Israeli propaganda is only fooling Israelis

[theliq]

montelatici, et al,

It doesn't surprise me at all that you don't have an original thought on the subject.

I do appreciate the Salam Schocken Family perspective, having escaped from Nazi Germany in 1934 and having citizenship withdrawn. The Schocken's had several family members in the Haganah, and one of the son's became a General Officer in the Israeli Defense Force. Salam Schocken and M Buber were the founding publishers of the Monthly Magazine "Der Jude" -- a Modern Review of Judaism; which some claim was principally a post-WWI Zionist publication.

Gideon Levy is an Award Winning weekly contributor to the Haaretz Publications (Newspaper and online Media). I was actually at a Garden Party where he was in attendance, although I doubt he took notice of me. But I can say he is a charming fellow and eloquent conversationalist. We are roughly the same age.

Great piece by Gideon Levy:

Israeli Propaganda Isn't Fooling Anyone Except Israelis

'Hasbara' is the Israeli euphemism for propaganda, and there are some things, said the late ambassador Yohanan Meroz, that are not 'hasbarable.' One of them is Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

And propaganda shall cover for everything. We’ll say terrorism, we’ll shout anti-Semitism, we’ll scream delegitimation, we’ll cite the Holocaust; we’ll say Jewish state, gay-friendly, drip irrigation, cherry tomatoes, aid to Nepal, Nobel Prizes for Jews, look what’s happening in Syria, the only democracy, the greatest army. We’ll say the Palestinians are making unilateral moves, we’ll propose negotiations on the “settlement bloc borders,” we’ll demand recognition of a Jewish state and we’ll complain that “there’s no one to talk to.”
We’ll wail that the whole world is against us and wants to destroy us, no less. The deputy minister will call on Switzerland to boycott, the minister will declare that boycotts are unacceptable, the deputy director of the Foreign Ministry will explain that a bigger budget is needed, and Sheldon Adelson will convene an emergency conference in Las Vegas – and despite it all, nothing will budge. Propaganda won’t cover for everything.

The policy of denial and disconnection from reality is rising to a dangerous level, and the illness is getting worse.

read more: Israeli propaganda isn't fooling anyone – except Israelis - Opinion

(COMMENT)

Levy, like so many others I have met, market themselves as patriots and true Israelis; which is not untrue. Levy is of a mind that a one-state solutions is the answer. He does not care if the Jewish State is taken over by the Arabs or not. He is in the rare group that believes there will never be a case of the Jewish People being persecuted again, under the color of law. Levy does not necessary agree with the argument of indefensible borders. He has no objection to Arab rockets and mortars within range of the Airport and Tel Aviv. Nor is he concerned that the Gas Recovery operations in the world's richest natural gas reserve (in the Levant Basin) will be open to asymmetric assault if the blockade is lifted off the Gaza Coast.

All of these ideas, and more, should be openly discussed. But I don't believe that there is a dangerously high level of disinformation any more on one side, then there is on the other. In fact, just as most of the pro-Palestinians would want to swap more propaganda rather than discuss the topics from realistic positions, there is some of that on the pro-Israeli side. And much of that has to do with the fact that each side wants to point fingers at the other side. It has nothing to do with a negotiated settlement.

I don't agree with Gideon Levy's (the author's) position from the broader perspective. But I defend his right to argue the view. I do object to pro-Palestinians that maintain the total position that they have the absolute right to target civilian objects and citizens, that they may use any and all means, that they have the absolute right to sovereignty over all the territory formerly under the Mandate and Trusteeship.

Most Respectfully,
R

I hold you Rocco with a positive degree of respect.....but this is nuts...steve

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, that is not accurate piece to the important part..

It is the Israelis that claim to have the absolute right to sovereignty over all the territory. Not only they claim to have the right, they exercise the right. So work with that fact.

(COMMENT)

In many conversations on this topic, the argument rests on "rights" and the question of "who has what rights." But in the actual practice of "Nation Building," it is a matter of the two qualities that are indispensable to
the idea of sovereignty are the elements of control and authority, which accompanies the any sovereign's supreme governing competences.

