Israeli Palestinian Conflict Thread

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by motownguy

Both the US and British severly restricted Jewish immigration after WWII. If my memory is correct, Jewish refugees were denied "asylum" status and had to have sponsoring families already in the US. One of the historical reasons that both the EU countries and the US have supported Israel is because that didn't want to deal themselves with the influx of a large Jewish population.

It's also a prevelant myth that all the Jews who came to inhabit the state of Israel showed up post-WWII. Jerusalem and it's surrounding areas, for instance, have had a Jewish majority population since 1896.


*MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Oh, no, of course. Why would ANY Jews show up after fervent Zionists established a nation upon their holy land? That just doesn't make sense.

Did I say all? I did not. There is no reason for you to make that connection.

Is it possible for there to be a Jewish majority population, and yet still the majority of current inhabitants arrived after the creation of Israel? (I'm going to give you a hint: the answer is "absolutely")

And your points about British and US unwillingness are moot; did the Jews decide to value safety over rights granted by religion? The Jews made their choice of which place to force their way into, and their choice was the least safe.

For some reason you've decided to ignore entirely my point that the Palestinians owe the Jews nothing. If you're going to put in a claim for retribution or compensation for grievances committed, it is only reasonable to ask it of the offenders. No civilized court of law convicts a man of murder and puts a different man to death as punishment for the former's crimes. Had the Jews forced their way into western Germany, and demanded a piece of the country be used to form a Jewish nation, there would be much less of an issue over any violence the people of that nation might commit. They would have gained land from those who wronged them, and would be fighting against those who wronged them.

I agree that there should be actions taken to prevent Jewish persecution, but there are limits. What has happened here is the Jewish prosecution has successfully argued its case, so it requires that the judge extract payment from no one on the defendant's side or even anyone in the courtroom, but extract payment all the same.

The only justification one could have for forcibly seizing retribution from the Palestinians is that the world at large is responsible for any crimes committed within the world. If Jews suddenly started immigrating to any American state without regard for our laws, and bombed our buildings when we resisted, and declared the state a sovereign property of the Jewish people, would you endorse that?

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

What is the likelihood Hamas's attacks will stop? Pretty slim, I'm betting. And that is the only gain there is.

Right, there was nowhere else to go but a place where there would be guaranteed persecution and resistance.

Right, because since Jews were persecuted by other countries, Palestinians have to pay up.

There are many options for protection beyond creating a sovereign nation (have you heard of a quaint little place called the United States of America?)

Yeah, but I don't see why they should have to move. I don't consider it, because they were already living where the Israelis are. Why is it up to them to move, then? If Zionists were determined to live there, they can either deal with the consequences or get out.

Because they were living there.

A Jewish state in that region is completely unnecessary, and was formed by people not living in the region. Why would you side with a people whose charter is to seize whatever land they want, whenever they want, be it illegally and/or by force.

There's never going to be any peace if you're justifying wars based on cultural differences. The fact is, Palestinians did not reach out beyond their land and mess with Jews. Jews did, however, reach out beyond where they were living and mess with Palestinians. That is a aggression, and should not be rewarded.

So we solve crime by committing crime?

Why do the Palestinians owe the Zionists anything?

Why are you pretending that the hostility towards Jews in the Middle East is exactly equal to the hostility present in other countries? Are there no countries more accepting of Jews than others? Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to simply immigrate to these areas?

And if you're worried about hostility towards Jews, Zionists have contributed to that. The British didn't have so much of a problem, until the Zionists started illegally immigrating and blowing shit up when they didn't get their way. That's not good PR. But the Jews can do whatever they want, can't they?

It would be wonderful if Palestinians agreed to permanently lose land that was once theirs, lost through no fault of their own. But if they don't, the Jewish people will die before they surrender a land that they gained through aggression.

Sounds very reasonable, and not extreme at all.

I'm no longer addressing anything you say. If you don't know what I want you to respond to, that means you twice made an argument, and twice ignored the responses to it, and now know nothing of what anyone said in response. Which means, according to the evidence, if I actually had a case against you, you would never read it.

