Israeli "Settlers" and violence

[Hossfly]

If that's the reason why people support Israel, it's their issue.

Regardless, they are still part of the problem and they are many. Why are we white-knighting Zionism if the Jewish faith itself isn't up for discussion?

Thanks for explaining that you know nothing of Judaism or what the Jewish concept of 'chosen people' means to us. As to 'racist' - well, that'd be the poster who just tossed up some POS from a hate speech site claiming that the Holocaust was a 'myth'.........

I'm open to learning about your ideas if you want to direct me to a site that shares your views.

Glad you're open to learning. Here's a library. Everything to know that's worth knowing. Compliments of the house. Sneak a peek.


Israel Wing | Jewish Virtual Library

 

[MHunterB]

If that's the reason why people support Israel, it's their issue.

Regardless, they are still part of the problem and they are many. Why are we white-knighting Zionism if the Jewish faith itself isn't up for discussion?



I'm open to learning about your ideas if you want to direct me to a site that shares your views.

While Israel and its dedicated U.S. Jewish supporters know they have the president and most of Congress in their hands, they worry about grassroots America — the well-meaning Christians who care for justice. Thus far, most Christians were unaware of what it was they didn’t know about Israel. They were indoctrinated by U.S. supporters of Israel in their own country and when they traveled to the Land of Christ most all did so under Israeli sponsorship. That being the case, it was unlikely a Christian ever met a Palestinian or learned what caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is gradually changing, however. And this change disturbs the Israelis.

poorrichards blog: what christians don?t know about israel

Oh, whee - quoting from some blog whose 'author' is a follower of the 'Zionist control of Congress' conspiranutter BS filth dished out nearly a century ago by Henry Ford and that slime Rutherford......

 

[Jos]

EOTS isn't much of an 'authority' of anything outside of conspiranutter BS filth.

its all straight from the horses mouth...

Presenting extremists as 'mainstream' is intellectually dishonest.

israeli "settlers" are extremists

 

[MHunterB]

its all straight from the horses mouth...

Presenting extremists as 'mainstream' is intellectually dishonest.

israeli "settlers" are extremists

Spoken like the Holocaust-denying true Iranian supporter of Hezbullah that you are!

 

[Lipush]

its all straight from the horses mouth...

Presenting extremists as 'mainstream' is intellectually dishonest.

israeli "settlers" are extremists

With just how many settlers did you get to speak, peronally?

 

[Aurin]

Glad you're open to learning. Here's a library. Everything to know that's worth knowing. Compliments of the house. Sneak a peek.


Israel Wing | Jewish Virtual Library

I've actually used the Jewish Virtual Library as a reference before. It looks like they have a good article on "the Chosen People idea". Thanks.

What are your opinions of this?

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel

 

[Jos]

With just how many settlers did you get to speak, peronally?

couldn't get close enough to speak, they were busy firing weapons in all directions

 

[Hossfly]

Glad you're open to learning. Here's a library. Everything to know that's worth knowing. Compliments of the house. Sneak a peek.


Israel Wing | Jewish Virtual Library

I've actually used the Jewish Virtual Library as a reference before. It looks like they have a good article on "the Chosen People idea". Thanks.

What are your opinions of this?

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel

Heartily agree with U.S. votes.

 

[Aurin]

Even for something like on December 19th, 2002?

"On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse"

Quoting the draft,

"Expressing deep concern
at the deliberate destruction by the Israeli occupying
forces of a United Nations World Food Programme warehouse in Beit Lahiya in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, in which 537 metric tons of donated food supplies
intended for distribution to needy Palestinians had been stored"

Why are we condoning this behavior?

 

[patrickcaturday]

I'll reillustrate it.

Suppose someone makes an argument for their case and they decide to use the word "glop". Many people, supporting this argument, continue to crusade their cause and all use the word "glop" as well. "Glop" is doing so well that it ends up being used to champion other arguments by the same people. It might even be used in the counter-arguments.