Israel is Israel because it exercises the elements of control and authority... NOT because it exercises some arguable rights. In practice, you know that Israel has control and authority when you walk to a border control check-point. Not because someone holds up a piece of paper.

"So" this is how I "work with that fact(s);" as you say. Ten key observations i the timeline:

Some Jewish People had expressed their cultural association to the territory from a historical perspective; and a preference to return the culture to that region.

The territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers Recognized the historic connection of the Jewish Culture with the geographic area.

Once in control of the territories, the Allied Powers encouraged the Jewish People to immigrate.

The United Nations, having researched options for the General Assembly, adopted a concept plan and steps preparatory to independence; offering that option to the Jewish (and some Arab) people.

The Jewish people accepted (Arab people rejected) the offer.

While there had been a series of hostile events throughout the period three decades prior, a more intense period of conflict erupted between the Arab People and the Jewish People over the adoption of the concept plan for partitioning and the steps to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

The Jewish People exercised their right to self-determination; fulfilling the established steps preparatory to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

External influences in the form of Arab League forces, together with irregular Arab Palestinian forces lead by ex-Nazi's, attacked the newly declared State of Israel. This combined effort attempting to defy and neutralize the establishment of the Jewish State envisioned by the General Assembly concept, ended in the arrangement of UN brokered Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four adjacent nations of the Arab League.

Two of the four Armistice Agreements were replaced by formal peace treaties with Israel; establishing internationally recognized boundaries forming a border around four-fifths of the State of Israel.
​

In very broad brush strokes in a thumbnail view, that is how the (as I see it) developed.

Up and until, the beginning of the 20th Century, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the most stable framework on which a state was recognized as have evolved and formed. The concepts expressed in the Westphalia Law had incredible traction over time, and was reflected in the most powerful theories of
international law. But in the beginning of the 20th Century, the concepts of Westphalia were being challenged by the idea of subordination of sovereignty to the idea of international obligation in a greater international community. The first generation of the international community took the form of the League of Nations (an unsuccessful false start) ultimately replaced by the United Nations.

Some people tend to believe that the concepts of "International Law" is a form of global super-law that subordinated the individual and national sovereign competence of each nation. They draw that phrase like it was some sort of superior light-saber.

The 20th Century does reset and amplify the changing character of sovereignty in the aftermath of the WWI and WWII. The implications of the expansion of International Treaties expanding law into areas previously restricted to domestic sovereign powers have been profound. Most notably is the effect the UN Charter (as treaty law) has had in the rethinking of sovereignty; and its influence on the boundaries of sovereignty in terms of international agreements regulating global spaces and resources. This has been the challenged faced by both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish People. It even presses each nation to examine what it means to be a sovereign nation (ie The Russian Federation), a client state (ie Crimea), or a transitional territory demanding sovereignty (ie Yemen, Palestine, South Sudan, Somalia, and even places like Syria and Afghanistan) , but unable to acquire it in the practical ways that were relevant at the time of the Treaty of Westphalia.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, that is not accurate piece to the important part..

It is the Israelis that claim to have the absolute right to sovereignty over all the territory. Not only they claim to have the right, they exercise the right. So work with that fact.

(COMMENT)

In many conversations on this topic, the argument rests on "rights" and the question of "who has what rights." But in the actual practice of "Nation Building," it is a matter of the two qualities that are indispensable to
the idea of sovereignty are the elements of control and authority, which accompanies the any sovereign's supreme governing competences.

Israel is Israel because it exercises the elements of control and authority... NOT because it exercises some arguable rights. In practice, you know that Israel has control and authority when you walk to a border control check-point. Not because someone holds up a piece of paper.

"So" this is how I "work with that fact(s);" as you say. Ten key observations i the timeline:

Some Jewish People had expressed their cultural association to the territory from a historical perspective; and a preference to return the culture to that region.

The territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers Recognized the historic connection of the Jewish Culture with the geographic area.

Once in control of the territories, the Allied Powers encouraged the Jewish People to immigrate.

The United Nations, having researched options for the General Assembly, adopted a concept plan and steps preparatory to independence; offering that option to the Jewish (and some Arab) people.

