What should Israel do?

[Arctish]

Both sides lost their property. Most all the Arabs left during peacetime and could take their mobile assets. The Jews mostly fled quickly and thus got out less of their mobile assets.

When exactly did this happen? Be specific. Once we all know the weeks and months you are referring to, we can look up how quickly or slowly the refugees were loaded onto trucks at gunpoint and we can fairly assess how much time they had to pack.

I'm pretty sure you remember our conversations about the Jewish refugees who left Algeria and went to France. You might also remember something of the dozens (hundreds?) of times we have discussed the Ukrainian pogroms, the Trail of Tears, the situation in Tibet, the Rwandan genocide, and other atrocities. If you recall, I have always stipulated that the persons doing the ethnic cleansing are the ones who should be held accountable for it, and yes, that means the Cherokee should get their farmland back or be justly compensated for their loss.

If you don't, well there's nothing I can do about that. There are a lot of things we've discussed that you don't seem to remember.

And what you are missing is that most of the Palestinians were not cleansed. Simply not allowing enemies to enter your country isn't ethnic cleansing.

It is when you push them out so you can claim their land as part of your country, as I'm sure you well know by now.

Please support this claim by providing evidence of when most of the left, and that there was no war at that time. It looks like you are claiming Plan Dalet and the massacre at Deir Yassin happened before the war. Is that it?

Deir Yassin was caused by the Arabs fighting in civilian attire.

And how about the equal number of Jews that were displaced? Or don't you care about them?

Of course people here care about them. But you can't use what happened to Jews to justify doing the exact same thing to non-jews without creating a racist, religiously biased double standard. If it's wrong to expel people at gun-point, it's wrong whether or not the people are Jews.

A fair solution addresses both sides of the issue. You're only trying to address one side.

The only sides on a human rights issue are those who uphold them and those who don't.

Look, I've been giving HaRaAYaH a lot of leeway because s/he's fairly new here and perhaps doesn't quite realize that crying anti-Semitism every time Israel is criticized isn't a valid argument. It's an Ad Hominem that's usually employed in order to get the focus of the discussion off whatever Israeli policy or action is being criticized and onto the posters doing the criticizing. But you've been posting even longer than I have and you're not a stupid man. I have no doubt whatsoever that you know this tactic is little more than childish name-calling.

The road to peace in the Middle east is the same road to peace everywhere. It requires justice, fairness, and moving past the racist, religiously bigoted mindset that insists on identifying people either Jews or Muslims before condemning their oppression.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Of course. I didn't expect anything less from you. Te difference is this is mostly Israeli's speaking to other Israeli's. While you will produce exactly zero quotes from Hamas. And for every one your produce I can produce one from this week that says they wont. I expect nothing less from you. If the breaking news from the Middle east came and said Netanyahu walked on Water. You would on here posting in a flash that he couldn't swim. Aside from lay down and die, there is nothing they could do to satisfy you..... So therefore since rational discussion and proof are beyond your limited ability to understand the conflict I will refrain from replying to your inane posts.

Spoken like a true tyrant. I asked for an official recognition. You could not provide one because one doesn't exist. Official Israeli policy is to steal more and more land from the Palestinians. Not a recognition they have a right to a sovereign state.

You got official recognition from two Priministers. And you claims Hamas recognized Israel. You wouldn't know truth if it walked up and shook your hand. I gave you quotes and citations of where they were spoken. You have provided no proof. I always prefer clarity to agreement. Your position is clear. You just have no facts to back it up.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

As for making a Jewish State, after the Nazi's wiped out 66% of world Jewry, which by the way was a Genocide. There was Jewish State formed so that would not happen again. If you don't like that well you know what you can do.

One atrocity does not justify another. The Jews wiped out roughly the same proportion of Palestinian Arabs to make room. By your logic, there should be a Palestinian state to make sure this never happens again.

This is the last time I will respond to you. You are a liar, Plain and simple. You have proof that 66% of the Palestinians have been killed by Israel. Show it. You can't because it does not exist. At the end of WWII in 1945 there were 66% less Jews alive in Europe. Please provide citations for your false assertions that 66% of the Palestinians were killed.

