Israel

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Egypt pushes resolution to condem Jewish Settlements

 

President Elect Trump Calls President Sisi and requests a veto on the resolution, and Egypt backs off resolution

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/egypt-sissi-trump-agreed-in-call-to-delay-un-vote-on-settlements/

 

PM Netenyahu calls President Putin, Russia brings up doubts about the resolution to the UNSC

 

http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-we-had-doubts-about-un-draft-tried-to-delay-vote/

 

POTUS and UK major players in bringing the proposal back on line by getting 

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-secretly-pulled-the-strings-on-un-security-council-vote-regarding-israels-illegal-settlements/5564972

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXPNnGRz5dU

 

Egyptian Media also publicly calling out Obama's cowardly duplicity by airing evidence of the US pushing for the resolution

 

Kerry "Israel must Pick Being Democratic Or Jewish — It Cannot Be Both"...how many non-Jewish democracies does this man see in the Middle East? It's a load of hogwash, and the last parting shots from a disgustingly anti-semitic administration

 

January 20th cannot come soon enough

 

 

 

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

So care to give me a loose TL;DR of the situation, with emphasis as to why you think this is a bad thing?

 

My understanding of Isreal-Palestine is kinda limited, but from what I get;

• Post WW2, the British Government amongst others have to deal with the massive influx of Jewish refugees. They do so by creating the safe-state of Isreal within terratory they own and displacing a lot of palestinains in the process, and tell them to go there, back to Zion.
• The British government promotly fucks off from the region (Both for Isreal and Palestine) and leaves Isreal to get on with it.
• Because of the culture and religious shock, on top of the displeasure of being relocated by the Jews, local tensions between Isreal and Palestine escalate into open conflict. Which has simmered for a few decades.
• Obviously attempts to make peace in the region has been desired for a long time.
• Isreal over the years manages to take a lot of Palestinian terratory, terratory that Palestine still believes is theres and still holds claim to.
• Isreal building settlements in these lands then promptly pisses the Palestinians off, and pisses off basically everyone who wants to see peace in the region (Which is basically every nation on earth).

That is my understand of the situation. So I don't see why sanctions preventing the Isreali's from building upon terratory Palestine feel it owns is a negative, because it does just serve to piss them off. If you want to build to peace, aggravating the other side isn't a good way to go about it. Trump's comments just seem to be simply based around being contrarian on the situation, becauses almost every nation and relevant organisation seems to have fallen behind telling Isreal to behave.

 

So I'd love an explanation as to 1) What of my understanding of the situation is wrong and 2) Why this resolution is a negative thing if our aims in the region is to build peace? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So care to give me a loose TL;DR of the situation, with emphasis as to why you think this is a bad thing?

 

My understanding of Isreal-Palestine is kinda limited, but from what I get;

• Post WW2, the British Government amongst others have to deal with the massive influx of Jewish refugees. They do so by creating the safe-state of Isreal within terratory they own and displacing a lot of palestinains in the process, and tell them to go there, back to Zion.
• The British government promotly fucks off from the region (Both for Isreal and Palestine) and leaves Isreal to get on with it.
• Because of the culture and religious shock, on top of the displeasure of being relocated by the Jews, local tensions between Isreal and Palestine escalate into open conflict. Which has simmered for a few decades.
• Obviously attempts to make peace in the region has been desired for a long time.
• Isreal over the years manages to take a lot of Palestinian terratory, terratory that Palestine still believes is theres and still holds claim to.
• Isreal building settlements in these lands then promptly pisses the Palestinians off, and pisses off basically everyone who wants to see peace in the region (Which is basically every nation on earth).

That is my understand of the situation. So I don't see why sanctions preventing the Isreali's from building upon terratory Palestine feel it owns is a negative, because it does just serve to piss them off. If you want to build to peace, aggravating the other side isn't a good way to go about it. Trump's comments just seem to be simply based around being contrarian on the situation, becauses almost every nation and relevant organisation seems to have fallen behind telling Isreal to behave.

 

So I'd love an explanation as to 1) What of my understanding of the situation is wrong and 2) Why this resolution is a negative thing if our aims in the region is to build peace? 

