948 war.

Safsaf

Quote:

Fifty-two men were caught, tied them to one another, dug a pit and shot them. Ten were still twitching. Women came, begged for mercy. Found bodies of 6 elderly men. There were 61 bodies. 3 cases of rape
Al-Dawayima

Quote:

There was no battle and no resistance. The first conquerors killed 80 to 100 Arab men, women and children. The children were killed by smashing their skulls with sticks. There wasn't a house without people killed in it

nor is driving one group or another solely an Arab thought. Here is an excerpt from minutes from a cabinet meeting from the period:

Quote:

Minister of Immigration and Health Haim-Moshe Shapira (Hapoel Hamizrahi): "To go that far is forbidden even in times of war. These matters have come up more than once in cabinet meetings, and the defense minister investigated and demanded, and orders were given. I believe that in order to create the impression that we take this matter very seriously, we must choose a committee of ministers who will travel to those places and see for themselves what happened. People who commit these acts must be punished. The matter was not a secret. My proposal is to choose a committee of three ministers who will address the gravity of the matter."

Interior Minister Yitzhak Gruenbaum (General Zionists): "I too intended to ask a question along these lines. I have learned that an order exists to cleanse the territory." At this point Gruenbaum tells about an officer who transported residents in a bus to enemy lines, where they were expelled, and adds, "But apparently others lack the same intelligence and the same feeling. Apparently the order can be executed by other means."
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
50 years is insufficient. You really need to go back to 1920. Here's a summary I wrote the last time violence broke out in earnest in 2021. This is as unbiased as I can be.





Jewish revolts against Rome in AD 73 and AD 136 results in the destruction of Jerusalem and the depopulation of Israel.

Jewish people live in the diaspora throughout the Middle East, Europe and Russia

Over the centuries Jews suffer a great deal with laws preventing them from owning land, doing many kind of jobs, or living as normal residents. Are routinely persecuted, prevented from fully assimilating, and often overtly attacked in pogroms. Many of these attacks were horrifying and brutal, and often were ignored or even encouraged by local authorities.

Pogroms in the 19th century combined with the general trend toward nationalism sparks two similar movements - Bolshevism and Zionism. Both were based on radical and revolutionary zeal, both were competing for the same type of support.

Zionism's idea was to have a Jewish homeland. Supporters ranged from wanting political solutions like getting the British or Ottoman empire to cede them land, to practical solutions like moving and making a de facto state by improving the land, to outright violent uprisings. Not all Jews supported Zionism, especially in countries which were less anti-Semitic like France, Great Britain, or the US. Zionists were essentially anti-Western, anti-Christian, and in many cases overt socialists. Early Zionists viewed Arabs as their cousins, united against the Western world. Jews begin to purchase land and immigrate to Palestine.

World War I carved up the Ottoman Empire and results in a messy agreement where Britain is in charge of Palestine. Britain made conflicting agreements during WWI with local Arabs (promising them independence if they fought against the Turks) and Zionist Jews (promising them a homeland) in order to gain support in the War.

From 1920 on the British badly tried to split the difference, but lost control of the situation. Jews immigrated both legally and illegally. Arabs who lived in Palestine saw the writing on the wall and got mad that their land was being "given away" to European Jews. Nationalist movements of both Arabs and Jews form in the region. Violence breaks out on both sides. Both sides revolt against British rule. Both sides attack each other with gangs and militias. Britain tries to prevent illegal immigration by Jews (much of it driven by the Holocaust). Radical Zionists engaged in terrorism against the British government and Arabs, including assassinations, bombings of civilian targets like hotels, trains, police stations, ships, and market places, and grenade attacks on civilian groups.

During WWII it got more complicated. Britain trained some Jewish groups to defend the region against Axis powers. Some Zionist elements refused to cooperate with the British and even tried to reach out to the Nazis, saying they'd support them if they allowed Israel to be a homeland for Jews.

After WWII illegal immigration resumed and the Jewish insurgency got worse. The UN makes a partition plan that the Jews accept, but Arabs don't. Britain won't agree to enforce the plan because the Arabs don't accept it, and also just say "screw it we're out." The minute the British bail, Israel comes into existence and a war breaks out between Arabs from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt and the Israeli Zionist military factions that become the IDF - which included former terrorist organizations like Irgun and Lehi.