 

[arkirk]

Spoken like a true tyrant. I asked for an official recognition. You could not provide one because one doesn't exist. Official Israeli policy is to steal more and more land from the Palestinians. Not a recognition they have a right to a sovereign state.

You got official recognition from two Priministers. And you claims Hamas recognized Israel. You wouldn't know truth if it walked up and shook your hand. I gave you quotes and citations of where they were spoken. You have provided no proof. I always prefer clarity to agreement. Your position is clear. You just have no facts to back it up.

Look Mr. HaRaAyaH You seem to think there are people, you know, human beings who don't have the right to seek out a good life for themselves. Somehow you avoid the realization that here are two societies with millions of living humans and they are not even remotely getting along with each other. So here you come, pick out the side you surmise is least developed, most savage, and the wrong color and race and systematically accuse those people of all manner of things that definitely are not true and could not be true. There is only one reason and aim we who are outside this conflict should seek anything but an end to the violence. It really is not our place to justify the heaping on of punishment on people on either side.

If your interest is in continual war with the "savages," you are doing nobody a good turn. Nobody combatant in this conflict is innocent. When peace is finally obtained, it will be the result of a lot of forgiveness on both sides. The longer our country keeps sponsoring this slaughter in Gaza, the longer it is till there is any hope of peace.

 

[angelo]

When peace is finally obtained? That will never happen while Gaza is governed by a terrorist outfit who's mantra is the death of non muslims/ Jews especially.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

You got official recognition from two Priministers. And you claims Hamas recognized Israel. You wouldn't know truth if it walked up and shook your hand. I gave you quotes and citations of where they were spoken. You have provided no proof. I always prefer clarity to agreement. Your position is clear. You just have no facts to back it up.

Look Mr. HaRaAyaH You seem to think there are people, you know, human beings who don't have the right to seek out a good life for themselves. Somehow you avoid the realization that here are two societies with millions of living humans and they are not even remotely getting along with each other. So here you come, pick out the side you surmise is least developed, most savage, and the wrong color and race and systematically accuse those people of all manner of things that definitely are not true and could not be true. There is only one reason and aim we who are outside this conflict should seek anything but an end to the violence. It really is not our place to justify the heaping on of punishment on people on either side. If your interest is in continual war with the "savages," you are doing nobody a good turn. Nobody combatant in this conflict is innocent. When peace is finally obtained, it will be the result of a lot of forgiveness on both sides. The longer our country keeps sponsoring this slaughter in Gaza, the longer it is till there is any hope of peace.

I am merely responding to a false factual claim. I responded with documented facts. I too would like the killing stopped. Israel would better off advancing the free world with their technology than wasting it on the Iron Dome. But no matter how you drone on, it is clear that this course was chosen by Hamas. They can do only three things: Make a deal Defeat Israel Militarily Keep things as they are There really are no other choices for them. They will never choose number one and they have repeatedly said they will never choose number one except in the context of a Hunda which is a temporary cease fire until they can get number 2 on the list. Unless you have proof otherwise or see a solution that I don't see I don't know what you want the Israel's to do. If they just left Gaza alone, they would continue to be attacked. Hamas is sworn to their destruction. That is an irrefutable fact. Until that fact changes, nothing else changes. Look at all of the concrete that went into tunnels instead of hospitals or bomb shelters or housing for their people. You of course are free to impugn my motives all you want. I have said many times that all war is crime. I would prefer peace and most Israelis would also prefer peace. I would prefer that Palestinians choose life over death. They can't seem to make that choice. They prefer death. If you look at the two cultures and don't see a difference between they way they view life an death, you will have to get your eyes checked. They fire rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques inviting return fire knowing full well that their own people will become Martyrs. If today, the Palestinians wanted peace. There would be peace. They would have a state. The rest of the world would gladly pay for it. They won't. They just can't seem to do it.

 

[Jayjay]

One atrocity does not justify another. The Jews wiped out roughly the same proportion of Palestinian Arabs to make room. By your logic, there should be a Palestinian state to make sure this never happens again.