 

I wouldn't say you understanding is wrong, as much as incomplete for example there were fights over Israel before the situation in the West Bank and Gaza strip, it's just the latest goalpost move of the Palestinian forces

 

But here are few problem with the current settlement and Sec. State Kerry's speech on it

 

1. Equating Jewish Settlements and Palestinian Terrorism. Israel has been wracked by a wave of stabbings and shootings and rocket attacks from Palestinian terrorists over the last two years. Kerry spent a few minutes on that, but only in order to draw moral equivalence with Jews building additional bathrooms in East Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. “The truth is that trends on the ground, violence, terrorism, settlement expansion, and the seemingly endless occupation, they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides,” Kerry said. This is nonsense. Before there were any Jewish settlements – when Israel did not control Judea, Samaria, or Gaza – the Palestine Liberation Organization called for the “liberation” of Palestine, meaning the complete destruction of Israel. The problem isn’t people building homes. It’s Palestinians murdering Jews, and refusing to accept that any home built by a Jew ought to exist in the Middle East.

 

2. “If The Choice Is One State, Israel Can Either Be Jewish Or Democratic. It Cannot Be Both.” This is patently absurd. There has been one state in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean for some 50 years. That state has been democratic. This lie rests on two absurd contentions: first, that if Israel were to annex all Judea and Samaria, Jews would be outnumbered by Arabs; second, that if Israel were to annex all lands, Israel would have to grant all Palestinian Arabs full citizenship or face status as an apartheid state. The first claim is simply false – Jews outnumber Palestinian Arabs outside of the Gaza Strip by a factor of two-to-one, and Jews now have the equivalent birth rate of Palestinian Arabs, and will soon have a higher birth rate, as Caroline Glick points out, meaning that Jewish majority status will increase, not decrease. Second, the United States does not offer citizenship to all the people living within its borders, or over territories over which it has sovereignty. Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic are governed semi-autonomously, but citizens of Puerto Rico cannot vote in presidential elections in the United States. Israel could easily grant green cards to Palestinian residents while also giving them local control of their governance without a national vote.

 

3. Peace Will Only Be Realized With a Palestinian Terror State. The notion that peace depends on the establishment of a Palestinian terror state – and that’s what will be established, given that the unity government of the Palestinians now includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad alongside Fatah – is asinine. Israel has had to blockade Gaza because Hamas controls it, and is attempting to take military shipments from Iran. Adding another Iran-backed terror proxy state to the Middle Eastern map is a great way to encourage a two-front war against Israel, given the presence of Hezbollahstan on Israel’s northern border.

 

4. “No American Administration Has Done More For The Security of Israel Than Barack Obama’s.” To put it mildly, LOL. LOLOLOLOLOL. Funny guy, this Kerry. Here’s a timeline of Obama’s “support” for Israel. That timeline doesn’t even include the Iran nuclear deal or the current UN resolution hubbub.

 

5. Israeli Intransigence Is The Problem. Nope. Not even close. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 94.2 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, a corridor that would link that territory to the Gaza Strip, land swaps that would increase Palestinian land holdings, a formula for division of Jerusalem. Abbas refused the deal. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a similar deal. Yassar Arafat refused it. Palestinians have never accepted any deal offered by the Israelis. Israelis continue to offer. But the problem is clearly the mean, nasty Israelis. And by the way, that awful Netanyahu fellow offered to freeze settlements early in the Obama administration, and the Palestinians responded with violence.

 

6. Settlements Are Illegal. No, they aren’t. Kerry declared over and over that Israelis settling east of the so-called green line are living there illegally. That’s patent nonsense. He also suggested that no Jews would be allowed to live inside a new Palestinian state, because Jews would object – ignoring, of course, that Palestinians would quickly murder any Jew remaining in a Palestinian state, and Jews have a slight objection to being murdered. Right now, over a million Arabs live inside Israel. Virtually no Jews live in the Muslim world because they were expelled, and quickly absorbed into Israel.

 

7. Equating Palestinian Government With Israeli Government. Perhaps the most insane spectacle was Kerry suggesting that the Netanyahu government is beholden to the “most extreme elements” in Israeli politics, while pooh-poohing Palestinian government support for terrorism. Kerry suggested that Hamas was a troublesome rogue group as opposed to an integral part of the Palestinian unity government.

