What should Israel do?

[untermensche]

[video]http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4478.htm[/video]

I hope this video plays here and see for yourself just what Israel has to live with.

What about what the Palestinians have had to live with for decades?

When you oppress people for decades you make them angry.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They *USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists.

Are you saying Israel used it's settlers as human shields? That Israel encouraged Jews to settle on stolen land in the Occupied Territories because their presence would attract terrorism, thereby sparing Israel itself? That's evil. That's even more evil that the way Israel treats Palestinians. But your opinion supports my observation that the settlements had nothing to do with keeping Jews safe. The settlements might have been built to keep the State of Israel safe, as you believe, or they might have been built to fulfill Zionist ambitions of a Jewish State in all of Eretz Yisrael, as I believe, but either way the settlers were deliberately put in in harm's way by Israel itself.

I'm not saying they used them as human shields. The attacks would have happened anyway, those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target.

It's just like we get the lightning rod effect from the existence of Israel.

Since Fatah no longer does much and there are no settlements in Gaza they no longer provide protection. That's not to say that dismantling them wouldn't cause harm, though. Not only is there the huge financial cost but it's a culture where it would be taken as a sign of weakness and thus encourage more attacks.

Or it would be taken as a clear indication that Israel was abandoning it's program of ethnic cleansing and Jewish hegemony in Palestine, and was instead genuinely seeking peace and fair dealings with its neighbors.

The Palestinians aren't interested in fair dealings, they are interested in conquest.

As for the USS Liberty--mistakes happen in war. Israel thought the Liberty was an Egyptian ship pretending to be American--thus signs of it being American were treated as part of the deception.

Where did you hear that? Does your source explain why the Israelis would have believed the Egyptians had anything in their navy that could have been mistaken for the Liberty, since Egypt had nothing of the sort? Or are we just supposed to believe the Israelis are stupid?

You're assuming perfect knowledge. Good luck figuring out how big a ship is from the air.

Can you find a modern example of Israel aiming at non-combatants?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, or we might skip over something important. Both sides claim to be responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading?

In other words, you can't support your position.

The basic pattern is Hamas shoots at civilians and Israel shoots at Hamas.

- - - Updated - - -

For pity's sake...

The fact that you are identifying your hate-group by a different set of criteria doesn't make the process any more logical. You're still employing exactly the same logic as racists. Now, if you honestly believe that racists are entirely logical and are simply picking on the wrong targets, then this isn't a problem for you, but if, like most of the civilised world, recognise that the reasoning being employed as somehow flawed, then you using identical logic is also flawed, for the same reasons.

To object to someone based on what they are is wrong.

What's the problem with objecting to someone based on how they act, though? Fundamentalist Islamists seek to cram it down our throat. The only question is just how far they'll go in the attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

[video]http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4478.htm[/video]

I hope this video plays here and see for yourself just what Israel has to live with.

What about what the Palestinians have had to live with for decades?

When you oppress people for decades you make them angry.

They attacked before there was any oppression.

 

[Togo]

For pity's sake...

The fact that you are identifying your hate-group by a different set of criteria doesn't make the process any more logical. You're still employing exactly the same logic as racists. Now, if you honestly believe that racists are entirely logical and are simply picking on the wrong targets, then this isn't a problem for you, but if, like most of the civilised world, recognise that the reasoning being employed as somehow flawed, then you using identical logic is also flawed, for the same reasons.

To object to someone based on what they are is wrong.

What's the problem with objecting to someone based on how they act, though?

Racists have a negative stereotype of members of a particular racial group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether they fit the stereotype or not.

You have a negative stereotype of members of this group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether it fits or not. That's why you keep on producing absurd blanket statements such as 'Palestinians have no interest in fair dealings.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To object to someone based on what they are is wrong.

What's the problem with objecting to someone based on how they act, though?

Racists have a negative stereotype of members of a particular racial group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether they fit the stereotype or not.

You have a negative stereotype of members of this group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether it fits or not. That's why you keep on producing absurd blanket statements such as 'Palestinians have no interest in fair dealings.'

The Palestinians have been brainwashed for so long that some pretty unreasonable positions are to be expected. It's not an inherent problem.

And you're not addressing the issue anyway--what's wrong with objecting to behavior? Fundamentalist Islamists want to impose their ideas on the world. The only question is how far they'll go in doing so.

It's the same as objecting to groups like the radical anti-abortion people that harass and attack abortion clinics. They're almost all white--does that make me racist against whites?