This is the last time I will respond to you. You are a liar, Plain and simple. You have proof that 66% of the Palestinians have been killed by Israel. Show it. You can't because it does not exist. At the end of WWII in 1945 there were 66% less Jews alive in Europe. Please provide citations for your false assertions that 66% of the Palestinians were killed.

I did not say killed. I said wiped out. The same phrase you used to refer to what would happen to Israeli Jews if they were to disarm now. It's you who brought up the Holocaust as some sort of justification, I never said that they were equally bad, only that they affected an equal proportion of the population in question: two thirds of Jews kiled by Adolph Hitler, two thirds of Palestinian Arabs expelled from their home land.

If all you can respond with is strawmen arguments, maybe it is indeed better if you choose not to respond at all.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

This is the last time I will respond to you. You are a liar, Plain and simple. You have proof that 66% of the Palestinians have been killed by Israel. Show it. You can't because it does not exist. At the end of WWII in 1945 there were 66% less Jews alive in Europe. Please provide citations for your false assertions that 66% of the Palestinians were killed.

I did not say killed. I said wiped out. The same phrase you used to refer to what would happen to Israeli Jews if they were to disarm now. It's you who brought up the Holocaust as some sort of justification, I never said that they were equally bad, only that they affected an equal proportion of the population in question: two thirds of Jews kiled by Adolph Hitler, two thirds of Palestinian Arabs expelled from their home land. If all you can respond with is strawmen arguments, maybe it is indeed better if you choose not to respond at all.

wipe out vb (adverb) 1. (tr) to destroy completely; eradicate 2. (tr) to murder or kill Who is the straw man now. This only proves what I have said before Hamas can do know wrong and Israel can do no right on your eyes. Wiped out is killed and to say anything different is just bullshit and you are obviously full of it unless it means something else in Finnish or is that only in your mind.

 

[Derec]

Not completely, no.

More like: Not at all.

The aim was never to get rid of all the Palestinians, but merely to establish a local Jewish majority so as to control the land.

There are dozens of Arab states. What's wrong with having a single Jewish one? Why is it so vital for some to destroy Israel and turn the territory into one of many Arab states?

Hence the settlement program, which aims to establish Jewish majority throughout the entire country, and the discrimination against Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, to try and reduce the claim the Palestinians have on it as their capital.

Palestinians really have no claim to Jerusalem as their capital. It was the capital of Israel for a long time but was never a capital of Palestine (which was never a state anyway) nor of any other Arab state.
Some people also say Muslim Palestinians should get the old city of Jerusalem because it is considered the third most important city in Islam. But it is the most important city in Judaism but I guess that counts for nothing.

Nonetheless, a great many Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed from Israel and from settlement areas around Israel that it is trying to claim as part of it's state, and a great many have ended up in Gaza, hence the crowds.

Wrong. In 1950 population of Gaza Strip, even with those that left Israel proper, was only 240,000, hardly a crowd. It is almost 2 million now, an eight-fold increase without any further "refugees" coming from Israel (in fact some left Gaza during the 1967 war, i.e. exactly the opposite of your claim). The reason for this exponential growth is the medieval mentality of having as many children as possible coupled with modern medicine that greatly reduces childhood and mother mortality rates and thus makes the aforementioned mentality not only unnecessary but also detrimental because exponential growth is unsustainable in the long term.
In other words, Israel is not responsible for Gaza being such an overpopulated strip of land. The Gazans should try family planning for a change.

And could you please distinguish between Palestinians and 'Arabs'. Just because you can't tell towel-heads apart, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

There isn't much of a difference other than geographical location. In fact, "Palestinians" as a distinct ethnic group was pretty much invented by the PLO. Before then it was merely a geographical area.

No there have been continual blockades and restrictions well before that point.