The IDF crushes the Arabs. Through a combination of direct military action including the massacre of civilians, expulsion by the IDF, and spontaneous panic, most of the local Arab population flees. The Jews don't let them come back after the war. Neighboring Arab countries don't let them in. Jewish military notes they're more interested in welfare handouts than fighting.

The Israeli government passes a law taking into state receivership what they call abandoned property. Palestinians who fled lose property, businesses, buildings, homes.

Everything that has happened since can be summed up as:

- Futile violence by Arabs against Israel, both from terrorist groups and outright wars
- Shockingly immoral and evil indiscriminate targeting of civilians by Palestinian terrorists
- Israel's economic, technological, and military superiority putting down all of the violence handily resulting in increased land controlled by Israel every single time
- A general disregard by Israel for UN and international agreements leading to them slowly settling additional territory, further perpetuating the displacement and continuing the cycle of violence
- Ineffectual negotiated peace agreements which have no chance to be accepted
- Run of the mill day-to-day small scale violence by Arabs against Jews, Jews against Arabs, etc
- The consolidation of Israel as a Jewish state vs a typical western democracy, which recognizes that Jews and only Jews have a right to national self-determination in Israel

Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm really curious how many here would react if the world supported Mexico coming in and taking back Texas. Those of us that have lived and owned land for generations in Texas had our land confiscated and Mexican nationals get to throw your furniture out in the street and just move into your house. We were not allowed to leave. Our travel was severely curtailed. Our commerce was severely curtailed and controlled. Thousands of homes and structures destroyed. Everyday when you go to work or school you have to pass through checkpoints and sometimes face degrading searches. Limitations on who and when you can marry the person you love. Limitations on when you can go visit family. Severe water restrictions. Thousands of men, women and children arrested for dubious reasons. Holding people indefinately without due process or trial.

I wonder how many Texans would 'stand' for this treatment. We as Texans like to talk a big game about secession and revolution. TAking our government back, etc, etc.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Macarthur said:

I'm really curious how many here would react if the world supported Mexico coming in and taking back Texas. Those of us that have lived and owned land for generations in Texas had our land confiscated and Mexican nationals get to throw your furniture out in the street and just move into your house. We were not allowed to leave. Our travel was severely curtailed. Our commerce was severely curtailed and controlled. Thousands of homes and structures destroyed. Everyday when you go to work or school you have to pass through checkpoints and sometimes face degrading searches. Limitations on who and when you can marry the person you love. Limitations on when you can go visit family. Severe water restrictions. Thousands of men, women and children arrested for dubious reasons. Holding people indefinately without due process or trial.

I wonder how many Texans would 'stand' for this treatment. We as Texans like to talk a big game about secession and revolution. TAking our government back, etc, etc.
Better yet, the international community can give the entire US back to the Native Americans and then given them nukes and all the money they need to run their society. All the other Americans get put onto reservations that get surrounded by walls and policed in the manner you describe. And then anyone of us that tries to object or fight back gets to be called a religious zealot that hates Native Americans
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

I'm really curious how many here would react if the world supported Mexico coming in and taking back Texas. Those of us that have lived and owned land for generations in Texas had our land confiscated and Mexican nationals get to throw your furniture out in the street and just move into your house. We were not allowed to leave. Our travel was severely curtailed. Our commerce was severely curtailed and controlled. Thousands of homes and structures destroyed. Everyday when you go to work or school you have to pass through checkpoints and sometimes face degrading searches. Limitations on who and when you can marry the person you love. Limitations on when you can go visit family. Severe water restrictions. Thousands of men, women and children arrested for dubious reasons. Holding people indefinately without due process or trial.

I wonder how many Texans would 'stand' for this treatment. We as Texans like to talk a big game about secession and revolution. TAking our government back, etc, etc.


None of that would justify rapping of women, parading their naked bodies through the street spitting on them, putting babies in ovens and all the other vile stuff Hamas and the Palestinians did October 7th.

Nothing justifies what happened October 7th. So no I would not participate in that or condone that. No matter what.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. And no one here is saying it does. But you can't deny what has happened and what I described above.

You simply can't look at all of that and not realize there is a huge context here that you are ignoring.

You have a comically simplistic view of this issue. Frankly, it shows that you have done zero serious reflection on this issue and not once have you tried to view this through Palenstinian eyes.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agreed. What's your opinion on the bombing of market places, hotels, trains, police stations, and post offices? Or the parading of prisoners to be stoned and murdered?
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Agreed. What's your opinion on the bombing of market places, hotels, trains, police stations, and post offices? Or the parading of prisoners to be stoned and murdered?