I will get back to you in more detail, but for starters, having read your comments I believe I understand your thought process. I would like you to practice what you preach, so if you do actually reside in Virginia and are not full blooded Assateague, then get the fuck out. There. See how easy that was?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by motownguy

I will get back to you in more detail, but for starters, having read your comments I believe I understand your thought process. I would like you to practice what you preach, so if you do actually reside in Virginia and are not full blooded Assateague, then get the fuck out. There. See how easy that was?

The removal of current residents based on prior land ownership is exactly what I argued against. One should not hold generations entirely removed from the land conflict responsible for something they never took part in, or had a say in.

If I did not think that generations entirely removed from the conflict were not responsible for prior ownership of land, why would I not support Israel? I am not absurd, but the odd, illogical surrogate for me that you have created in your mind is. You have taken the opinions and views of my opponents, and labeled them as mine. When you're ready to continue a discussion in reality, I will be right here.

The seizing of land in the current and present day should be prevented, however. The land conflict is ongoing, and the current generations are not removed from it, and so are responsible for it.

You have no idea what I preach, and you have no idea what I say, you are just another biased troll trying to slam his view as hard as he can into anyone who will listen, without regard for reason, logic, structured argument, or the full comprehension of someone else's point of view.

Incidentally, DaveNJ is the one who put forth that Jews have a right to Israel because they owned it way the fuck long ago. WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU NOT BUSTING HIS BALLS?! You just got on my case about the very same opinion that I never voiced, so you are now obligated to find fault with him for it, or else you expose yourself as a ridiculous sham of an intelligent person. Ask him to practice what he preaches, or else you are a disgusting hypocrite.

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Oh, no, of course. Why would ANY Jews show up after fervent Zionists established a nation upon their holy land? That just doesn't make sense.

Did I say all? I did not. There is no reason for you to make that connection.

Is it possible for there to be a Jewish majority population, and yet still the majority of current inhabitants arrived after the creation of Israel? (I'm going to give you a hint: the answer is "absolutely")

And your points about British and US unwillingness are moot; did the Jews decide to value safety over rights granted by religion? The Jews made their choice of which place to force their way into, and their choice was the least safe.

For some reason you've decided to ignore entirely my point that the Palestinians owe the Jews nothing. If you're going to put in a claim for retribution or compensation for grievances committed, it is only reasonable to ask it of the offenders. No civilized court of law convicts a man of murder and puts a different man to death as punishment for the former's crimes. Had the Jews forced their way into western Germany, and demanded a piece of the country be used to form a Jewish nation, there would be much less of an issue over any violence the people of that nation might commit. They would have gained land from those who wronged them, and would be fighting against those who wronged them.

I agree that there should be actions taken to prevent Jewish persecution, but there are limits. What has happened here is the Jewish prosecution has successfully argued its case, so it requires that the judge extract payment from no one on the defendant's side or even anyone in the courtroom, but extract payment all the same.

The only justification one could have for forcibly seizing retribution from the Palestinians is that the world at large is responsible for any crimes committed within the world. If Jews suddenly started immigrating to any American state without regard for our laws, and bombed our buildings when we resisted, and declared the state a sovereign property of the Jewish people, would you endorse that?

Actually, what you are arguing is for land that was won in war to be given back to the loser because you like the loser better. What other war gains would you like to reverse? Did you want Rome to rule? How about giving Scotland back to the Scots and Wales to the Welsh? Texas back to the Mexicans and let's see: how about we let the South secede? I do so love a Charleston accent and South Carolina never did surrender.

"You're a fucking idiot." That's your answer? Name calling? Followed by the assertion that you are "not absurd" and that anyone who doesn't agree with your premise that Israel should never have existed in the first place is a troll.

Intelligent and informed people can and often do disagree on solutions to problems both past and current, often passionately. You've let anger and emotion take over. You've lost.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Actually, what you are arguing is for land that was won in war to be given back to the loser because you like the loser better. What other war gains would you like to reverse? Did you want Rome to rule? How about giving Scotland back to the Scots and Wales to the Welsh? Texas back to the Mexicans and let's see: how about we let the South secede? I do so love a Charleston accent and South Carolina never did surrender.

"You're a fucking idiot." That's your answer? Name calling? Followed by the assertion that you are "not absurd" and that anyone who doesn't agree with your premise that Israel should never have existed in the first place is a troll.