The Jewish people accepted (Arab people rejected) the offer.

While there had been a series of hostile events throughout the period three decades prior, a more intense period of conflict erupted between the Arab People and the Jewish People over the adoption of the concept plan for partitioning and the steps to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

The Jewish People exercised their right to self-determination; fulfilling the established steps preparatory to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

External influences in the form of Arab League forces, together with irregular Arab Palestinian forces lead by ex-Nazi's, attacked the newly declared State of Israel. This combined effort attempting to defy and neutralize the establishment of the Jewish State envisioned by the General Assembly concept, ended in the arrangement of UN brokered Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four adjacent nations of the Arab League.

Two of the four Armistice Agreements were replaced by formal peace treaties with Israel; establishing internationally recognized boundaries forming a border around four-fifths of the State of Israel.
​

In very broad brush strokes in a thumbnail view, that is how the (as I see it) developed.

Up and until, the beginning of the 20th Century, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the most stable framework on which a state was recognized as have evolved and formed. The concepts expressed in the Westphalia Law had incredible traction over time, and was reflected in the most powerful theories of
international law. But in the beginning of the 20th Century, the concepts of Westphalia were being challenged by the idea of subordination of sovereignty to the idea of international obligation in a greater international community. The first generation of the international community took the form of the League of Nations (an unsuccessful false start) ultimately replaced by the United Nations.

Some people tend to believe that the concepts of "International Law" is a form of global super-law that subordinated the individual and national sovereign competence of each nation. They draw that phrase like it was some sort of superior light-saber.

The 20th Century does reset and amplify the changing character of sovereignty in the aftermath of the WWI and WWII. The implications of the expansion of International Treaties expanding law into areas previously restricted to domestic sovereign powers have been profound. Most notably is the effect the UN Charter (as treaty law) has had in the rethinking of sovereignty; and its influence on the boundaries of sovereignty in terms of international agreements regulating global spaces and resources. This has been the challenged faced by both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish People. It even presses each nation to examine what it means to be a sovereign nation (ie The Russian Federation), a client state (ie Crimea), or a transitional territory demanding sovereignty (ie Yemen, Palestine, South Sudan, Somalia, and even places like Syria and Afghanistan) , but unable to acquire it in the practical ways that were relevant at the time of the Treaty of Westphalia.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is Israel because it exercises the elements of control and authority... NOT because it exercises some arguable rights. In practice, you know that Israel has control and authority when you walk to a border control check-point. Not because someone holds up a piece of paper.​

Might makes right, eh, Rocco?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, that is not accurate piece to the important part..

It is the Israelis that claim to have the absolute right to sovereignty over all the territory. Not only they claim to have the right, they exercise the right. So work with that fact.

(COMMENT)

In many conversations on this topic, the argument rests on "rights" and the question of "who has what rights." But in the actual practice of "Nation Building," it is a matter of the two qualities that are indispensable to
the idea of sovereignty are the elements of control and authority, which accompanies the any sovereign's supreme governing competences.

Israel is Israel because it exercises the elements of control and authority... NOT because it exercises some arguable rights. In practice, you know that Israel has control and authority when you walk to a border control check-point. Not because someone holds up a piece of paper.

"So" this is how I "work with that fact(s);" as you say. Ten key observations i the timeline:

Some Jewish People had expressed their cultural association to the territory from a historical perspective; and a preference to return the culture to that region.

The territories were relinquished to the Allied Powers.

The Allied Powers Recognized the historic connection of the Jewish Culture with the geographic area.

Once in control of the territories, the Allied Powers encouraged the Jewish People to immigrate.

The United Nations, having researched options for the General Assembly, adopted a concept plan and steps preparatory to independence; offering that option to the Jewish (and some Arab) people.

The Jewish people accepted (Arab people rejected) the offer.

While there had been a series of hostile events throughout the period three decades prior, a more intense period of conflict erupted between the Arab People and the Jewish People over the adoption of the concept plan for partitioning and the steps to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

The Jewish People exercised their right to self-determination; fulfilling the established steps preparatory to independence adopted by the General Assembly.