 

8. Israel As Purported Burden To The United States. Kerry spent serious time talking about how the United States had subsumed its own interests in order to give military aid to Israel. Of course, the Obama administration has also given aid to the Palestinian unity terror government, and attempted to block weapons shipments in the middle of the Gaza terror war. And even the Obama administration says that such aid is good for the United States defense industry; a huge percentage of American aid to Israel is a subsidy to domestic defense contractors. Israel is America’s only democratic ally in the region.

 

9. The UN Resolution Changed Nothing. Kerry kept stating that the UN resolution didn’t do much to change the status quo. That’s false. This UN resolution said that all territories outside the 1949 Israel armistice lines – the “Auschwitz borders” – are occupied, including Jerusalem and holy sites like the Western Wall. It calls for all settlements in those areas “flagrant” violations of international law. There’s a reason Kerry pushed this thing through: of course it changes things.

 

10. The Obama Administration’s Maneuvers Help Peace. This is the opposite of the truth. America’s position for two decades has been that it would not cram down a peace deal on the Israelis and Palestinians – all issues would have to be resolved through bilateral negotiations. By placing the onus for all concessions on Israel and making Israel subject to the possibility of blowback from the International Court of Justice, Obama just allowed Palestinians to abandon any pretense at negotiations and stand on their newfound “rights.” The US strong armed countries ranging from Russia to New Zealand to push the agenda forward when it became clear that Trump had convinced the Egyptians to pull back 

TL;DR

 

It's hard to meet in the middle when Hamas's position is death to jews and desolation of the jewish state

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Israel is an apartheid state. There are checkpoints for Palestinians. There are roads where Palestinians cannot go or they are shot by settlers who then dance around the body. 

 

Baruch Goldstein shot up a mosque and massacred 29 people. He got an impressive enshrined tomb.

 

 

Veneration of Goldstein

In the weeks following the massacre, hundreds of Israelis traveled to Goldstein's grave to celebrate Goldstein's actions. Some Hasidim danced and sang around his grave.^[66] Although the government has said that those who celebrated the massacre represented only a tiny minority of Israelis, a New York Times report states that Israeli government claims may understate the phenomenon.^[66]

In a pamphlet titled Baruch HaGever^{[Note 1]} published in 1994, and a book of the same name in 1995, various rabbis praised Goldstein's action as a pre-emptive strike in response to Hamas threats of a pogrom, and wrote that it is possible to view his act as following five Halachicprinciples.^[67][68]

The phenomenon of the adoration of Goldstein's tomb persisted for years, despite Israeli government efforts to crack down on those making pilgrimage to Goldstein's grave site.^[69] The grave's epitaph said that Goldstein "gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land".^[70] In 1999, after the passing of Israeli legislation outlawing monuments to terrorists, the Israeli army acted to dismantle the shrine that had been built to Goldstein at the site of his interment.^[70] In the years after the dismantling of the shrine, radical Jewish settlers would celebrate Purim by invoking the memory of the massacre, sometimes even dressing up themselves or their children to look like Goldstein.^[32][69][71]

 

Meanwhile, Palestinians are force-fed in Israeli prisons because hunger-striking is considered "terrorism". 

 

"Security prisoners are interested in turning a hunger strike into a new type of suicide terrorist attack through which they will threaten the State of Israel. We will not allow anyone to threaten us and we will not allow prisoners to die in our prisons," said Erdan.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.661127

 

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

 

1. the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    

    

Kerry "Israel must Pick Being Democratic Or Jewish — It Cannot Be Both"...how many non-Jewish democracies does this man see in the Middle East? It's a load of hogwash, and the last parting shots from a disgustingly anti-semitic administration

 

American-armed rebellions in the Middle East don't leave much room for democracy. 

 

Oh, and I agree that it's a disgustingly anti-semitic administration, but keeping this in mind: 

 

Sem·ite

ˈsemīt/

noun

 

1. a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

[Resident Fascist]

So care to give me a loose TL;DR of the situation, with emphasis as to why you think this is a bad thing?

