Boycott Israel

[Eloy]

...

At some point in time, it will become apparent to everyone that they must back-off of Israel and allow the sraelis to break the ability and will of the Hostile Arab Palestinian ...

The Israelis would like that.

 

[Shusha]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

 

[Phoenall]

That is from the US installed, illegal government.

LINK from an unbiased non partisan source

Suggestions?

Tell the truth for once, and use valid unbiased non partisan sources as evidence

 

[Phoenall]

What products are we supposed to support or boycott from Israel ?

Any that are made by arab muslims or are labeled halal

 

[Phoenall]

...

At some point in time, it will become apparent to everyone that they must back-off of Israel and allow the sraelis to break the ability and will of the Hostile Arab Palestinian ...

The Israelis would like that.

Just as yiur hero's the arab muslims would like to see Israel run with the blood of 6 million jews

 

[Eloy]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

 

[Phoenall]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Read the LoN treaties from 1917 to 1923 and see who is actually occupying who's lands. When you do come back and let the board know what you have found out as you apologise for your ignorance.............

 

[Shusha]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

 

[Eloy]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

 

[esthermoon]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

I hope that's the truth for all of them

 

[Shusha]

But it would not be a just peace.

Why would BOTH peoples having self-determination on part of the territory NOT be a just peace?

 

[Eloy]

But it would not be a just peace.

Why would BOTH peoples having self-determination on part of the territory NOT be a just peace?

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

It is not the case that you can categorize "PEACE" as either --- juste --- or ---unjust. IF the parties to a conflict become committed to a beneficial "peace" amiable conditions --- THEN the state of the being is in balance reality absent "war." IF the "peace" is not beneficial and amiable to both sides, induced by whatever the means --- THEN it is NOT (a true) "peace" but the suppression of "conflict" (War).

It is a queer but true impression that sometimes, an induced suppression may conflict (at a distance) appear to be "peace."

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

(COMMENT)

The phrase: "a just peace" is political misdirection, no different than the tradecraft of Harry Houdini and the illusions performed on stage and screen; a cosmetic effect. (Looks like, sounds like, acts like peace, yet has all the subsurface components for war.) This why you very often hear competent statesmen refer to the "maintenance of peace." "Peace" implies much more than merely the absence of conflict.

You have "just causes" for conflict or "unprovoked aggression." Notice I did not say an "unjust cause." "Peace" act like (in reality) the sand in an hourglass. The reasons for Peace gradually dissipate away until hostilities brea-out.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

It is not the case that you can categorize "PEACE" as either --- juste --- or ---unjust. IF the parties to a conflict become committed to a beneficial "peace" amiable conditions --- THEN the state of the being is in balance reality absent "war." IF the "peace" is not beneficial and amiable to both sides, induced by whatever the means --- THEN it is NOT (a true) "peace" but the suppression of "conflict" (War).

It is a queer but true impression that sometimes, an induced suppression may conflict (at a distance) appear to be "peace."

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

(COMMENT)

The phrase: "a just peace" is political misdirection, no different than the tradecraft of Harry Houdini and the illusions performed on stage and screen; a cosmetic effect. (Looks like, sounds like, acts like peace, yet has all the subsurface components for war.) This why you very often hear competent statesmen refer to the "maintenance of peace." "Peace" implies much more than merely the absence of conflict.

You have "just causes" for conflict or "unprovoked aggression." Notice I did not say an "unjust cause." "Peace" act like (in reality) the sand in an hourglass. The reasons for Peace gradually dissipate away until hostilities brea-out.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."​

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

 

[Phoenall]

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

Why because the arab muslims would be stopped from attacking Israeli children ? Dont forget the arab muslims are the occupiers of Jewish lands not the other way round

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

It is not the case that you can categorize "PEACE" as either --- juste --- or ---unjust. IF the parties to a conflict become committed to a beneficial "peace" amiable conditions --- THEN the state of the being is in balance reality absent "war." IF the "peace" is not beneficial and amiable to both sides, induced by whatever the means --- THEN it is NOT (a true) "peace" but the suppression of "conflict" (War).

It is a queer but true impression that sometimes, an induced suppression may conflict (at a distance) appear to be "peace."

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

(COMMENT)

The phrase: "a just peace" is political misdirection, no different than the tradecraft of Harry Houdini and the illusions performed on stage and screen; a cosmetic effect. (Looks like, sounds like, acts like peace, yet has all the subsurface components for war.) This why you very often hear competent statesmen refer to the "maintenance of peace." "Peace" implies much more than merely the absence of conflict.

You have "just causes" for conflict or "unprovoked aggression." Notice I did not say an "unjust cause." "Peace" act like (in reality) the sand in an hourglass. The reasons for Peace gradually dissipate away until hostilities brea-out.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."​

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

No as you can get injustice in the absence of conflict, look at Iran and its sharia laws that are far from being peaceful.