Intelligent and informed people can and often do disagree on solutions to problems both past and current, often passionately. You've let anger and emotion take over. You've lost.

Really? So I don't have a point that generations not responsible for the actions of their predecessors shouldn't have to pay up? You're still insisting that I want prior war gains reversed. That's contrary to my position, and since you have nothing against me, you are using what I have not said against me. That is really weak. I have little preference for Palestinians; in fact, I like Israel and Israelis more than Palestinians. But preferences are no substitute for determining what is right. That's why we have a word to describe an inability to judge a situation properly because of preferences: "bias". You're making stuff up as fast as you can. You just can't fathom that what you're arguing wouldn't make sense, so you have to make things up in order to justify it.

Did I call you a troll, Alexandra? Did I? I did not. Because I don't think you are. I think Dave and what's his face are. You're making crap up, though, like they like to do. You're making accusations that are unfounded. If my accusations of trolling were dictated by how you claim, I would have labeled you one already. Would you not agree that being entirely unfamiliar with an opponent's stance yet still trying to prove him wrong does not further discussion? Would you not agree that ignoring rebuttals entirely does not further discussion? Those are fair lines to determine biased, unreasonable behavior.

Not to mention, it's a real big fucking cop out when you think the word "fuck" or harshness of tone is out of place on the Keith and the Girl forums. It's the norm, not out of place.

This really is sad that any opposition that won't ignore valid points has dropped the issues completely and is desperately trying to insist that I say and do things I do not. The evidence is here, plain as day.

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

...

Dude,

You're all over the place. There isn't a nation on this earth that sprang into it's place, pristine and shiney, glistening with dew from God's highball glass.

Am I being a troll, by needling you and making sparse commentary? If I don't address every point you make, it may be because I just don't value them enough to take the time. It's also possible that someone else, with whom I agree, has already taken you to task on the matter.

Is it possible for there to be a Jewish majority population, and yet still the majority of current inhabitants arrived after the creation of Israel? (I'm going to give you a hint: the answer is "absolutely")

Of course the majority of Jews arrived after the creation of Israel. It's also true (and cited in my post) that the population of people calling themselves "Palestinians" grew exponentially since 1949. My point was that there were Jews living the British Mandate of Palestine, and quite a lot of them in certain areas. I'm not sure where the debate is here.

And your points about British and US unwillingness are moot; did the Jews decide to value safety over rights granted by religion? The Jews made their choice of which place to force their way into, and their choice was the least safe.

So are saying that rights can be conferred by religion? If so, you seem to be agreeing that the Jewish people should live in Israel. If, however, you write for shit, then you seem to be saying that the Jews forced their way into a British colonial protectorate (for that is what it was) and somehow managed to bully the Crown into giving them the land. My point isn't moot, it is that the US and England decided "better there than here" concerning the Jewish refugees and created Israel as the modern state that exists today. Look up the facts, thousands of European Jews who were trying to get to the US, England, and Palestine were put in holding camps and then relocated by the British. I'm not saying that many of them didn't want to go to what is now Israel, but you are ascribing an incredible amount of power to a disorganized group of refugees whose military capability was essentially nil.

For some reason you've decided to ignore entirely my point that the Palestinians owe the Jews nothing. If you're going to put in a claim for retribution or compensation for grievances committed, it is only reasonable to ask it of the offenders. No civilized court of law convicts a man of murder and puts a different man to death as punishment for the former's crimes. Had the Jews forced their way into western Germany, and demanded a piece of the country be used to form a Jewish nation, there would be much less of an issue over any violence the people of that nation might commit. They would have gained land from those who wronged them, and would be fighting against those who wronged them.

True, I ignored your point. I ignored it because it seemed ridiculous. Of course the Palestinians don't owe the Jews anything. I'm also not putting any kind of claim out there. I am suggesting that we deal with the facts of today, not everyone's idea of whether or not Israel should or should not exist. Israel exists, therefore, to pretend like it shouldn't is only useful if you're a leader feeding your people rhetoric instead of bread (or sand, or whatever). Continously arguing about whether or not something exists is boring to me and I am not hanging out on the forums to increase my boredom, rather, I seek to aleviate it, particularly during conference calls. Israel exits. People claiming to be the dispossessed of Palestine exist. Sometimes the parties talk and sometimes they shoot. These facts are not in dispute.