 

My understanding of Isreal-Palestine is kinda limited, but from what I get;

• Post WW2, the British Government amongst others have to deal with the massive influx of Jewish refugees. They do so by creating the safe-state of Isreal within terratory they own and displacing a lot of palestinains in the process, and tell them to go there, back to Zion.
• The British government promotly fucks off from the region (Both for Isreal and Palestine) and leaves Isreal to get on with it.
• Because of the culture and religious shock, on top of the displeasure of being relocated by the Jews, local tensions between Isreal and Palestine escalate into open conflict. Which has simmered for a few decades.
• Obviously attempts to make peace in the region has been desired for a long time.
• Isreal over the years manages to take a lot of Palestinian terratory, terratory that Palestine still believes is theres and still holds claim to.
• Isreal building settlements in these lands then promptly pisses the Palestinians off, and pisses off basically everyone who wants to see peace in the region (Which is basically every nation on earth).

That is my understand of the situation. So I don't see why sanctions preventing the Isreali's from building upon terratory Palestine feel it owns is a negative, because it does just serve to piss them off. If you want to build to peace, aggravating the other side isn't a good way to go about it. Trump's comments just seem to be simply based around being contrarian on the situation, becauses almost every nation and relevant organisation seems to have fallen behind telling Isreal to behave.

 

So I'd love an explanation as to 1) What of my understanding of the situation is wrong and 2) Why this resolution is a negative thing if our aims in the region is to build peace? 

 

Pretty much. Honestly the whole situation is utterly absurd because both sides claim each other has no right to actually exist. Palestine claims Israel has no right to exist because it's "Historically Palestinian" territory, whatever that even means, and Israel claims Palestine has no right to exist due to not ever actually being a state and only being unified by terror organisations. Part of the problem came from how the borders were originally drawn for Israel and Palestine. I honestly don't see how the UN resolution would solve anything, since the two sides are hellbent on the absolute destruction of the other. Part of the blame can be traced back to the British Empire and their massacre of many of those against the formation of an Israeli state. Redrawing the borders will do nothing, as the extremists on the Palestinian side are hellbent to drive Israel back into the sea, where Israel continues to expand ignoring all sort of attempts to tell them to stop. 

 

 

 

Israel is an apartheid state. There are checkpoints for Palestinians. There are roads where Palestinians cannot go or they are shot by settlers who then dance around the body. 

 

 

You would likely set up checkpoints for a nationality that has been causing terrorist attacks in your state since it's formation. As mentioned earlier, there are a bunch of Arabs living in Israel, they don't seem to be having a problem. On the other hand, how many Middle Eastern countries are accepting of Jews? ...Like, none of them. I'm not condoning Israel's actions, but even if Israel is an apartheid state, so are many others in the Middle East. Also, the tomb was dismantled, as it says in the article you provided. Granted, it should have never been built in the first place. 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I think it's telling of something when we're at the point that hunger-striking is considered "a new form of terrorism against the Israeli state". The same "terrorism" employed by Gandhi. 

[vla1ne]

I think it's telling of something when we're at the point that hunger-striking is considered "a new form of terrorism against the Israeli state". The same "terrorism" employed by Gandhi. 

they're learning how to stop resistance before it becomes resistance. peaceful protest is hard to shut down if without strong propaganda.

[Resident Fascist]

I think it's telling of something when we're at the point that hunger-striking is considered "a new form of terrorism against the Israeli state". The same "terrorism" employed by Gandhi. 

 

Yeah, it's not like the Arabs are launching rockets into Israel every day, employing suicide bombings, attacks on civilians, and other completely cowardly and atrocious acts. There has never been an Independent Palestinian, Arab or Muslim state on the area where Israel currently sits. It's just the Arabs being greedy, and using their religion of violence in the same way as it has always been used. The Israeli Defence Force has been known to take extreme measures to prevent collateral damage, such as dropping leaflets, broadcasting radio messages, giving out text and phone calls to civilians living in areas that will be hit. When Israel attacked Egypt in the 70s, the Israeli Air Force went straight for Egyptian Air Bases, not cities, not civilians, hell, they even tried to only destroy Egyptian military equipment. Meanwhile their unruly Arab neighbours are more than willing to stab, blow up, shoot and kill innocent Israelis and Arabs living within Israel. The very first action the Arab neighbours, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia took against Israel was to attack the 1-day old state, fully intent on destroying it. So yes, the Arabs started it. "But it's Arab land!" In recent history, the area known as Palestine was under Ottoman Rule. It wasn't an independent state, it was an area within the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of the Ottomans, it came under the control of the British. Again, not an independent state. Just an area within the British Empire. Following WW2, a treaty was passed that would split Palestine into an independent, Muslim, Palestinian State, and an independent, Jewish state. The borders were fairly drawn and the proposal was passed by the UN. While the borders were by no means perfect, the amount of land given to both sides was roughly equal.