External influences in the form of Arab League forces, together with irregular Arab Palestinian forces lead by ex-Nazi's, attacked the newly declared State of Israel. This combined effort attempting to defy and neutralize the establishment of the Jewish State envisioned by the General Assembly concept, ended in the arrangement of UN brokered Armistice Agreements between Israel and the four adjacent nations of the Arab League.

Two of the four Armistice Agreements were replaced by formal peace treaties with Israel; establishing internationally recognized boundaries forming a border around four-fifths of the State of Israel.
​

In very broad brush strokes in a thumbnail view, that is how the (as I see it) developed.

Up and until, the beginning of the 20th Century, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was the most stable framework on which a state was recognized as have evolved and formed. The concepts expressed in the Westphalia Law had incredible traction over time, and was reflected in the most powerful theories of
international law. But in the beginning of the 20th Century, the concepts of Westphalia were being challenged by the idea of subordination of sovereignty to the idea of international obligation in a greater international community. The first generation of the international community took the form of the League of Nations (an unsuccessful false start) ultimately replaced by the United Nations.

Some people tend to believe that the concepts of "International Law" is a form of global super-law that subordinated the individual and national sovereign competence of each nation. They draw that phrase like it was some sort of superior light-saber.

The 20th Century does reset and amplify the changing character of sovereignty in the aftermath of the WWI and WWII. The implications of the expansion of International Treaties expanding law into areas previously restricted to domestic sovereign powers have been profound. Most notably is the effect the UN Charter (as treaty law) has had in the rethinking of sovereignty; and its influence on the boundaries of sovereignty in terms of international agreements regulating global spaces and resources. This has been the challenged faced by both the Arab Palestinian and the Jewish People. It even presses each nation to examine what it means to be a sovereign nation (ie The Russian Federation), a client state (ie Crimea), or a transitional territory demanding sovereignty (ie Yemen, Palestine, South Sudan, Somalia, and even places like Syria and Afghanistan) , but unable to acquire it in the practical ways that were relevant at the time of the Treaty of Westphalia.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, you are making things up.

Israel is Israel because the UK, determined it to be in their national interest to assist European Jews in their quest to colonize Palestine. Notwithstanding the native people's resistance to colonization and an attempt by the neighboring people to prevent the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the native people.

The Europeans were able to evict and/or otherwise eliminate hundreds of thousands of the native people and began transferring people of a particular religion to the land once inhabited by native Christians and Muslims that had been evicted.

The crazy concept that somehow a people having an attachment to a particular place, for whatever reason, have a right to be helped to expel the inhabitants that had been living in the land for several centuries, is just that. Racist bullshit.

Not to mention that as has been stated over and over again and that you can't get through through your thick head, the Covenant of the League of Nations' primary requirement, as per Article 22, with respect to the territories relinquished by the Turks and Germans, was that the Mandatory was required to ensure the "well being and development" of the inhabitants. Not people living in Europe or anywhere else.

The Mandatory was certainly,as you seem to contend, not given the charter to transfer a foreign population to the territory and assist it in expelling the inhabitants the Mandatory was required to protect, as per Article 22 of the Covenant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

 

[Lipush]

Because you can't recognize a Jew unless his head is under somebody's foot.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a matter of perspective.

(SIDEBAR)

I had to look it up to be sure; but the phrase you used (a terse saying, expressing a general truth or principle) Might makes right is a complex derivative with several potential meanings coming from an Aesop's Fable called the "Wild Ass and the Lion;" with the first derivative being "Might Makes Right" and the second derivative meaning (The Lion's share):

• In English, the phrase is most often used in negative assessments of expressions of power.
• The second related idea associated with the phrase connotes that a society's view of right and wrong is determined, like its perspective on history, by those currently in power.
• The term can be used in the descriptive, rather than prescriptive way, in the same sense that people say that "History is written by the victors". Because every person labels what he/she thinks is good for himself/herself as right, only those who are able to defeat their enemies are the ones who can push their idea of what is right into fruition.
• In terms of morality, those who are the strongest will rule others and have the power to determine right and wrong. By this definition, the phrase manifests itself in a normative sense. This meaning is often used to define a proscriptive moral code for society to follow, as well as while discussing social Darwinism and Weberian themes of the authority of the state (e.g. 'Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft').