I agree that there should be actions taken to prevent Jewish persecution, but there are limits. What has happened here is the Jewish prosecution has successfully argued its case, so it requires that the judge extract payment from no one on the defendant's side or even anyone in the courtroom, but extract payment all the same.

The only justification one could have for forcibly seizing retribution from the Palestinians is that the world at large is responsible for any crimes committed within the world. If Jews suddenly started immigrating to any American state without regard for our laws, and bombed our buildings when we resisted, and declared the state a sovereign property of the Jewish people, would you endorse that?

The removal of current residents based on prior land ownership is exactly what I argued against. One should not hold generations entirely removed from the land conflict responsible for something they never took part in, or had a say in.

If I did not think that generations entirely removed from the conflict were not responsible for prior ownership of land, why would I not support Israel? I am not absurd, but the odd, illogical surrogate for me that you have created in your mind is. You have taken the opinions and views of my opponents, and labeled them as mine. When you're ready to continue a discussion in reality, I will be right here.

The seizing of land in the current and present day should be prevented, however. The land conflict is ongoing, and the current generations are not removed from it, and so are responsible for it.

Judges and juries only apply, in my opinion, when the swords are sheathed. If the parties in question are around the table, talking it out, bless them. Bless all of them. Work it out, make concessions, figure things out. However, I think that once the sword comes out, it is asinine to talk about "proportional" responses and "equitable" force. No, I subscribe to the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Any state is a priori charged with the protection of it's citizens. This is the basic nature of a nation state. To put it in the venacular, "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun ... that's the Chicago way." If the various enties who represent the dispossessed of Palestine go from talking to violence, then I think that Israel should come down on them like a ton of bricks. Stay at the table and nobody gets hurt. The Israeli state was created in it's modern form when the colonial government essentially said, "you guys can have a country over here." Did the British government have a right to do that? Well, now we've got a whole different discussion on our hands, don't we? This discussion, by the way, involves the former colonial territory of Virginia. The two are logically linked.

As far as your point about generational absolution goes, where would you draw the line? What for instance, would the cutoff be for when the sins of the fathers suddenly matter no more? Are you suggesting that the Jews who were living during the late 1940's in Israel are to blame, but the ones born after 1950 or who lived there before 1947 are without guilt? I suppose that might be a worthwhile gamebit at the negotiating table. Just for fun, let's pretend that Israel agrees to kick out all the Jews who showed up in 1947 and will readmit all the peoples of Palestine who were kicked out that same year. Tit for tat, but all the others on both sides stay where they are.

You have no idea what I preach, and you have no idea what I say, you are just another biased troll trying to slam his view as hard as he can into anyone who will listen, without regard for reason, logic, structured argument, or the full comprehension of someone else's point of view.

Incidentally, DaveNJ is the one who put forth that Jews have a right to Israel because they owned it way the fuck long ago. WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU NOT BUSTING HIS BALLS?! You just got on my case about the very same opinion that I never voiced, so you are now obligated to find fault with him for it, or else you expose yourself as a ridiculous sham of an intelligent person. Ask him to practice what he preaches, or else you are a disgusting hypocrite.

How, CB, can I have no idea what you preach or say, unless you are the troll and the words you have said so far were just to rile us all up?

On your last point, I will concede. DaveNJ, that is an argument not worthy of your intelligence and considered nature. I urge you to put it aside as an emotional, rather than logical, assertation. I think you'll find your other points sufficient to carry your case forward.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by motownguy

Dude,

You're all over the place. There isn't a nation on this earth that sprang into it's place, pristine and shiney, glistening with dew from God's highball glass.

Okay?

Originally Posted by motownguy

Am I being a troll, by needling you and making sparse commentary? If I don't address every point you make, it may be because I just don't value them enough to take the time. It's also possible that someone else, with whom I agree, has already taken you to task on the matter.

Oh, okay. I guess that's what DaveNJ is doing. He just doesn't value them. So, essentially, you are seriously endorsing my mocking of his stance?