 

 But obviously, the Arabs couldn't possibly co-exist with another religion on what was "THEIR" land. "THEIR" land that they brutally conquered and stole from Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. There are 22 Islamic, Arabic-Speaking nations in the Middle East. None of these nations are democratic, have laws and rules that many other countries would consider backwards, and are generally underdeveloped shitholes full of goat shaggers. There is 1 Jewish State in the Middle East, which is democratic, has much higher religious freedoms than it's neighbours by a long shot. There is a decently large population of Muslims and Christians within Israel, and even present in it's government. A "Jewish" State in the terms that most Jews are non-secular is a state with a majority of Judaism practitioners. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a Islamic Theocracy where being a Non-Muslim is subject to high amounts of religious oppression, inability to practice your religion legally, and subject to Islamic punishments for breaking laws. It is rather safe to assume that the Israeli justice system is much more robust, fair and non-biased than the Saudi Arabian justice system, where one can receive such punishments as upwards of 100 whippings for "Insulting Islam", or be beheaded for "Homosexuality" or "Blasphemy". It's not just Saudi Arabia who uses this outdated system, many of the Middle East uses a justice system that was invented in the 600s. Women in Israel enjoy a much wider range of freedoms than their Arabic counterparts. Israeli women are allowed to drive, go outside, and be sexually autonomous and are not treated as second class citizens. Women in Saudi Arabia are seen as little more as objects. Women in Saudi Arabia must be accompanied by a man at all times while outside. Women cannot drive. Only recently could women vote, and matters of the state are handled by the absolute Monarchy anyway, so the people have as much say as tits. If a woman does not cover up, she is treated with the level of a prostitute, and raped. If a woman tries to file a case for rape, she can be executed. 

 

 Saudi Arabia is a disgusting place, and being the forefront of the Muslim world, it shows a lot of the atrocities present from the beginnings of Islam up until now. It's no surprise then, that, almost all of the hijackers in the September 11th Terrorist attacks were of Saudi origin. The best thing Donald Trump, and any future president of the US can do, is cut ties to Saudi Arabia, and publicly condemn the human rights atrocities that happen there almost on a daily basis. Left wing rhetoric states that Islamic-Inspired terrorist attacks only happen because of Western Intervention and support of Israel in the Middle East. This rhetoric severely starts to fall apart when you realise that, Muslims in countries where the West has had little to no influence are still actively oppressing other religions, like Christianity and Judaism. Churches in Egypt have been bombed, repeatedly. The more devastating attacks saved exclusively for Christian holidays, like Easter, and Christmas. That is because, to Muslims, anything that is not a Muslim is an "Infidel", a lesser being, and violence becomes almost permitted against that individual. These Christians, who had been in Egypt long before the Muslims came and took over, are subject to attacks by Islamic oppressors who have caused nothing but suffering for peoples of other religions since the very beginning of Islam. While there are many well meaning Muslims out there, and many who would condemn the actions of these terrorists, it's no secret that there is a disproportionate amount of terrorism inspired by Islam, the left wing simply doesn't want to accept the truth, because they'd rather pin the blame on the West, rather than accepting that by large, a lot of these people are not good. 

 

 Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say tomorrow, Benjamin Natanyhu says that Israel will lay down it's arms and no longer fight the Arabs. What happens? The Arabs invade Israel, kill thousands of people, and have absolutely no shame in what they've done because "muh religion".

 

 On the same token, the Arab neighbours state the same. We will fight no more. What happens? Israel exists as an independent Jewish state and doesn't start wars with it's Arab neighbours. Western media criticises Israel for occupying the West Bank of the Jordan River. However, the West Bank was only occupied as a response to the Jordanians entering the war against Israel, explicitly after the current Israeli PM urged the King of Jordan not to enter the war. In the same war, Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt. Both of these areas push Israel's border out, making it easier for Israel to defend itself. Then, Israel offered Egypt a deal. The ENTIRE Sinai Peninsula in exchange for recognising Israel, oil included. Israel gave back land that it could have used to defend itself to it's former enemy. Land that is bigger than Israel itself. But no, tiny Israel, no larger than the size of El Salvador, surrounded on all sides by neighbours who want it dead, is the villain. Again, in 2000, Israel offered the Palestinians close to 95% of Gaza. Their offer was refused, and met with suicide bombings. Israel has tried to be reasonable, multiple times. Israel is not perfect, by any means, but it's not a bad country. Israel has as much right to exist as any of it's surrounding Arab neighbours. The problem is, Arabs are funking awful neighbours. Tell me, when has Israel ever waged a war in offence? Never. Every action the Israelis have ever taken have been to defend their own nation, something every nation should and must have the right to do.