Israel is Israel because it exercises the elements of control and authority... NOT because it exercises some arguable rights. In practice, you know that Israel has control and authority when you walk to a border control check-point. Not because someone holds up a piece of paper.

Might makes right, eh, Rocco?

(OBSERVATION)

• The rules for acquisition of territory were concisely summarized by the tribunal in the first (1998) Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration Award:

“The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The latter two criteria are tempered to suit the nature of the territory and size of its population, if any.”

SOURCE: Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, (1998) 22 RIAA, p. 268, para. 239)
​

• ...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.

SOURCE:
Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).
​

(COMMENT)

In this discussion, there is a Paradox; --- a paradox where political power constituting the law --- opposed by the inverse --- the law restraining that very power that created the law. As a result of this unwillingness to confront the problem of sovereignty at the conceptual level where the paradox lays waiting, much of the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute is a discussion on a principal issue in contemporary legal and political theory which is avoided and cannot be formulated coherently --- let alone answer the issue.

Still, we have to acknowledge that within the notion of taking possession --- coupled with the affirmation of sovereignty, we find the components of intention, the exercise and display of authority, the actual possession, and the extension of actual control.

DOES "Might make Right?" Maybe --- maybe not... But it sure goes to the core of the issue.

The PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Palestinians) for their part, strenuously rejected the offer to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. The Palestinians are attempting to act unilaterally in an effort to achieve recognition for a State in International Institutions; essentially circumventing the contemporary process. But no matter which countries recognize or don't recognize "statehood" for either state, it does not change the reality --- the intention, the authority, the possession and the control of the territory are what inevitably decides the matter.

Might is not always measured in terms of guns and ammo. Sometimes the power of water, gas and electric are more important.

If Israel were to sink just one gas well into the Levantine Basin dedicated to powering a desalinization complex, the Negev and the West Bank would no longer have a water shortage and a new irrigation program could change the face of the entire region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Believe what you want.

The Europeans were able to evict and/or otherwise eliminate hundreds of thousands of the native people and began transferring people of a particular religion to the land once inhabited by native Christians and Muslims that had been evicted.

The crazy concept that somehow a people having an attachment to a particular place, for whatever reason, have a right to be helped to expel the inhabitants that had been living in the land for several centuries, is just that. Racist bullshit.

Not to mention that as has been stated over and over again and that you can't get through through your thick head, the Covenant of the League of Nations' primary requirement, as per Article 22, with respect to the territories relinquished by the Turks and Germans, was that the Mandatory was required to ensure the "well being and development" of the inhabitants. Not people living in Europe or anywhere else.

The Mandatory was certainly,as you seem to contend, not given the charter to transfer a foreign population to the territory and assist it in expelling the inhabitants the Mandatory was required to protect, as per Article 22 of the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

The Council of the League of Nations did not express an objection to the outcome.

The membership is the body that decides if the parties involved accomplished the criteria under the conditions faced by an obstructive and uncooperative Arab contingent population.

Given that the Covenant was not even active at the time the Israel was created. On 18 April 1946, the League of Nations transferred all remain assets to the United Nations as the successor organization.

My conclusions are not based on any racial divides. You may play the "Race Card" as often as you like; it doesn't have any impact on my debating arguments, presentations, or logical positions at all. The Mandates
defining the manner in which the principles laid down by the Covenant are to be applied; not the other way around.

There is nothing specific in the entire Covenant, and especially Article 22, that directly applies to Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

,

 

[theliq]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

Really how stupid of you,is this Dross the best that you can up with.

 

[Indeependent]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

 

[theliq]

Because you can't recognize a Jew unless his head is under somebody's foot.