Bombing throughout cities is a justified act of war , when 2 entities are at war as now in Gaza and Israel. Those are horrible things and that is why war should be avoided if all possible.

I don't think war is more justified by only killing soldiers. Those soldiers are lives and have families and are not just machines to serve the state.

Parading of prisoners to be mocked is not justified. Firing squads are however in times of war.

I guess in general I don't favor making a bunch of rules where you can and cannot bomb. If one side hides in a church bomb the church if need be.

However try to avoid war at all costs. It brings needless suffering to humanity.

This world is hard enough even when we try and be kind to each other.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not talking about Gaza. All of these things were done by Jewish terrorist groups in the run up to the 1948 war. They targeted marketplaces, train stations, workers going into their jobs, hotels, police stations and used things like explosives stuffed into barrels, roadside IEDs, tunnels dug under buildings, firing and throwing hand grenades into crowds.

Prisoners taken after the Deir Yassin massacre were paraded through West Jerusalem, stoned and eventually murdered.

Irregular terrorist groups like Lehi and Irgun became part of the IDF. Even Haganah/Palmach, which formed the backbone of the eventual IDF and had an stated stance of 'purity of arms' drove civilians from their homes with force and leveled the villages afterward.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

don't crawfish. you said "If the people in Gaza support this regime, they should be destroyed."

How am I crawfishing? If the people in Gaza support this regime -- terrorism -- then they should be destroyed along with the terrorists.

I've got no problems stating that.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
people presumably includes women and children?
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As for "why they are there" -- we can debate the historic texts and who has the rightful stake to the land until the cows come home. Not going to bother going down that rabbit hole, because no one will ever be right or convince the other.

But in the history of man as we know it, stake to land is established in one of two ways -- diplomatically or by force.

Diplomatically the land is Israel's by most modern view points (again, not really worth debating the history of it).

By force, Israel has fought and won multiple wars for the land.

The only real difference is that now in modern times when we fight wars, we allow the loser to wave the white flag rather than being conquered. Which leads to the loser regrouping and trying again 10 years down the road only to wave the white flag again.

That's ultimately what has gone on in the region for last 50+ years. And Israel has tolerated it (though, again as I mentioned before lets not act like that is simply out of being kind-hearted -- politically they have always had reasons to pull the strings to keep a certain degree of instability there... sadly that is the way it is around the world).

After what happened on October 7th to innocent teenagers attending a festival, Israel has decided not to let it happen again.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Macarthur said:

I'm really curious how many here would react if the world supported Mexico coming in and taking back Texas. Those of us that have lived and owned land for generations in Texas had our land confiscated and Mexican nationals get to throw your furniture out in the street and just move into your house. We were not allowed to leave. Our travel was severely curtailed. Our commerce was severely curtailed and controlled. Thousands of homes and structures destroyed. Everyday when you go to work or school you have to pass through checkpoints and sometimes face degrading searches. Limitations on who and when you can marry the person you love. Limitations on when you can go visit family. Severe water restrictions. Thousands of men, women and children arrested for dubious reasons. Holding people indefinately without due process or trial.

I wonder how many Texans would 'stand' for this treatment. We as Texans like to talk a big game about secession and revolution. TAking our government back, etc, etc.

A more apt analogy would be if Mexico continually bombed US cities along the Texas border and vowed to kill all Texans because they believe they should have the right to the land despite treaties signed and wars lost.

And I'm sure after 50 years of that if you and your family lived on the border you'd just say "well, it is what it is!".
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Diplomatically some of the land is Israel's by most modern view points
fify


Quote:

The only real difference is that now in modern times when we fight wars, we allow the loser to wave the white flag rather than being conquered. Which leads to the loser regrouping and trying again 10 years down the road only to wave the white flag again.
i agree. which basically says there is no one in the right here - if the Arabs had won, and the Jews were the conquered / terrorists you would support the Arabs against them. Right?
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I took your question as a general question and my response was such.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

Quote:

The only real difference is that now in modern times when we fight wars, we allow the loser to wave the white flag rather than being conquered. Which leads to the loser regrouping and trying again 10 years down the road only to wave the white flag again.
i agree. which basically says there is no one in the right here - if the Arabs had won, and the Jews were the conquered / terrorists you would support the Arabs against them. Right?