So you admit that you are a phony as you never accept that international law acts for Israel and the Jews in the peace process you subscribe to

 

[Hollie]

Eloy, et al,

It is not the case that you can categorize "PEACE" as either --- juste --- or ---unjust. IF the parties to a conflict become committed to a beneficial "peace" amiable conditions --- THEN the state of the being is in balance reality absent "war." IF the "peace" is not beneficial and amiable to both sides, induced by whatever the means --- THEN it is NOT (a true) "peace" but the suppression of "conflict" (War).

It is a queer but true impression that sometimes, an induced suppression may conflict (at a distance) appear to be "peace."

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

The Israelis would like very much to live in peace with their neighbors.

Only on the condition that the Palestinians stop resisting occupation.

Well. Um. Yes. That would be the definition of peace, you know.

But it would not be a just peace.

(COMMENT)

The phrase: "a just peace" is political misdirection, no different than the tradecraft of Harry Houdini and the illusions performed on stage and screen; a cosmetic effect. (Looks like, sounds like, acts like peace, yet has all the subsurface components for war.) This why you very often hear competent statesmen refer to the "maintenance of peace." "Peace" implies much more than merely the absence of conflict.

You have "just causes" for conflict or "unprovoked aggression." Notice I did not say an "unjust cause." "Peace" act like (in reality) the sand in an hourglass. The reasons for Peace gradually dissipate away until hostilities brea-out.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."​

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

Well.... yeah, you will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of those who believe that the Koran is the constitution—the law is an atavistic hyperreligious nightmare from 1,400 years ago. Anyone who is "vague" on that count would do well to brush up on their koranology and their islamist history.

We just have to remember that islamist history, that of perpetual war, conquest, colonialism and apartheid are just a series of "isolated incidents". Look, kuffar, don't act like you haven't heard about any heavily armed gangs of Pentacostals beheading a captive Catholic on video lately.

Okay, I might be sardonic about this subject matter from time to time, because honestly, sometimes that's the only way I can deal with it. Islamic barbarism and retrogression is just so incredibly sickening. However, what you see as daily atrocities committed under the droning intonation of allahu Akbar is no joke. It is Islam's wanton violence and complete disregard for any semblance of fairness under the rule of law. It is murderous depravity in muhammud's (swish) name.

 

[Kondor3]

But it would not be a just peace.

Why would BOTH peoples having self-determination on part of the territory NOT be a just peace?

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

Oh, great, another Arab Butt Buddy...

These slime oooooze out from under their rocks every so often...

I wonder which long-standing troll this one will turn out to be...

---------------

Perhaps it's time for the Israelis to pull the plug, and kick the Muslim-Arabs out of the West Bank and Gaza, and shove 'em across the border into Jordan, and be done with it...

To the Devil with the consequences...

Dancing on the grave of BDS, while they're at it...

And laughing at the Man-Bitches who pimp online for Hamas...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who said that life is fair. Many a fair people, innocent people, honest people were killed by Hostile Arab Palestinians. Stop whining!

It is a mistaken and simplistic view that the absence of "conflict" is "peace."

Indeed, peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

You will never hear rights, justice, or international law cross the lips of any of those phonies in the so called peace process.

(COMMENT)

No matter what you believe is true, a century ago, the Balfour Declaration was published. That set the stage for the land mark decision made by the Allied Powers at the end of the Great War. As the Allied Powers looked at the potential problem, they came to recognize the historic connection.

They made their decision. Some would say that the Allied Powers did not act quick enough. And it possible, if they had acted quicker, hundred of thousands --- even --- millions might have been saved. (We'll never know.) What does seem likely is that the attitude and behaviors of the Hostile Arab Palestinian, the poster-board likeness of a terrorist, have made it very unlikely that the regional peace would be established. Not unlike the Kurds, still fighting for a nation promised them in 1920, the status quo of the Palestinian experience will probably never come. As the rest of the world, including Israel, moves forward, leaving the development of the Arab Palestinians behind.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

But it would not be a just peace.

Why would BOTH peoples having self-determination on part of the territory NOT be a just peace?

Simply put, the occupation which denies the Palestinians the right to self-determination in their own land justifies resistance. You cannot expect true peace that is maintained by the barrel of an occupier's gun.

I don't see how such simplistic and romanticized slogans are at all helpful.

It wasn't so long ago that the competing tribes of terrorist franchises in Gaza and the West Bank were capturing, torturing and murdering each other. The competing Islamic terrorist franchises were terrorizing each other. The Pal'istanian "right to self determination" was a right denied by one terrorist franchise vs. the other.

The only true impediment to Arab -Moslem self determination for the Arabs-Moslems masquerading as Pal'istanians is the simmering war that continues for control and exploitation of a forever welfare fraud administered by UNRWA.