 

 Meanwhile, you have the leaders in Arab countries saying they will never make peace with Israel. You can't negotiate with terrorists, and Israel has long passed the point of being reasonable. Even if Israel was to suddenly lash out and occupy all of Palestine, retake the Sinai Peninsula, and start to push against it's Arab neighbours, it would be no less than the aggression Israel has faced since the day of it's inception. The fact Israel hasn't committed to all-out war against the Arabs is a pretty good example of the IDF. The Arabs have been known to fake scenes of "Israeli atrocities", so famous it's got it's own name, Pallywood. Even if all these stories were true, it's no less than the destruction and horror that the Arabs have visited upon Israel every day since 1947. The Arabs don't want peace, if they did, they'd have accepted many of the fair policies Israel has tried to create with it's neighbours. If Islam was truly a religion of peace, how has Islam been at war with a small nation that for all intent and purposes, has done little wrong, since 1947? Until a president of the US, or similar, grows some balls and tells the Arabs that Israel has every right to exist, as much as the promised independent Palestinian State (which they seemed to have no interest in forming), Israel will be wracked with rocket attacks, stabbings, bombings, and other atrocities committed by a so called "liberation" organisation. The Arab side of Palestine isn't, and never has been, under threat from the Israelis, until the Arabs attacked first. What, you want the whole area? You have the Middle East. The entire Middle East, filled with people speaking the same language, practising the same religion, and having the same culture. Can't 1 different state exist in the entire region? Is that unreasonable? Apparently so.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It is not without some measure of pride that I can make a 30-word post so apparently concise and thought-provoking as to require a 1577-word response.  

 

Let's see what I can achieve with pictures. In the mean time, tell me what you really think about "the Arabs". 

 

 

This would suggest that Islam is indeed a religion that especially emphasizes peace.

 

As would this, though this has more to do with highly Christian-populated countries beating highly Islamic-populated countries to the punch in industrializing and monopolizing war than with Islam being inherently this much more peaceful than Christianity. Either way, the result is Muslims are more peaceful. I'm a Christian, for the record. 

 

 

There are people willing to see beyond identity politics associated with their own race and religion, thankfully.  

[Resident Fascist]

 

It is not without some measure of pride that I can make a 30-word post so apparently concise and thought-provoking as to require a 1577-word response.  

 

Let's see what I can achieve with pictures. In the mean time, tell me what you really think about "the Arabs". 

 

 

 

No survey size. 78% of who? No source on who was actually interviewed, what was actually asked. This image explains nothing. I can pull random figures out of my arse, too:

 

The Palestine "Liberation" Organization existed before Israel occupied any part of Palestine past the UN borders. Muslims slaughtered Christians and Jews all across the Middle East, then when a state that would do very little to them is introduced, the first thing they do is attack it. You essentially added nothing by just randomly pulling figures out of nowhere and show one picture of some Jews saying they don't agree with Israel. But hey, keep supporting terrorists. But a guy shoots up a mosque and you scream "Apartheid!", meanwhile Muslims have been bombing Synagogues and Churches for years. Why in the funk are Muslims given a free pass?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Why does the moral argument matter? They are a different culture to any of ours, they live by a different code. It devalues the moral argument immediately because they abide by different standards, and thus different moralities.

 

The really big post is bsaically making an argument that Arabs are the inferior culture morally speaking, and thus they shouldn't be treated favourably here? But morality arguments don't really work in politics, nor do they really work towards a solution because it's just saying 'these people are bad and should feel bad'. I can't dispute that the Muslim governments in the region are awful, as one would expect from a backwards dictatorship, but that line of argument doesn't do much more than make one feel like they are a better person in my eyes.