I would recognize that they conquered the land and now control it, yes.

And you know what? If the Native Americans started an uprising and were trying to re-take the "American" land by force and brutality against innocent civilians -- I would support putting them down by force.

Ditto if Mexico decided they wanted Texas back and raided the Texas lands killing innocent people all along the border -- I would support putting them down by force.

That's how things are handled in modern society. You can dislike it, but the comfort of your entire existence would fall apart without it.

Which is also why this issue exists like it does around the world with Islam.

A fanatical Christian? For the most part they may rub people the wrong way but society can still get along with them around.

A fanatical Jew? For the most part they may rub people the wrong way, but society can still get along with them around.

Now do a fanatical Muslim.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proposition Joe said:

Macarthur said:

I'm really curious how many here would react if the world supported Mexico coming in and taking back Texas. Those of us that have lived and owned land for generations in Texas had our land confiscated and Mexican nationals get to throw your furniture out in the street and just move into your house. We were not allowed to leave. Our travel was severely curtailed. Our commerce was severely curtailed and controlled. Thousands of homes and structures destroyed. Everyday when you go to work or school you have to pass through checkpoints and sometimes face degrading searches. Limitations on who and when you can marry the person you love. Limitations on when you can go visit family. Severe water restrictions. Thousands of men, women and children arrested for dubious reasons. Holding people indefinately without due process or trial.

I wonder how many Texans would 'stand' for this treatment. We as Texans like to talk a big game about secession and revolution. TAking our government back, etc, etc.

A more apt analogy would be if Mexico continually bombed US cities along the Texas border and vowed to kill all Texans because they believe they should have the right to the land despite treaties signed and wars lost.

And I'm sure after 50 years of that if you and your family lived on the border you'd just say "well, it is what it is!".

You can laugh all you want but you twisted the analogy. The anology is NOT Mexico Bombing us cities for the hell of it.

This land is texas and has been for generations. Mexico takes it back because it was previously theirs the rest of the world supported Mexico and give them money and arms. When you fight back because your family has owned this land in Texas for generations, you are subjected to the conditions I listed above, and by the way, the rest of the world labels you terrorists for trying to defend your right to the land your family has owned for generations.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
i'd just like to point out that you actually support the thing you called a strawman, first. just so we can get that out of the way.

the rest of this is is stupid presentism. if you had a time machine and asked someone in the 1920s or 30s about terrorism in the middle east they would have (correctly) assumed you were talking about a fanatical Jew. Fanatical Christians killed plenty of people in Bosnia.

the actual strawman here is that people anyone is supporting hamas or terrorism or saying Israel should not respond or does not have the right to respond or to defend themselves.

there is a difference between warfighting and defense, and genocide or ethnic cleansing.
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

i'd just like to point out that you actually support the thing you called a strawman, first. just so we can get that out of the way.

the rest of this is is stupid presentism. if you had a time machine and asked someone in the 1920s or 30s about terrorism in the middle east they would have (correctly) assumed you were talking about a fanatical Jew. Fanatical Christians killed plenty of people in Bosnia.

the actual strawman here is that people anyone is supporting hamas or terrorism or saying Israel should not respond or does not have the right to respond or to defend themselves.

there is a difference between warfighting and defense, and genocide or ethnic cleansing.


Not how you define genocide or ethnic cleansing. You define ethnic cleansing and genocide so broadly it is impossible to fight a war without it.

It's like you are trying to take away the evil from war and making all collateral damage a crime.

Your position is nonsense and is as realistic as the United Nations in promoting peace.

War is barbaric and unjust and horrible.

It's just nonsense about only striking against the other side's military…. Like war can be some clean moral action.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it's pretty straightforward to fight a war without ethnic cleansing and genocide. the US did it in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf War and Iraq and Afghanistan.

collateral damage is a reality in war. the answer to that is that it should be minimized.

it shouldn't surprise anyone that what began as an ethnic war continues as an ethnic war. there's no good side here, only victors and conquered.
SirDippinDots
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

it's pretty straightforward to fight a war without ethnic cleansing and genocide. the US did it in WWI and WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf War and Iraq and Afghanistan.

collateral damage is a reality in war. the answer to that is that it should be minimized.

it shouldn't surprise anyone that what began as an ethnic war continues as an ethnic war. there's no good side here, only victors and conquered.