Originally Posted by motownguy

Of course the majority of Jews arrived after the creation of Israel. It's also true (and cited in my post) that the population of people calling themselves "Palestinians" grew exponentially since 1949. My point was that there were Jews living the British Mandate of Palestine, and quite a lot of them in certain areas. I'm not sure where the debate is here.

You specifically said it is a common misconception that all Jews arrived in Israel after the formation of the nation. Since that statement is inherently wrong, as no one thinks all did, I substituted "majority" for "all". If you agree the majority of Jews arrived after the creation of Israel, what was the major misconception?

It was never brought into question whether or not there were Jews in Palestine. There were. If you're not sure what the debate is here, it's because you brought up a redundant, pointless point.

Originally Posted by motownguy

So are saying that rights can be conferred by religion? If so, you seem to be agreeing that the Jewish people should live in Israel. If, however, you write for shit, then you seem to be saying that the Jews forced their way into a British colonial protectorate (for that is what it was) and somehow managed to bully the Crown into giving them the land. My point isn't moot, it is that the US and England decided "better there than here" concerning the Jewish refugees and created Israel as the modern state that exists today. Look up the facts, thousands of European Jews who were trying to get to the US, England, and Palestine were put in holding camps and then relocated by the British. I'm not saying that many of them didn't want to go to what is now Israel, but you are ascribing an incredible amount of power to a disorganized group of refugees whose military capability was essentially nil.

I was not saying rights were granted by religion. I find it interesting that you jump into the middle of an argument, without any knowledge of the argument thus far. You're just looking to push your view on people, nothing more, as we can see by that action alone.

Does breaking the law require military force?

Doesn't Hamas demonstrate the power of an ill-equipped force?

The facts are as follows: the British discouraged Jewish immigration into Palestine, including making it flat out illegal at one point. When the UN demanded they make a Jewish state, they refused. The British supplied military forces to the Arabs to fight the Jews.

How, then, did the Jewish people manage to gain land from people who did not want them to have it, and from owners who did not want them to have it?

Originally Posted by motownguy

True, I ignored your point. I ignored it because it seemed ridiculous. Of course the Palestinians don't owe the Jews anything. I'm also not putting any kind of claim out there.

By supporting Israel, you are inherently putting that claim out there.

Originally Posted by motownguy

I am suggesting that we deal with the facts of today, not everyone's idea of whether or not Israel should or should not exist. Israel exists, therefore, to pretend like it shouldn't is only useful if you're a leader feeding your people rhetoric instead of bread (or sand, or whatever). Continously arguing about whether or not something exists is boring to me and I am not hanging out on the forums to increase my boredom, rather, I seek to aleviate it, particularly during conference calls. Israel exits. People claiming to be the dispossessed of Palestine exist. Sometimes the parties talk and sometimes they shoot. These facts are not in dispute.

This is just a lame way of dismissing the very viable solution that is mass exodus from Israel.

Originally Posted by motownguy

Judges and juries only apply, in my opinion, when the swords are sheathed. If the parties in question are around the table, talking it out, bless them. Bless all of them. Work it out, make concessions, figure things out.

You're trying to obscure an analogy by applying things where they ought not be applied. You understand the meaning of the analogy, and, since you cannot address the meaning directly, you seek to break down the metaphorical representations in the hopes of undermining the point you are hiding from.

Originally Posted by motownguy

However, I think that once the sword comes out, it is asinine to talk about "proportional" responses and "equitable" force. No, I subscribe to the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Any state is a priori charged with the protection of it's citizens. This is the basic nature of a nation state. To put it in the venacular, "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun ... that's the Chicago way." If the various enties who represent the dispossessed of Palestine go from talking to violence, then I think that Israel should come down on them like a ton of bricks. Stay at the table and nobody gets hurt. The Israeli state was created in it's modern form when the colonial government essentially said, "you guys can have a country over here." Did the British government have a right to do that? Well, now we've got a whole different discussion on our hands, don't we? This discussion, by the way, involves the former colonial territory of Virginia. The two are logically linked.

It's interesting where you draw the lines as to where the current conflict started. It did not start with the illegal immigration of Zionists into Palestine. It did not start with the Zionist aggression towards hostile British rulers and Palestinians. It did not start with the Zionists claiming a land they were the minority in the sole and sovereign property of their people. But it did start with retaliation for those measures? That makes no sense.