 

We've had this disscussion before but the historic argument still doesn't suit you entirely; There have been Islamic Empires (Even if not independant states, but the overriding culture in the region matters more than the independant states bit) and such with control of the region of Palestine since 636 AD, with only a 100ishs year break of Christian ownership after the Crusades (1099-1187). From then onwards, up until 1920~ it was ruled by Islamic empires. It not a shock that Muslims feel the land belongs to them, especially compared to Jews, who haven't had a claim on the land since Roman times (Rome held the region from essentially 66AD. They kinda did the brunt of forcing the Jews out of the middle east from what I've been reading).

 

So, the cultures in the region have roots stretching back over 1000 years. The Jews don't. They do have some empires and legacies in the region that pre-date the Muslims, but the Muslims have held the land for a longer continual stretch, so you can understand why they feel they would be entitled to it. It's again, not a defence of what they do, but pointing out, they are justified in feeling that they own the f***ing land. I think that overweighs the 'Oh they should just let the Jews settle, it's only one Jewish nation there', that's not really the point of the 'It's our land'.

 

You can argue that the morals they hold are barbaric and outdated, which all of us will agree on. It's just that they don't share our morals. It means there's a good deal of perception bias at work in the moral argument. Which is why it's kinda pointless; you'll never convince them to back down due to morals when they abide by a different moral system.

 

EDIT; I don't really have much of an argument other than pointing out the flaw in the moral argument, because the evidence does suggest the problem lies with Palestine's refusual to back down. I would just advocate for carefully measured attempts at integration and moderisation, because that's all you can actually do in this kinda of situation.

 

EDIT 2: I have an anology for the 'it's my land'.

 

Imagine if one day, the UN decided to force everyone currently living in your hometown or city out, and then populate it with a completely different group of people. Say the French. You had no say in the matter, you are just told 'Well the French live here now, go do other things'. And despite the fact that the French need this city, it's the only place they can actually live safely, are you happy that your home, your life, your job ect ect, everything you knew has suddenly been taken by a bunch of radically different people you don't really like?

 

That's what I imagine the situation in Palestine is like, only with a bunch of people they are raised to view as inferior to them.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

No survey size. 78% of who? No source on who was actually interviewed, what was actually asked. This image explains nothing. I can pull random figures out of my arse, too:

 

It wasn't a completely random image, it was a Gallup poll. Gallup is a polling firm not known for pulling figures out of their arses, but granted I could've provided more context. Here it is: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx

 

For a stickler for sources, you provide absolutely none in your diatribes about all the horrors you allege of "the Arabs" (which is some sample size). 

 

The Palestine "Liberation" Organization existed before Israel occupied any part of Palestine past the UN borders. Muslims slaughtered Christians and Jews all across the Middle East, then when a state that would do very little to them is introduced, the first thing they do is attack it. You essentially added nothing by just randomly pulling figures out of nowhere and show one picture of some Jews saying they don't agree with Israel. But hey, keep supporting terrorists. But a guy shoots up a mosque and you scream "Apartheid!", meanwhile Muslims have been bombing Synagogues and Churches for years. Why in the funk are Muslims given a free pass?

 

To clarify: I don't support or condone any acts of violence and condemn all of them. That said, a hunger strike isn't an act of terrorism and the state of Israel's monopoly on violence and terror in the region is pretty clear to me. I also don't think there's anything about being an Arab or a Muslim that makes someone any more extreme, terrorist, or violent than someone who is Christian, Jewish, or Atheist.  

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem is it emboldens Hamas to launch attacks like they did this morning

 

Again it's hard to meet "Death to all Jews and desolation of the Jewish State" halfway

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Edit: President of the United States Donald Trump will announce tomorrow move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

[Halubaris Maphotika]

For me, the Bible is clear as day. Genesis 12:2-3

 

“I will make you into a great nation,
    and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
    and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
    and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
    will be blessed through you.”

 

 

Israel is the birthplace of the children of Abraham, to whom that covenant has lasted since the pilgrimage to Canaan. For us Catholics, support of the children of Israel is tantamount, as to deny the Israelites is to deny God, and we shall be denied to the gates of Heaven. Palestine encompasses certain pieces of the original Israel. While many would interpret "The Great Nation" as Israel, it is actually God speaking of Judaea and the coming of Christ. As such, those using this to support the State of Israel are misreading the scriptures. I do not support the "state" per say. I support it's people, the children of Abraham. If the state protects them, so be it.