Lips How do you manage on occasion, such stupid comments,steven

 

[theliq]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

 

[Indeependent]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

 

[theliq]

How stupid really is this dross the best you can do

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

You make a fair point Indie,but I don't and never have seen Palestinians as just another "Arab Group" far from it.....these semitic people will only advance in conjuction with their semitic cousins the Jews in this schism.......other Arab nations and others like the Status Quo,they have NO real interest in Palestinians or Jews.......The Palestinians are a very proud people(like the Jews) but Zionist and Israeli policy,has been utterly repressive,thence their reaction to their plight(the irony Indie,Jews are no different).......Palestinians are not like other Arabs and should not be assumed as,some tinpot Islamist group in the guise of those beasts ISIS etc.,just sayin steve

 

[Indeependent]

The question is why the Jews would want to surrender to you who have vowed genocide?

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

You make a fair point Indie,but I don't and never have seen Palestinians as just another "Arab Group" far from it.....these semitic people will only advance in conjuction with their semitic cousins the Jews in this schism.......other Arab nations and others like the Status Quo,they have NO real interest in Palestinians or Jews.......The Palestinians are a very proud people(like the Jews) but Zionist and Israeli policy,has been utterly repressive,thence their reaction to their plight(the irony Indie,Jews are no different).......Palestinians are not like other Arabs and should not be assumed as,some tinpot Islamist group in the guise of those beasts ISIS etc.,just sayin steve

Take Iranians...Almost every Iranian I have met is very nice.
But Iran has a strong educated middle class.
Arafat set up a system of corruption that stole a generation of enlightenment from the Palestinians and this has resulted in a grave generational problem.
There are simply too many potentially violent hooligans amongst them who are more than willing to commit murder simply their target is not part of "their" group, and that includes Muslims murdering other Muslims as well as murdering Jews and Christians.
Israeli policy would have been far different without Arafat but now it MIGHT be too late.

 

[theliq]

What a strange creature you are..........I support Israel BUT support a Free Palestine and therein lies your dilemma.......I have NEVER AVOWED GENOCIDE to the Jewish people or anyone else for that matter(apart from the destruction of ISIS,which through American policy,was created in the first place),your ridiculous myopic comments are only fit for the Dustbin of history.

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

You make a fair point Indie,but I don't and never have seen Palestinians as just another "Arab Group" far from it.....these semitic people will only advance in conjuction with their semitic cousins the Jews in this schism.......other Arab nations and others like the Status Quo,they have NO real interest in Palestinians or Jews.......The Palestinians are a very proud people(like the Jews) but Zionist and Israeli policy,has been utterly repressive,thence their reaction to their plight(the irony Indie,Jews are no different).......Palestinians are not like other Arabs and should not be assumed as,some tinpot Islamist group in the guise of those beasts ISIS etc.,just sayin steve

Take Iranians...Almost every Iranian I have met is very nice.
But Iran has a strong educated middle class.
Arafat set up a system of corruption that stole a generation of enlightenment from the Palestinians and this has resulted in a grave generational problem.
There are simply too many potentially violent hooligans amongst them who are more than willing to commit murder simply their target is not part of "their" group, and that includes Muslims murdering other Muslims as well as murdering Jews and Christians.
Israeli policy would have been far different without Arafat but now it MIGHT be too late.

Fair point,Arafat was a very complex individual indeed,some of his stratedgy sic was at times stange BUT he always worked for the freedom of his people,this can never be denied.......history often condemns but he did a fair job for the Palestinians.....he was not pragmatic in any way,in the end he lost his way.Countering that the Israelis always played hardball with him and their unmovable stance created much of the outcome during his era,I think Peres and Rabin understood him best but still no solution......he always believe he could give his people all their land back pre 1948............This was never going to happen and he, I think maintained his power base by deluding the Palestinian people this would happen........he was deluded and he deluded them,PEACE should have been concluded years ago and these two peoples live in harmony......this I hope for the future.....but the dynamics have changed,we will see. steve

 

[Indeependent]

It's referred to in the Talmud as the "Inevitable Consequence".