 

[Arctish]

Are you saying Israel used it's settlers as human shields? That Israel encouraged Jews to settle on stolen land in the Occupied Territories because their presence would attract terrorism, thereby sparing Israel itself? That's evil. That's even more evil that the way Israel treats Palestinians. But your opinion supports my observation that the settlements had nothing to do with keeping Jews safe. The settlements might have been built to keep the State of Israel safe, as you believe, or they might have been built to fulfill Zionist ambitions of a Jewish State in all of Eretz Yisrael, as I believe, but either way the settlers were deliberately put in in harm's way by Israel itself.

I'm not saying they used them as human shields. The attacks would have happened anyway, those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target.

It's just like we get the lightning rod effect from the existence of Israel.

You said the settlements "*USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists". Now you're saying it wasn't actually a human shield tactic but rather "those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target." So the settlements are bullet-magnets and bomb attractors, and Israel is okay with that. More than okay, in fact. Israel heavily subsidized the building of bullet-magnet bomb attracting housing, and encourages Jews to raise their families there.

That's still pretty evil, you know. If Israel knows the settlements are going to attract terrorism it has a duty to relocate its civilians to safer housing (preferably legal housing inside Israel), not entice even more Jews to go be lightning rods. And it has an even greater duty to ensure that anyone foolish or zealous enough to volunteer to be a lightning rod doesn't put their children in danger. If fully informed, consenting adults want to go trolling for terrorists, that's one thing, but taking their kids along shouldn't be allowed.

Since Fatah no longer does much and there are no settlements in Gaza they no longer provide protection. That's not to say that dismantling them wouldn't cause harm, though. Not only is there the huge financial cost but it's a culture where it would be taken as a sign of weakness and thus encourage more attacks.

Or it would be taken as a clear indication that Israel was abandoning it's program of ethnic cleansing and Jewish hegemony in Palestine, and was instead genuinely seeking peace and fair dealings with its neighbors.

The Palestinians aren't interested in fair dealings, they are interested in conquest.

If you want me to take this assertion seriously you'll have to support it with something other than more assertion.

You can start with the polls you have linked to in other threads.

As for the USS Liberty--mistakes happen in war. Israel thought the Liberty was an Egyptian ship pretending to be American--thus signs of it being American were treated as part of the deception.

Where did you hear that? Does your source explain why the Israelis would have believed the Egyptians had anything in their navy that could have been mistaken for the Liberty, since Egypt had nothing of the sort? Or are we just supposed to believe the Israelis are stupid?

You're assuming perfect knowledge. Good luck figuring out how big a ship is from the air.

Are you kidding, Loren? Pilots have been accurately reporting ship size and configurations since WWI. Air Forces have been installing cameras in planes doing reconnaissance since WWII. Those IDF pilots flew low enough to see the American sailors waving at them, and they waved back. They saw the flag, the uniforms, the radar dish and antennae arrays, the size of the deck, and the 30 foot tall numbers painted on the Liberty's side. But I guess you're going with the Jackie Mason defense: "We're Jews, we live in a desert. What do we know from boats?"

Can you find a modern example of Israel aiming at non-combatants?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, or we might skip over something important. Both sides claim to be responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading?

In other words, you can't support your position.

In other words, I asked a question and I'd like to see it answered, not buried in a pile of bullshit and attempts to change the subject.

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading, or not? I'm pretty sure I know what your honest answer will be, but I was asking angelo, and I'd like to give him some time to think about it.

They attacked before there was any oppression.

When, in your opinion, did the attacks start? Please provide a month and year.

 

[angelo]

[video]http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4478.htm[/video]

I hope this video plays here and see for yourself just what Israel has to live with.

What about what the Palestinians have had to live with for decades?

When you oppress people for decades you make them angry.

Fuck me dead! Why don't you take off the blinkers and look at it in a fair way! The Palestinians have been offered a state on more than one occasion. Each time they refused to a compromise which was and is land in exchange for peace.
What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated. No, they want nothing less than the complete destruction of the Israeli state and all Jews!

 

[Togo]

What about what the Palestinians have had to live with for decades?

When you oppress people for decades you make them angry.

Fuck me dead! Why don't you take off the blinkers and look at it in a fair way! The Palestinians have been offered a state on more than one occasion.

Not an independent one. They've been offered a small, balkanised state with the best bits still reserved for Israelis, controlled and patrolled by Israel militarily.

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

 

[angelo]

Fuck me dead! Why don't you take off the blinkers and look at it in a fair way! The Palestinians have been offered a state on more than one occasion.

Not an independent one. They've been offered a small, balkanised state with the best bits still reserved for Israelis, controlled and patrolled by Israel militarily.

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom? Prior to 1948 there were no such thing as Palestinians, only Arabs. You do know that over 1.5 million Arabs live peacefully within Israel right?