The British DID NOT MAKE ISRAEL. Why do you think that? The British refused to create a Jewish state, the people of the land did not want a Jewish nation state. The UN, a completely irrelevant body created Israel after Britain left Palestine. This shows that not only have you ignored areas already covered in this discussion, but you do not know the facts, you have not researched the subject, and yet you still have a fervent opinion on the matter. How in the world is this not unfair bias?

The creation of Virginia is not in question. They are similar situations, yes, but one is ongoing and one is not, and I have already clarified my position between the two.

Originally Posted by motownguy

As far as your point about generational absolution goes, where would you draw the line? What for instance, would the cutoff be for when the sins of the fathers suddenly matter no more? Are you suggesting that the Jews who were living during the late 1940's in Israel are to blame, but the ones born after 1950 or who lived there before 1947 are without guilt? I suppose that might be a worthwhile gamebit at the negotiating table. Just for fun, let's pretend that Israel agrees to kick out all the Jews who showed up in 1947 and will readmit all the peoples of Palestine who were kicked out that same year. Tit for tat, but all the others on both sides stay where they are.

I am saying as soon as a generation is born that does not take part in a conflict over the land, they should not be held accountable. The conflict over the land is ongoing, so the people there are part of the conflict, so they are responsible for what happens during it. If Israel steamrolled Palestine, I would not hold the next generation accountable.

Originally Posted by motownguy

How, CB, can I have no idea what you preach or say, unless you are the troll and the words you have said so far were just to rile us all up?

What? Dude, you flagrantly accused me of having a stance that is contrary to my real position. My stance has not changed throughout the entire discussion that you have only partially read. You have no idea what I say, and that's a fact.

Originally Posted by motownguy

On your last point, I will concede. DaveNJ, that is an argument not worthy of your intelligence and considered nature. I urge you to put it aside as an emotional, rather than logical, assertation. I think you'll find your other points sufficient to carry your case forward.

You'd find them sufficient, because you did not read the gaping flaws in his logic. You read neither his logic, nor my identification of the flaws. You are not familiar with the situation, as you have proven constantly. Read the history of the region, then read this whole thread, and then you should continue this. Otherwise you just undermine your own case.

[Alexandra]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Really? So I don't have a point that generations not responsible for the actions of their predecessors shouldn't have to pay up? You're still insisting that I want prior war gains reversed. That's contrary to my position, and since you have nothing against me, you are using what I have not said against me. That is really weak. I have little preference for Palestinians; in fact, I like Israel and Israelis more than Palestinians. But preferences are no substitute for determining what is right. That's why we have a word to describe an inability to judge a situation properly because of preferences: "bias". You're making stuff up as fast as you can. You just can't fathom that what you're arguing wouldn't make sense, so you have to make things up in order to justify it.

Did I call you a troll, Alexandra? Did I? I did not. Because I don't think you are. I think Dave and what's his face are. You're making crap up, though, like they like to do. You're making accusations that are unfounded. If my accusations of trolling were dictated by how you claim, I would have labeled you one already. Would you not agree that being entirely unfamiliar with an opponent's stance yet still trying to prove him wrong does not further discussion? Would you not agree that ignoring rebuttals entirely does not further discussion? Those are fair lines to determine biased, unreasonable behavior.

Not to mention, it's a real big fucking cop out when you think the word "fuck" or harshness of tone is out of place on the Keith and the Girl forums. It's the norm, not out of place.

This really is sad that any opposition that won't ignore valid points has dropped the issues completely and is desperately trying to insist that I say and do things I do not. The evidence is here, plain as day.

Wow, someone needs to take a valium, a deep breath and wait for it........................read the FUCKING post.

let's see:

1. The word Fuck does not upset me. At all. Namecalling, however - regardless of who it is adressed to (unless in good fun between friends) is not a mature form of arguement, it's a cop out made by an immature man who knows he's lost but can't admit defeat gracefully.