Not continual because otherwise you could not distinguish them in the first place.
The reality is that Israel has been trying to give Palestinians a greater degree of freedom and autonomy. For example after Oslo and before Arafat walked out on Camp David negotiations. After Arafat called for a campaign of terrorism (so-called 2nd Intifada) there were increased checkpoints, restrictions etc. and for a good reason - to protect Israel from Palestinian terrorism.
And in 2005 Israel decided to disengage from Gaza. Settlers were evacuated, military pulled out. As a sign of good will greenhouses were left for Palestinians to use. What was the result of giving Gaza this freedom? Greenhouses destroyed. Rockets launched. Hamas took over. Only then was the current blockade put in place, and again for a very good reason.
Even anti-Israel commentators speak of blockade being in effect since 2007 because there was no blockade before then but rather a cycle of Israel giving Palestinians more freedom and they reacting with more terror.

Yes, Israel did cause that situation.

Israel is not causing them to have unprotected sex. Again, even with the refugees, the Gaza Strip population in 1950 was less than a quarter of a million people. Even through most of 1990s the population was less than a million. The place didn't become crowded until fairly recently.

They threw these people off their own land, and they ended up in a giant refugee camp staring through the barbed wire at where they used to live.

That was almost 70 years ago (not to mention that your interpretation of events is highly flawed). Pining for places like Ashdod and Ashkelon is counterproductive. Gazans could have made a good, free and prosperous life for themselves in Gaza. Instead they chose the path of wanting to destroy Israel and make the entire area into Palestine.

You're blaming the Palestinians for Israel not allowing them to go home.

Israel is not their home. And again, Gaza Strip is not crowded because 1948 War of Independence refugees were pushed there by the millions but because of subsequent exponential population growth that continues unabated.

Yes, that is basically the problem.

... with your anti-Israeli rantings.

How are we going to discuss the matter and reach a reasoned conclusion if you refuse to even read what other people post?

I read what you and others post/

Well, what are the reasons for attacking a large building with high explosives? You might want to kill people in the building, but we're talking about cases where people are warned to quit the building first. Similarly if you're targeting a building and give people time to evacuate, there's no obvious reason why they can't take their man-portable rockets with them when they leave. A large store would be hard to move perhaps, but that clearly doesn't apply to a small house, or an individual apartment, where there isn't space

10 years ago Hamas et al had mostly such small rockets. They have grown substantially larger over time. Which makes them a much bigger threat to Israel but also much harder to evacuate within minutes.

And then you can look at what is consistent with other Israeli actions, where they regularly bulldoze local businesses.

For what reason was the business demolished? Also source please.

Again they're not trying to trap anyone in the building, and if they wanted to catch weapons stores they wouldn't be giving people days to evacuate. They just want the building gone.

Days? More like minutes. At least that's the case during this operation "Protective Edge". Demolitions for things like building code violations are a very different matter obviously.

If you don't agree with the article, then it probably shouldn't have been presented as evidence to support you.

What does that have to do with the fact that so-called "Gaza policemen" are heavily armed Hamas thugs and thus fair game.

I suspect that the article avoids your blanket definition of militant because if you just define it as anyone who might be armed, then you run into the problem that almost all Israeli citizens of draft age are a lot more heavily armed than a Palestinian policeman.

Israeli citizens, when not deployed, do not walk around with fully automatic rifles.

You're not allowed to kill people unless they're actively engaged in hostilities against you. You can't kill retired soldiers, citizens with military training (I.e. most Israelis), hospitalised soliders, etc. It's precisely to stop the situation where you wholesale slaughter police, ambulance, fire and so on just because they have equipment and training that might be useful in battle.

Since Hamas is directly engaged in hostilities against Israel heavily armed Hamas fighters are legitimate targets even if they are officially members of the "police". As far as ambulances, such protected entities only retain their protection while they are not engaged in hostilities. When Hamas stores and shoots rockets from schools and hospitals or use ambulances as a Hamas battlefield personnel carrier then they cannot maintain protected status and Hamas is solely responsible for them losing protection.

Of course you're already been openly calling for murder already, so that may not bother you.

I have not, but you claiming I did is probably a violation of the forum rules. Mods?

 

[Togo]

I have not, but you claiming I did is probably a violation of the forum rules. Mods?

Is this not a call for murder?