 

[arkirk]

Not an independent one. They've been offered a small, balkanised state with the best bits still reserved for Israelis, controlled and patrolled by Israel militarily.

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom? Prior to 1948 there were no such thing as Palestinians, only Arabs. You do know that over 1.5 million Arabs live peacefully within Israel right?

So now you are telling us that people living in Palestine only recently became Palestinians! The next thing you will be telling us that before the white men came to America, there were no native americans....just empty land. That kind of remark is dishonest and racist. Your argument does not allow for Arabs to have human rights and does not ever allow us to consider them as human beings. You don't consider them human and you will not allow others to consider they just might have some rights...regardless of what the Zionists think.

 

[angelo]

Not an independent one. They've been offered a small, balkanised state with the best bits still reserved for Israelis, controlled and patrolled by Israel militarily.

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom? Prior to 1948 there were no such thing as Palestinians, only Arabs. You do know that over 1.5 million Arabs live peacefully within Israel right?

So now you are telling us that people living in Palestine only recently became Palestinians! The next thing you will be telling us that before the white men came to America, there were no native americans....just empty land. That kind of remark is dishonest and racist. Your argument does not allow for Arabs to have human rights and does not ever allow us to consider them as human beings. You don't consider them human and you will not allow others to consider they just might have some rights...regardless of what the Zionists think.

Oh, and your anti-Semitism views are not racist?

 

[Togo]

Racists have a negative stereotype of members of a particular racial group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether they fit the stereotype or not.

You have a negative stereotype of members of this group, and apply that stereotype to everyone in the group irrespective of whether it fits or not. That's why you keep on producing absurd blanket statements such as 'Palestinians have no interest in fair dealings.'

The Palestinians have been brainwashed for so long that some pretty unreasonable positions are to be expected. It's not an inherent problem.

And you're not addressing the issue anyway--what's wrong with objecting to behavior?

There's nothing wrong with objecting to behaviour. If you want to object to abortion clinic bombers (who tend to be white) then you can object to bombers. If, however, you object to white people on the basis that that's the population that the abortion clinic bombers come from, you're being racist. Same behaviour, but in one case you're going after the behaviour, and in the other you're attributing the behaviour to group, and going after the group.

It's the same as objecting to groups like the radical anti-abortion people that harass and attack abortion clinics. They're almost all white--does that make me racist against whites?

If you object to whites because some of them bomb clinics, then yes, of course it does.

Looking at these threads, you don't object to kidnappers, or rocketeers, or even people with guns. You object to Palestinians.

 

[Togo]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

 

[angelo]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

The Israelis can also point to a long history going back millennia to that land as well. Much of the transfer was achieved by Jews buying land off the Arabs in the latter part of the 19-20th century..

 

[Togo]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

The Israelis can also point to a long history going back millennia to that land as well. Much of the transfer was achieved by Jews buying land off the Arabs in the latter part of the 19-20th century..

But not most of it. Even Loren doesn't try and claim that the settlement land was purchased. So, how was the transfer achieved?

Answer that, and you'll understand why people keep referring to stolen land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not saying they used them as human shields. The attacks would have happened anyway, those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target.

It's just like we get the lightning rod effect from the existence of Israel.

You said the settlements "*USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists". Now you're saying it wasn't actually a human shield tactic but rather "those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target." So the settlements are bullet-magnets and bomb attractors, and Israel is okay with that. More than okay, in fact. Israel heavily subsidized the building of bullet-magnet bomb attracting housing, and encourages Jews to raise their families there.

Human shield tactics require an intent to shield--and there was no such intent. The existence of settlers does nothing to stop the terrorists from attacking, there is no shielding.

That's still pretty evil, you know. If Israel knows the settlements are going to attract terrorism it has a duty to relocate its civilians to safer housing (preferably legal housing inside Israel), not entice even more Jews to go be lightning rods. And it has an even greater duty to ensure that anyone foolish or zealous enough to volunteer to be a lightning rod doesn't put their children in danger. If fully informed, consenting adults want to go trolling for terrorists, that's one thing, but taking their kids along shouldn't be allowed.

No, because the settlers do not cause any more attacks no matter what you might think. In fact, there is a slight safety improvement--the more spread out the population the fewer people in any one spot to be hit by a single attack.

You can start with the polls you have linked to in other threads.

So you admit you've seen them--how about noting the detail of them planning to continue the war even if they get a peace treaty.

Are you kidding, Loren? Pilots have been accurately reporting ship size and configurations since WWI. Air Forces have been installing cameras in planes doing reconnaissance since WWII. Those IDF pilots flew low enough to see the American sailors waving at them, and they waved back. They saw the flag, the uniforms, the radar dish and antennae arrays, the size of the deck, and the 30 foot tall numbers painted on the Liberty's side. But I guess you're going with the Jackie Mason defense: "We're Jews, we live in a desert. What do we know from boats?"