So the atomic bombs and fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were ok with you? If so I am surprised.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not OK. Terrible tragedies. Particularly the nuclear bombs, and particularly the targeting of Nagasaki which killed some ten thousand Christians. I've been to the memorial in Hiroshima, they have a plaque there that says something along the lines of - Japan chose to engage in war, and this is the consequence of war. This is true. And the demons rejoice.

Even so, the US did not attempt genocide against the Japanese. Nor did we ethnically cleanse Japan. You seem to be confusing collateral damage and civilian casualties with ethnic cleansing. They're not the same thing.

Were the atomic bombs necessary and ultimately the most expeditious way of ending the war, and minimizing all casualties? With what they knew at the time, probably. With what we know now, probably not. But hindsight is 20/20. I think we did what we had to do. And that doesn't change that it was a tragedy.

Here's a helpful guide - if, as the result of explicit policy, you remove a specific ethnic group from an area, you're practicing ethnic cleansing.

If, hypothetically speaking, during a war one ethnic group goes from being 30% of the population to 80% of the population within a few months by removing 55% of the population, that's probably ethnic cleansing. Because that's what happened from 1947-1948 in Israel.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

the rest of this is is stupid presentism. if you had a time machine and asked someone in the 1920s or 30s about terrorism in the middle east they would have (correctly) assumed you were talking about a fanatical Jew. Fanatical Christians killed plenty of people in Bosnia.

Indeed - which is why modern society is, modern society. Things we thought might have been OK back in the 1920s we no longer think are OK.

What if in 100 years we find out that fanatical muslims were correct and flying planes into the WTC actually did humankind a great service?

Should we be OK with it happening? Should we have not tried to prevent it?

You can't just take your time machine to whatever era suits your point.

Quote:

there is a difference between warfighting and defense, and genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Ahh yes, the "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" buzz words. Easy to know where one gets their talking points from when you see those pop-up.

Israel has a million+ Muslims living within their border. They've dropped leaflets on neighborhoods warning of attack, and directed citizens where to head in order to avoid bloodshed as much as possible. Previously they've offered two-state solutions and that have been rejected.

Hamas and their followers openly state "death to all Jews".



If you look at those two groups and decide to paint the former with talks of "genocide and ethnic cleansing" then you are truly lost.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If you look at those two groups and decide to paint the former with talks of "genocide and ethnic cleansing" then you are truly lost.
The ruling party of Israel is the Likud Party. They openly advocate that all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean belong to Israeli Jews. They refuse any formulation of Israel that doesn't contain a strong majority of Jewish citizens. They support settlement into Palestinian lands. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the Likud Party wants Israel to have all the land in the area and at most a small non-Jewish minority. The only way that happens is ethnic cleansing.

To put it more succintly, the goals of the ruling party of Israel are only possible through ethnic cleansing. It's not a stretch therefore to say that the Likud supports ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Calling some "truly lost" for pointing out this easily learned and researched policy position shows a ridiculous amount of bias
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

You can't just take your time machine to whatever era suits your point.
i have no idea what your point is. unless you're going to say - today is a new day and nothing that happened before present year matters to me geopolitically or morally. if so, congrats i guess? that's a stupid way to live. context matters. weren't you the one saying that we needed 50 years of context just moments ago?

Quote:

Ahh yes, the "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" buzz words. Easy to know where one gets their talking points from when you see those pop-up.
this is not an argument.
Quote:

Israel has a million+ Muslims living within their border
and? a century ago 10% of the area was Jews and there was no war. All this shows is that there is the possibility of a stable equilibrium when one group has an enormous power advantage. Israel is specifically an ethnostate where only Jews have the right to self determination by law. That muslim population is tolerated and legally has no right to self determination in Israel.

Quote:

If you look at those two groups and decide to paint the former with talks of "genocide and ethnic cleansing" then you are truly lost.
For one, I did not say that Israel was currently practicing genocide or ethnic cleansing. They absolutely did practice ethnic cleansing in the past, and made use of terrorism and direct attacks against civilians to do so. We have historical documents, published by the IDF, where they state this. Because of their ethnic cleansing they changed the population makeup from ~90% Arab to ~20% Arab in the course of a year.