To get back to what Israel should do, how about assassinate Hamas leaders, first and foremost Khaled Mashaal. But properly this time! No, slow acting poisons, a 9mm brain hemorrhage is much more reliable.

 

[Derec]

Is this not a call for murder?

Not any more than killing Bin Laden was. Or all those drone attacks on known terrorists in Yemen or Pakistan by the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the last time I will respond to you. You are a liar, Plain and simple. You have proof that 66% of the Palestinians have been killed by Israel. Show it. You can't because it does not exist. At the end of WWII in 1945 there were 66% less Jews alive in Europe. Please provide citations for your false assertions that 66% of the Palestinians were killed.

I did not say killed. I said wiped out. The same phrase you used to refer to what would happen to Israeli Jews if they were to disarm now. It's you who brought up the Holocaust as some sort of justification, I never said that they were equally bad, only that they affected an equal proportion of the population in question: two thirds of Jews kiled by Adolph Hitler, two thirds of Palestinian Arabs expelled from their home land.

If all you can respond with is strawmen arguments, maybe it is indeed better if you choose not to respond at all.

"Wiped out" normally means killed. You don't get to redefine words to make things seem much worse than they are.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is this not a call for murder?

Not any more than killing Bin Laden was. Or all those drone attacks on known terrorists in Yemen or Pakistan by the US.

Israel should just pay off Al Quaida to name these guys the number two people in their organization and the US will have them all killed off by the end of the week.

 

[Togo]

Is this not a call for murder?

To get back to what Israel should do, how about assassinate Hamas leaders, first and foremost Khaled Mashaal. But properly this time! No, slow acting poisons, a 9mm brain hemorrhage is much more reliable.

Not any more than killing Bin Laden was. Or all those drone attacks on known terrorists in Yemen or Pakistan by the US.

So... murder then.

To be fair, Bin Laden was tried, although the legality of that is arguable.

You don't get to redefine words to make things seem much worse than they are.

So we're not going to redefine murder to exclude assassination then.

 

[Derec]

So... murder then.

No.

So we're not going to redefine murder to exclude assassination then.

Since Mashaal is the commander of a group (a terrorist group no less as even the spineless EU recognizes) that is engaged in hostilities against rockets killing him is not "murder".

 

[Jayjay]

I did not say killed. I said wiped out. The same phrase you used to refer to what would happen to Israeli Jews if they were to disarm now. It's you who brought up the Holocaust as some sort of justification, I never said that they were equally bad, only that they affected an equal proportion of the population in question: two thirds of Jews kiled by Adolph Hitler, two thirds of Palestinian Arabs expelled from their home land. If all you can respond with is strawmen arguments, maybe it is indeed better if you choose not to respond at all.

wipe out vb (adverb) 1. (tr) to destroy completely; eradicate 2. (tr) to murder or kill Who is the straw man now. This only proves what I have said before Hamas can do know wrong and Israel can do no right on your eyes. Wiped out is killed and to say anything different is just bullshit and you are obviously full of it unless it means something else in Finnish or is that only in your mind.

If you recall, earlier in the thread you had a hypothetical as to what would happen if Israel were to lay down its arms. You said that the Arabs would "wipe them out". If you meant "killed" in that context, you would have been full of shit, because you know as well as anyone that it would not lead to Jews being killed wholesale as in a holocaust, merely them moving back to Europe and a smaller minority of those who left behind being subservient to the Muslims.

So, I figured that because you are a reasonable person, apply a broader definition of "wiping out" that would cover not only outright killing everyone but also ethnic cleansing by means of expulsion and forced emigration. Which is pretty much what the Jews did to Arab Palestinians in 1948.

Your being stuck on a definition of a term is what's ridiculous. Are you saying, that if Arabs were to win a war against Israel at some point in future, and would do what Jews did to them (expel 70% of them abroad without right to return), it would not qualify as ethnic cleansing, or as an atrocity? Sure if would not be atrocity on the same level as the Holocaust, but so what? It's not like the holocaust is some sort of standard that now has to be surpassed in order to condemn something, or that it gives the Jews some sort of special right to commit atrocities of lesser nature to whomever they please.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

wipe out vb (adverb) 1. (tr) to destroy completely; eradicate 2. (tr) to murder or kill Who is the straw man now. This only proves what I have said before Hamas can do know wrong and Israel can do no right on your eyes. Wiped out is killed and to say anything different is just bullshit and you are obviously full of it unless it means something else in Finnish or is that only in your mind.