2. Making things up? Now that's pretty much a case of: "you spot it, you got it".

3. Here's my arguement one more time (and in crayon for ya) regarding land rights. Israel was granted the parcel of land called Israel by the British in 1948. Since then there have been several wars which have increased the land of Israel, most notably the war of '67. Israel has given some of the land that they WON to the "palestinians" in trade for peace. In return, those folks elected themselves a group of terrorists to lead them. (That's Hamas) Hamas is not interested in peace, and to their credit, they have never been deceitful about that point. I believe their charter bears that point out better than I ever could. Hamas is now using that land to launch missles at Israel, stage kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, and recruit for homicide bombers. So, Israel has every right to defend themselves from that threat. Remember the land rights? Since there is no peace, for which the land was traded, IMHO, Israel has every right to take every square inch of that land back. So yes, since you think the Gaza strip should belong to the palestinians after it was won in war by Israel and given to the palestinians in trade for peace and those recipients don't want to live in peace, I believe you are arguing to reverse prior war gains.

Now in reality, the land of Israel is very difficult to defend militarily and the borders will almost certainly keep changing until such time as there ceases to be a group of people who hate Jews more than they love their own children. When that time comes, however, then there can be a Palestine and an Israel striving to build a better life for themselves and their children. I think Mohammed Sadala is ready for that: Gaza in Ruins: 'Who Has Won Here?' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Here's my hope: that the palestinians get sick and tired of the life they lead under Hamas and rise as one to overthrow their terrorist leaders. I further hope that the people who live in the gaza strip choose peace, because if they do nothing but live in peace, Israel will bend over backwards providing resources and medical care and education. How'd that be for you?

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by Alexandra

1. The word Fuck does not upset me. At all. Namecalling, however - regardless of who it is adressed to (unless in good fun between friends) is not a mature form of arguement, it's a cop out made by an immature man who knows he's lost but can't admit defeat gracefully.

So you're going to entirely ignore my point that it is just habit and ease of speech? Really? Or it wasn't mild frustration and someone obfuscating the point by inventing things? It was me secretly knowing I lost? Get the fuck out of here, cunt.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

2. Making things up? Now that's pretty much a case of: "you spot it, you got it".

Don't address the things I said you made up. You might see that you did.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

3. Here's my arguement one more time (and in crayon for ya) regarding land rights. Israel was granted the parcel of land called Israel by the British in 1948.

Not by the British. You know nothing, just like that other idiot.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Since then there have been several wars which have increased the land of Israel, most notably the war of '67. Israel has given some of the land that they WON to the "palestinians" in trade for peace. In return, those folks elected themselves a group of terrorists to lead them. (That's Hamas) Hamas is not interested in peace, and to their credit, they have never been deceitful about that point. I believe their charter bears that point out better than I ever could. Hamas is now using that land to launch missles at Israel, stage kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, and recruit for homicide bombers. So, Israel has every right to defend themselves from that threat. Remember the land rights? Since there is no peace, for which the land was traded, IMHO, Israel has every right to take every square inch of that land back. So yes, since you think the Gaza strip should belong to the palestinians after it was won in war by Israel and given to the palestinians in trade for peace and those recipients don't want to live in peace, I believe you are arguing to reverse prior war gains.

I wasn't saying I wasn't asking to reverse war gains in this instance, I said I wasn't asking to reverse war gains across the board as you accused, as evidenced by your talk about irrelevant nations.

Originally Posted by Alexandra

Now in reality, the land of Israel is very difficult to defend militarily and the borders will almost certainly keep changing until such time as there ceases to be a group of people who hate Jews more than they love their own children. When that time comes, however, then there can be a Palestine and an Israel striving to build a better life for themselves and their children. I think Mohammed Sadala is ready for that: Gaza in Ruins: 'Who Has Won Here?' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Here's my hope: that the palestinians get sick and tired of the life they lead under Hamas and rise as one to overthrow their terrorist leaders. I further hope that the people who live in the gaza strip choose peace, because if they do nothing but live in peace, Israel will bend over backwards providing resources and medical care and education. How'd that be for you?

This is a complete Zionist victory dressed up as a compromise.

[motownguy]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

This is just a lame way of dismissing the very viable solution that is mass exodus from Israel.

You are continuing to suggest a voluntary mass exodus from Israel as a viable solution. Show me a precedent where a nation has voluntarily left the land it holds to become a nation in exile and we can talk. When you suggest such a proposition as "viable" I can't take you seriously.

More later, Alexandra just pulled dinner out of the oven. Shabbat Shalom!