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

You make a fair point Indie,but I don't and never have seen Palestinians as just another "Arab Group" far from it.....these semitic people will only advance in conjuction with their semitic cousins the Jews in this schism.......other Arab nations and others like the Status Quo,they have NO real interest in Palestinians or Jews.......The Palestinians are a very proud people(like the Jews) but Zionist and Israeli policy,has been utterly repressive,thence their reaction to their plight(the irony Indie,Jews are no different).......Palestinians are not like other Arabs and should not be assumed as,some tinpot Islamist group in the guise of those beasts ISIS etc.,just sayin steve

Take Iranians...Almost every Iranian I have met is very nice.
But Iran has a strong educated middle class.
Arafat set up a system of corruption that stole a generation of enlightenment from the Palestinians and this has resulted in a grave generational problem.
There are simply too many potentially violent hooligans amongst them who are more than willing to commit murder simply their target is not part of "their" group, and that includes Muslims murdering other Muslims as well as murdering Jews and Christians.
Israeli policy would have been far different without Arafat but now it MIGHT be too late.

Fair point,Arafat was a very complex individual indeed,some of his stratedgy sic was at times stange BUT he always worked for the freedom of his people,this can never be denied.......history often condemns but he did a fair job for the Palestinians.....he was not pragmatic in any way,in the end he lost his way.Countering that the Israelis always played hardball with him and their unmovable stance created much of the outcome during his era,I think Peres and Rabin understood him best but still no solution......he always believe he could give his people all their land back pre 1948............This was never going to happen and he, I think maintained his power base by deluding the Palestinian people this would happen........he was deluded and he deluded them.

He was the lowest of the low.
You realize he funneled billions to his wife in France.
He was intent from minute 1 to keep up his ruse of Freedom Fighter and spent every moment literally stealing other people's money and future.
There was NOTHING redeeming about the "man".

 

[theliq]

????What Indie,the Destruction of the Jewish people????

I would say that there are security issues with land size and religious ideologies that provide cause for concern.
Jews don't threaten other Jews to blow themselves up in Arab markets; I can't quite claim the same high ground for Arabs.
And this includes Arabs living all over the Middle East, Asia and Europe, so you can't keep reiterating the "Palestinian" argument for the reason why Arabs commit atrocities against themselves and others globally.

You make a fair point Indie,but I don't and never have seen Palestinians as just another "Arab Group" far from it.....these semitic people will only advance in conjuction with their semitic cousins the Jews in this schism.......other Arab nations and others like the Status Quo,they have NO real interest in Palestinians or Jews.......The Palestinians are a very proud people(like the Jews) but Zionist and Israeli policy,has been utterly repressive,thence their reaction to their plight(the irony Indie,Jews are no different).......Palestinians are not like other Arabs and should not be assumed as,some tinpot Islamist group in the guise of those beasts ISIS etc.,just sayin steve

Take Iranians...Almost every Iranian I have met is very nice.
But Iran has a strong educated middle class.
Arafat set up a system of corruption that stole a generation of enlightenment from the Palestinians and this has resulted in a grave generational problem.
There are simply too many potentially violent hooligans amongst them who are more than willing to commit murder simply their target is not part of "their" group, and that includes Muslims murdering other Muslims as well as murdering Jews and Christians.
Israeli policy would have been far different without Arafat but now it MIGHT be too late.

Fair point,Arafat was a very complex individual indeed,some of his stratedgy sic was at times stange BUT he always worked for the freedom of his people,this can never be denied.......history often condemns but he did a fair job for the Palestinians.....he was not pragmatic in any way,in the end he lost his way.Countering that the Israelis always played hardball with him and their unmovable stance created much of the outcome during his era,I think Peres and Rabin understood him best but still no solution......he always believe he could give his people all their land back pre 1948............This was never going to happen and he, I think maintained his power base by deluding the Palestinian people this would happen........he was deluded and he deluded them.

He was the lowest of the low.
You realize he funneled billions to his wife in France.
He was intent from minute 1 to keep up his ruse of Freedom Fighter and spent every moment literally stealing other people's money and future.
There was NOTHING redeeming about the "man".

He started well enough Indie,as I said but I cannot deny his corruption but most in that position are the same,you only need look at some Israeli leaders to see the same or worse.......Glass Houses Indie,just saying...steve I think your assessment is somewhat harsh for a lifetimes work.

ps I know I have been slightly pedantic(nice way of putting it) with you recently......my apologies