If you recall, earlier in the thread you had a hypothetical as to what would happen if Israel were to lay down its arms. You said that the Arabs would "wipe them out". If you meant "killed" in that context, you would have been full of shit, because you know as well as anyone that it would not lead to Jews being killed wholesale as in a holocaust, merely them moving back to Europe and a smaller minority of those who left behind being subservient to the Muslims.

So, I figured that because you are a reasonable person, apply a broader definition of "wiping out" that would cover not only outright killing everyone but also ethnic cleansing by means of expulsion and forced emigration. Which is pretty much what the Jews did to Arab Palestinians in 1948.

Your being stuck on a definition of a term is what's ridiculous. Are you saying, that if Arabs were to win a war against Israel at some point in future, and would do what Jews did to them (expel 70% of them abroad without right to return), it would not qualify as ethnic cleansing, or as an atrocity? Sure if would not be atrocity on the same level as the Holocaust, but so what? It's not like the holocaust is some sort of standard that now has to be surpassed in order to condemn something, or that it gives the Jews some sort of special right to commit atrocities of lesser nature to whomever they please.

If they simply laid down their arms they likely would be killed before they had a chance to move to Europe.

 

[Arctish]

If you recall, earlier in the thread you had a hypothetical as to what would happen if Israel were to lay down its arms. You said that the Arabs would "wipe them out". If you meant "killed" in that context, you would have been full of shit, because you know as well as anyone that it would not lead to Jews being killed wholesale as in a holocaust, merely them moving back to Europe and a smaller minority of those who left behind being subservient to the Muslims.

So, I figured that because you are a reasonable person, apply a broader definition of "wiping out" that would cover not only outright killing everyone but also ethnic cleansing by means of expulsion and forced emigration. Which is pretty much what the Jews did to Arab Palestinians in 1948.

Your being stuck on a definition of a term is what's ridiculous. Are you saying, that if Arabs were to win a war against Israel at some point in future, and would do what Jews did to them (expel 70% of them abroad without right to return), it would not qualify as ethnic cleansing, or as an atrocity? Sure if would not be atrocity on the same level as the Holocaust, but so what? It's not like the holocaust is some sort of standard that now has to be surpassed in order to condemn something, or that it gives the Jews some sort of special right to commit atrocities of lesser nature to whomever they please.

If they simply laid down their arms they likely would be killed before they had a chance to move to Europe.

Which is why my answer to the hypothetical included people wondering how Jews could be so stupid. I mean, really? They don't lay down their arms at the airport after printing out their boarding pass? They don't lay down their arms once their cruise ship has reached international waters? What the hell is wrong with them?

 

[Arctish]

There are dozens of Arab states. What's wrong with having a single Jewish one? Why is it so vital for some to destroy Israel and turn the territory into one of many Arab states?

It isn't vital to destroy Israel. What's vital is respecting human rights. If human rights are incompatible with the existence of Israel, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. A few simple reforms would resolve the matter, but it would mean Israel having to give up the notion of being a Jewish (as in Jewish religion) State, or one that is only Jewish in character. If Israel became a multi-cultural, secular state that respected the rights of all residents equally and without favor, that would go a long way toward resolving the human rights issued that plague it.

It's important for people to have a say in their government. It's important for them to have a government that looks out for their best interests, even when their interests are conflicting or when there's disagreement about what is best. And it's important for people to live in their own homes and communities without being molested, harassed, oppressed, or forced out by others who want to take it from them.

Why can't the Palestinians stay in their homes and communities? Why should they be forced to become the subjects of foreign kings and dictators? What reason is there, besides racism and religious bigotry, to refuse to allow the refugees to go home, to deny they even have a home anymore now that European immigrants live in it? And why must Palestinians continually make way for Israelis? Why not require Israelis to make way for Palestinians at least as often and as much?