It has now gotten to the point that anytime you see someone use the word "glop" you gloss over it almost immediately. "Glop" has now become a term that people almost insert into their arguments like an ingredient to some argument-recipe. It's use has lost all meaning as it's just a standard-procedure addition to anyone trying to push their argument further.

Terrorist can be used to immediately express its definition, but as a consequence of being a pejorative word, it also fails to clarify anything in reality.

If a person says, "I am going to kill you", that is terrorism.
Then if he kills you with a booby trap, that is terrorism.
Would that be a simple explanation or must you have a book written to explain the whys and wherefores?

If we go by the above definition then by using cluster munitions and WP weapons then the IDF is a terrorist organization.
Personally I do not like to use the word because of the fact that it always seems to be colored by politics and strength. Seems as if it is always the forces that have the most modern weapons and the strongest forces that are using that particular charge against the others.

 

[Hossfly]

Even for something like on December 19th, 2002?

"On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse"

Quoting the draft,

"Expressing deep concern
at the deliberate destruction by the Israeli occupying
forces of a United Nations World Food Programme warehouse in Beit Lahiya in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, in which 537 metric tons of donated food supplies
intended for distribution to needy Palestinians had been stored"

Why are we condoning this behavior?

We aren't and were not condoning the actions to the deaths. The US ambassador said the complaining parties put all emphasis over occupation than over the deaths of their troops. The whole thing was about "occupation" and the killings were the beard of the charges.

 

[Hossfly]

If a person says, "I am going to kill you", that is terrorism.
Then if he kills you with a booby trap, that is terrorism.
Would that be a simple explanation or must you have a book written to explain the whys and wherefores?

If we go by the above definition then by using cluster munitions and WP weapons then the IDF is a terrorist organization.
Personally I do not like to use the word because of the fact that it always seems to be colored by politics and strength. Seems as if it is always the forces that have the most modern weapons and the strongest forces that are using that particular charge against the others.

Well, I'm talking about military or paramilitary terrorism against civilians.

 

[Lipush]

With just how many settlers did you get to speak, peronally?

couldn't get close enough to speak, they were busy firing weapons in all directions

Settlers do not do that kind of thing.

Anti-Zionist propaganda at its best, Jossi.

You don't fool me with that one, though.

I happen to know what I'm talking about.

 

[Aurin]

We aren't and were not condoning the actions to the deaths. The US ambassador said the complaining parties put all emphasis over occupation than over the deaths of their troops. The whole thing was about "occupation" and the killings were the beard of the charges.

Do you have a citation for the ambassador's comments? I presume the rationale behind vetoing it was due to the Negroponte Doctrine.

Seems a little unfaithful to read into it like that, too. The resolution's draft is pretty straightforward on what is being criticized. People--human beings with moms, best friends, and hobbies--have died. You have to hold people accountable for it, even if you support them on other issues. Some of those Palestinians probably want no part in this conflict also. They need resources and basic human needs such as food. Why are we denying them it?

Even then, why isn't there reason to criticize occupier forces, had that been the issue under scrutiny?

 

[Hossfly]

We aren't and were not condoning the actions to the deaths. The US ambassador said the complaining parties put all emphasis over occupation than over the deaths of their troops. The whole thing was about "occupation" and the killings were the beard of the charges.

Do you have a citation for the ambassador's comments? I presume the rationale behind vetoing it was due to the Negroponte Doctrine.

Seems a little unfaithful to read into it like that, too. The resolution's draft is pretty straightforward on what is being criticized. People--human beings with moms, best friends, and hobbies--have died. You have to hold people accountable for it, even if you support them on other issues. Some of those Palestinians probably want no part in this conflict also. They need resources and basic human needs such as food. Why are we denying them it?

Even then, why isn't there reason to criticize occupier forces, had that been the issue under scrutiny?

Try this for starters. I can even produce a notarized statement from O.J. confessing to the murders. But read Amb. Negroponte's dissertation here:


http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/4681.pdf

 

[Aurin]

Awesome! Thank you.