 

In terms of less spiritual viewpoints, I would say both sides are equally guilty in the realms of the dreaded "pissing contest". More than likely these conflicts will go on forever with no solution. It doesn't surprise me that Egypt and other Saudi allied states would bring this up. For Egypt to reclaim the Holy Land would be a great victory. To hand them back providence brought to them through Saladin. No matter which side the US and UK choose, one state will fall. If I had no choice but to pick one, I would choose Israel.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://apnews.com/b8446cbf5b504b1abaf49eb0d646367b/US-sent-$221-million-to-Palestinians-in-Obama's-last-hours

 

Speechless...I respect the President...but this is so low of him...I guess Israel came through on their promise to show the antisemitism views of the Obama admin once Trump took office

 

Disgusting

[Resident Fascist]

yeah, how dare israel not be allowed to illegally occupy palestinian land! anti-semitism! reeeeeeeeeeee! 

how dare people give money to refugees of a displaced and oppressed people! reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Calling opposition to israel antisemitism is the same bullshit that made the entire conflict even possible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Calling opposition to israel antisemitism is the same bullshit that made the entire conflict even possible.

What else is it then?

[Wahrheit]

What else is it then?

Support for a stable 2-state solution - though I understand why this is difficult for you to understand, given your positions on nuance in other threads. We all have to cut you a little slack, we know.

[Resident Fascist]

What else is it then?

 

Opposition to an illegal occupation by a widely considered illegal and illegitimate state? It's nothing to do with Jews.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Opposition to an illegal occupation by a widely considered illegal and illegitimate state? It's nothing to do with Jews.

Funny, so Palestine was protesting and threatening Israel long before the settlement. It's just a convenient smoke screen to move the goalpost with now

 

 

Support for a stable 2-state solution - though I understand why this is difficult for you to understand, given your positions on nuance in other threads. We all have to cut you a little slack, we know.

I'm appreciate you're so considerate for my sake. However, the point remains that meeting a state that want's death to all jews half-way and consistently moves the goalpost when they get concessions is a bit unrealistic to hope for. There's plenty of room in post ISIS iraq where the Palestinians can relocate to. There is one democracy in the Middle east, and keeping it propped up is good for American interested incase we ever need springboard to go there again

[Resident Fascist]

Funny, so Palestine was protesting and threatening Israel long before the settlement. It's just a convenient smoke screen to move the goalpost with now

 

Yes, because Palestine feels that Israel as a whole is a representation of Western Imperialism in the Middle East, and that Israel has no right to exist. Whether you agree to that or not is irrelevant. The region was at relative peace for many years before the British Empire started sending a lot of Jews to Palestine. 

[Wahrheit]

Funny, so Palestine was protesting and threatening Israel long before the settlement. It's just a convenient smoke screen to move the goalpost with now

 

 

I'm appreciate you're so considerate for my sake. However, the point remains that meeting a state that want's death to all jews half-way and consistently moves the goalpost when they get concessions is a bit unrealistic to hope for. There's plenty of room in post ISIS iraq where the Palestinians can relocate to. There is one democracy in the Middle east, and keeping it propped up is good for American interested incase we ever need springboard to go there again

So treat the state like any other state. Recognize it, engage diplomatically with it, and sanction if it acts out of line. We have established practices. The major issue here is the conflict between the two states. Bargain, settle, and get on with it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes, because Palestine feels that Israel as a whole is a representation of Western Imperialism in the Middle East, and that Israel has no right to exist. Whether you agree to that or not is irrelevant. The region was at relative peace for many years before the British Empire started sending a lot of Jews to Palestine. 

Can you define peace? See, I'm not fully on board with considering Whabbism and other types of extremism "peace"

 

You could just as easily say much of the world was at peace before the Turks and Moguls invaded. It's not a great argument to box the turks into an area smaller than a US state

So treat the state like any other state. Recognize it, engage diplomatically with it, and sanction if it acts out of line. We have established practices. The major issue here is the conflict between the two states. Bargain, settle, and get on with it.

The starting line of the Palestinian Gov is death to jews, since when did the US start openly negotiating with terrorists? And since when did the US president override congress to do so?

 

Can you see the problem with meeting death to jews halfway?