Palestinians really have no claim to Jerusalem as their capital. It was the capital of Israel for a long time but was never a capital of Palestine (which was never a state anyway) nor of any other Arab state.
Some people also say Muslim Palestinians should get the old city of Jerusalem because it is considered the third most important city in Islam. But it is the most important city in Judaism but I guess that counts for nothing.

No one forgets it. But a lot of Zionists are hostile to the notion that Muslims and Christians have an equal claim to the city, despite the thousands of years Christians and Muslims have lived there and how Jerusalem fits into the religious beliefs of both faiths. The way some people tell it, Christians and Muslims only care about Jerusalem because Jews want it, and they're big meanies who don't want Jews to have anything nice.

The reality is that Israel has been trying to give Palestinians a greater degree of freedom and autonomy. For example after Oslo and before Arafat walked out on Camp David negotiations. After Arafat called for a campaign of terrorism (so-called 2nd Intifada) there were increased checkpoints, restrictions etc. and for a good reason - to protect Israel from Palestinian terrorism.

More baloney abut the Oslo Accords. So tell me, what did the Israelis offer in place of the Oslo Accords? Was it better or worse than the deal Arafat and Rabin shook hands on, the one Arafat wanted upheld?

 

[HaRaAYaH]

It isn't vital to destroy Israel. What's vital is respecting human rights. If human rights are incompatible with the existence of Israel, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. A few simple reforms would resolve the matter, but it would mean Israel having to give up the notion of being a Jewish (as in Jewish religion) State, or one that is only Jewish in character. If Israel became a multi-cultural, secular state that respected the rights of all residents equally and without favor, that would go a long way toward resolving the human rights issued that plague it.

Then it will NEVER happen. Israel is a Jewish state. There are over 20 Arab states. If they want to form another Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza and call is Palestine. That's fine with me.

It's important for people to have a say in their government. It's important for them to have a government that looks out for their best interests, even when their interests are conflicting or when there's disagreement about what is best. And it's important for people to live in their own homes and communities without being molested, harassed, oppressed, or forced out by others who want to take it from them.

Then form one. That is what Hamas was supposed to be doing instead it drags them into war after.

Why can't the Palestinians stay in their homes and communities? Why should they be forced to become the subjects of foreign kings and dictators? What reason is there, besides racism and religious bigotry, to refuse to allow the refugees to go home, to deny they even have a home anymore now that European immigrants live in it? And why must Palestinians continually make way for Israelis? Why not require Israelis to make way for Palestinians at least as often and as much?

The land was split into two states in 1948. They decided not to exercise their right to declare statehood. If they don't want to be subject to kings and dictators they will have to negotiate with the people that control the land they want.

Palestinians really have no claim to Jerusalem as their capital. It was the capital of Israel for a long time but was never a capital of Palestine (which was never a state anyway) nor of any other Arab state. Some people also say Muslim Palestinians should get the old city of Jerusalem because it is considered the third most important city in Islam. But it is the most important city in Judaism but I guess that counts for nothing.

Let's see who is being realistic. Jews have been in Jerusalem for a long time. They are coming back to their land. King David declared it the Capital in 1004 BCE. That would be about 1600 years before Islam existed. The second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So the Jews claim on Jerusalem goes back aways. They are returning to their land. By the way. There is no time you can show that Jerusalem was not majority Jewish in the last 140 years. Yes from the 1880's Jews constituted the majority in Jerusalem.

No one forgets it. But a lot of Zionists are hostile to the notion that Muslims and Christians have an equal claim to the city, despite the thousands of years Christians and Muslims have lived there and how Jerusalem fits into the religious beliefs of both faiths. The way some people tell it, Christians and Muslims only care about Jerusalem because Jews want it, and they're big meanies who don't want Jews to have anything nice.

Let's see when the Arabs controlled Jerusalem did the Jews or Christians control their Holy Sites? No. When Israel retook Jerusalem in 1967, one of the first things they did was turn control over the Dome of the Rock to the Muslims.