Size mistakes were common in the era before radar would tell you how big it was.

In other words, I asked a question and I'd like to see it answered, not buried in a pile of bullshit and attempts to change the subject.

The problem is you're assuming false things in your argument.

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading, or not? I'm pretty sure I know what your honest answer will be, but I was asking angelo, and I'd like to give him some time to think about it.

Where are the modern atrocities from Israel? All I hear are things like the so-called Jenin massacre--which vanished when subjected to scrutiny. 90% of the dead weren't.

They attacked before there was any oppression.

When, in your opinion, did the attacks start? Please provide a month and year.

When Israel announced it's intention to form a country. Before then it was fairly low level but it's been going on for centuries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

Most of it was government land. Most of the rest was owned by absentee landlords.

 

[Sarpedon]

And Russia has cultural ties to Ukraine going back centuries, and Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire until 1917.

This is why supporting Israel is poisonous to the USA. It forces us to endorse this historical justification for conquest that can be used by anyone. This isn't the first time it's bitten us in the ass.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

The settlements in question were controlled by the Kingdom of Jordan. The king at that time believed all of the tripe that was being spewed from Cairo and Damascus those early days of June 1967 that they were winning the war when in fact they had really lost the war the first day. Anybody who really has studied this will tell you the Israeli's begged King Hussein NOT enter the war. They did not want a three front war. Well in went the Jordanians and they lost the territory. When you have territory and you invade another country and lose the territory that's call tough sh**. You have to negotiate to get it back. Had Jordan not attacked Israel, they would still control the West Bank. When you wage aggressive war and lose, you don't get to set the terms of the peace.

Israel sent the following message to King Huseein through the UNTSO:

"We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the king will have to bear the full responsibility of the consequences."

 

[Jayjay]

What the fuck makes you think that if Israel pulled back to the pre 1967 borders the Palestinians would be satiated.

They offered that as the basis for peace terms. Is not keeping stolen land an unreasonable burden for Israel to bear?

Pardon? Stolen land from whom?

Prior to 1948, who owned the land the settlements stand on? Was it Jewish settlers, most of whom had yet to move to the Middle East, or was it Palestinians? Who has the land now? How was the transfer achieved, such that Palestinians can be shot simply for approaching the places they used to live in?

The settlements in question were controlled by the Kingdom of Jordan. The king at that time believed all of the tripe that was being spewed from Cairo and Damascus those early days of June 1967 that they were winning the war when in fact they had really lost the war the first day. Anybody who really has studied this will tell you the Israeli's begged King Hussein NOT enter the war. They did not want a three front war. Well in went the Jordanians and they lost the territory. When you have territory and you invade another country and lose the territory that's call tough sh**. You have to negotiate to get it back. Had Jordan not attacked Israel, they would still control the West Bank. When you wage aggressive war and lose, you don't get to set the terms of the peace.

Israel sent the following message to King Huseein through the UNTSO:

"We shall not initiate any action whatsoever against Jordan. However, should Jordan open hostilities, we shall react with all our might, and the king will have to bear the full responsibility of the consequences."

Yet, Israel made peace with King of Jordan, but kept oppressing Palestinians who had nothing to do with starting the war.

Sure, Israel can continue a military occupation until there are negotiations. But it cannot unilaterally annex land or oppress the civilian population that it occupies; annexation and changing borders can only happen as result of negotiation*. As for blaming Palestinians for refusing to negotiate, there is no amount of "negotiation" that would convince Israel give up East Jerusalem either.

(* Only exception in my opinion, though not recognized by international law, is if the annexation does not entail population transfers and all the people living or making their livelihood in the annexed land get full and equal citizenship rights. That's why nobody here is complaining about Golan Heights.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet, Israel made peace with King of Jordan, but kept oppressing Palestinians who had nothing to do with starting the war.

Sure, Israel can continue a military occupation until there are negotiations. But it cannot unilaterally annex land or oppress the civilian population that it occupies; annexation and changing borders can only happen as result of negotiation*. As for blaming Palestinians for refusing to negotiate, there is no amount of "negotiation" that would convince Israel give up East Jerusalem either.

(* Only exception in my opinion, though not recognized by international law, is if the annexation does not entail population transfers and all the people living or making their livelihood in the annexed land get full and equal citizenship rights. That's why nobody here is complaining about Golan Heights.)

More like Jordan made peace with Israel.

Everybody who has actually been willing to make peace with Israel without loading it down with impossible conditions has made peace with them.