Israel, not Hamas, is the serial truce-breaker

Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Beta said:
If this situation were changed, where the US was against some random country (say Mexico), would the US keep agreeing to ceasefires to allow Mexico the ability to keep reloading their guns and have a stronger offensive once the ceasefire was inevitably ended? Or would the US keep beating the #### out of Mexico until they gave up and their threat was completely eliminated? How come the people who whine about Israel, but defend the US, are holding Israel to a different standard? They're trying to defend themselves from terrorists. Get a ####ing clue!
Click to expand...

Before I can answer your hypothetical question I must first ask if you have thought about this happening under Obama or under a real American President.

More than likely Obama would either surrender or give Mexico the States of California, New Mexico and Arizona, and Texas would once again become the Lone Star State, as they would have to fight again for their independence.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Beta said:
If this situation were changed, where the US was against some random country (say Mexico), would the US keep agreeing to ceasefires to allow Mexico the ability to keep reloading their guns and have a stronger offensive once the ceasefire was inevitably ended? Or would the US keep beating the #### out of Mexico until they gave up and their threat was completely eliminated? How come the people who whine about Israel, but defend the US, are holding Israel to a different standard? They're trying to defend themselves from terrorists. Get a ####ing clue!
Click to expand...

We know this one! We'd send everyone over plus all their gear, whip ass for awhile, call our own time out, totally create more problems and animosity than there was in the first place, with even more people, then, after getting enough of our people killed and piss away a trillion or two, we'd leave.

Did I get it right????
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Beta said:
Or would the US keep beating the #### out of Mexico until they gave up and their threat was completely eliminated?
Click to expand...


I am all for depopulating the Middle East to say 1850s levels, a few doz A-rabs living in tents
.... Eurocrats and the UN tend to frown on Genocide
... which is exactly what the A-Rabs want to do to Israel
 
JosephIV

JosephIV

New Member
Muslims in Israel have a better standard of living on average (for their income level) than Muslims in Muslim Countries. A Muslim woman was Valedictorian at Israel's prestigious Technion University last year. Damn those Israeli's! Letting people of all faiths and both sexes achieve their dreams! Who do they think they are? America?
 
mamatutu

mamatutu

mama to two
Can you say blunder. Kerry made a doozy. Now, the admin is backtracking. Gotta love this admin, or not! What an embarrassment of an absolute attempt at pushing an agenda; it is all about Hamas.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
mamatutu said:
Can you say blunder. Kerry made a doozy. Now, the admin is backtracking. Gotta love this admin, or not! What an embarrassment of an absolute attempt at pushing an agenda; it is all about Hamas.
Click to expand...

In the anals of our country (yes Anals, not annals) I cannot think of any one less qualified to be Secretary of State.

This MF gigolo war criminal was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 94 to 3.

What does that tell you about the Senate of the United States of America?
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Hijinx said:
In the anals of our country (yes Anals, not annals) I cannot think of any one less qualified to be Secretary of State.

This MF gigolo war criminal was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 94 to 3.

What does that tell you about the Senate of the United States of America?
Click to expand...
It tells you that they found a way to get rid of him since the Massholes wouldn't.
 
Beta

Beta

Smile!
Not that nhboy bothers reading or participating in topics after he posts his worthless crap, but I found this interesting: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...-shows-hardline-views-but-some-pragmatism-too

Summary: less than 30% of Palestinians support a "two-state solution." What that means is they want Israel gone. So much for being peaceful. Apparently they have a 5 year goal to abolish Israel. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/29/world/meast/gaza-conflict-numbers/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

But yeah, sure, it's Israel that is always on the offensive and breaking truces. One wants peace and the other wants annihilation. I wonder how that works. :rolleyes:
 
F

FollowTheMoney

New Member
The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up
the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism.
The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist
movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish
state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased
back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed
a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized
without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t
based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
 
LibertyBeacon

LibertyBeacon

Unto dust we shall return
FollowTheMoney said:
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up
the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism.
The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist
movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish
state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased
back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed
a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized
without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t
based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
Click to expand...

Good luck with *that* in the hive mind.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
FollowTheMoney said:
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up
the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism.
The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist
movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish
state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased
back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed
a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized
without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t
based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
Click to expand...

Well we have the two positions neither is correct, but you believe what you like.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
FollowTheMoney said:
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up
the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism.
The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist
movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish
state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased
back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed
a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized
without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t
based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.
Click to expand...

Great stuff! Very interesting and a great big "So what?"

Do we give Texas back to Mexico? Return California? How about giving native American's their land back? Should we devolve every nation and every state back to it's 'original' roots? Or maybe to the people who 'owned' it before those people did? Where do we stop?

This is complete utter nonsense. What matters are OUR interests. Sometimes that means we'd like things the way they were; kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Sometimes, we'd like things to change; Cuban throw off their communist ties. Other times, we just sort of muddle through. However, something needs to guide our reasoning and that is freedom and liberty. I think we made a grave mistake killing those things in their crib in Iran in the 1950's. I think we're doing the right thing siding with Israel over the years.

Why? Because, like Iran in the 50's, Israel is an adherent to the ideas and philosophies of individual liberty and responsibility and justice. Most any one of us would be at home and do just fine in Israel. I don't think many, if any, of us would do well and be fine in Palestine. or Egypt. Or Saudi. Or Beirut.

The oppression is not just coming from the Israeli's in terms of Gaza. We tend to forget, if we even realize it, how the Arab nations have, over the years, done more than their fair share to oppress, fence in and control Palestinians. It serves THEIR interests to focus attention on Israel instead of their own problems.

We can coffee shop talk forever about what belongs to whom and when and why or we can, as Westerners, say, hey, we have a lot more in common with Israel than Palestinians. And it all boils down to this;

If the Palestinians laid down their arms today and vowed to live in peace with Israel, there would be peace between the two sides.
If the Jews laid down their arms today and vowed to live in peace with the Palestinians, there would not be peace. There would be a lot of dead Jews.

Unless and until that second part of the equation changes, there will not be peace and it will be the fault of the Palestinians and their like-minded friends.

It's that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top