This started as an ethnic war, where one ethnic group began a conquest by legal and illegal immigration, terrorism, open revolt, war, and expulsion of the other ethnic group. Why we should be surprised that the people with no legal self determination would want to flip the script is confusing.

There are no good sides here. There are only consequences of war. We are watching them.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again, 1.7 MILLION Muslims live in Israel.

That's up from 700,00 in 1990.

For a country that is so hell-bent on ethnic cleansing, they are really, really bad at it.
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If it's about self-determination and Israel's prevention of these people to achieve it -- one has to then ask why other Arab nations like Jordan, Egypt, etc... don't support these Palestinian's yearning for "self-determination"?

Maybe it's because a certain brand of "self-determination" has proven itself historically to cause massive civil and government upheaval.

"Self-determination" is a wholesome sounding phrase. But if your "self-determination" constantly impedes on others way of life then maybe it doesn't need to be accommodated.

As a wise Raylan Givens once said - "You meet an ******* in the morning, you met an ******* in the morning. You meet *******s all day long..."
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
respectfully, what are you talking about?
BonfireNerd04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel said:

it's pretty straightforward to fight a war without ethnic cleansing and genocide. the US did it in WWI and WWII


The US participated in the forced removal of 15 million ethnic Germans from their homes after WW2. (Albeit with Stalin's puppet states doing most of the dirty work.)
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
yes, you've brought up this before, and somehow arrived to the conclusion that if the US did it in the past, it's all good. you still haven't explained why that's not true for slavery.


nor did you answer my earlier point that wanting the other side expelled from their homes and attacks on civilians are on both sides.

the only difference between the irregular terrorist Jews and irregular terrorist Arabs in Israel is that the terrorist Jews won and got the mantle of legitimacy. the terrorist Arabs are still terrorists.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Proposition Joe said:

Again, 1.7 MILLION Muslims live in Israel.

That's up from 700,00 in 1990.

For a country that is so hell-bent on ethnic cleansing, they are really, really bad at it.
They are all the way to 20% of the population compared to 73% Jewish. If you add the 5 million Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank then you're pretty close to 50/50, which is unthinkable and unacceptable to the rulers of Israel. That's the real heart of this issue. Israel refuses to integrate Palestinians due to need for ethnic dominance. They refuse to let them have their own state. There are only two other options, the occupied territory status quo (complete with horrific oppression) or ethnic cleansing.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proposition Joe said:

If it's about self-determination and Israel's prevention of these people to achieve it -- one has to then ask why other Arab nations like Jordan, Egypt, etc... don't support these Palestinian's yearning for "self-determination"?


Well, Jordan, Egypt, etc aren't their home, for one thing.

It's like the analogy I gave earlier…Mexico takes Texas and tells us why can't you just be happy in Canada.

Quote:

Maybe it's because a certain brand of "self-determination" has proven itself historically to cause massive civil and government upheaval.

"Self-determination" is a wholesome sounding phrase. But if your "self-determination" constantly impedes on others way of life then maybe it doesn't need to be accommodated.



Again, I find the level of ignorance pretty staggering. You are aware that area was relatively peaceful with Jews, Arabs and Christians living along side each other for quite some time?
Proposition Joe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ramblin_ag02 said:

Proposition Joe said:

Again, 1.7 MILLION Muslims live in Israel.

That's up from 700,00 in 1990.

For a country that is so hell-bent on ethnic cleansing, they are really, really bad at it.
They are all the way to 20% of the population compared to 73% Jewish. If you add the 5 million Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank then you're pretty close to 50/50, which is unthinkable and unacceptable to the rulers of Israel. That's the real heart of this issue. Israel refuses to integrate Palestinians due to need for ethnic dominance. They refuse to let them have their own state. There are only two other options, the occupied territory status quo (complete with horrific oppression) or ethnic cleansing.

That's a pretty darn big chasm you just leaped.

You've now shifted from "ethnic cleansing" to "50/50 is unthinkable"

But the phrase "desire to keep the ethnic majority" doesn't sound so harsh. So instead you sensationalize it and say "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".

It is so incredibly intellectually dishonest.

But hey, it makes a good sound bite!

Again for the people in the back -- the Muslim population in Israel -- which the Jews "control" -- has grown by ONE MILLION in 30 years.

So just stop with the "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" talk. It sounds so incredibly foolish.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
how'd it go from 90% to 20%?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.