Nazism in Israel

[browsing deer]

You didn't make me climb down from anything. You didn't understand what my point was about, so you didn't know what you were responding to. And if you didn't know what you were responding to, then you certainly don't know what you're talking about.

A

You said that Israel is the apartheid nazi state. Everything the nazis did, the Israelis don't do. There is no apartheid either. There are no separate accommodation rules. There is no ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing takes place at by death. That isn't happening. I see Israeli media. They bend over backward to give the pali view. It doesn't help the Arab cause that they are such terrible actors, throwing rocks at worshipers, at cars. They get a reputation for bad behavior by behaving so badly.
Israel is a jewish state. How is that awful.
You don't do the palestinians any favors by lying so badly. Legitimate palestinian grievances get lost in the lies you do.

 

[Billo_Really]

You said that Israel is the apartheid nazi state.

No, that's not what I said. If you can't understand what my point is, maybe you shouldn't be participating in a conversation such as this. Because these strawman arguments don't fly.

Everything the nazis did, the Israelis don't do.

First off, the Israeli's don't do everything the Nazis did and second, they do do some of it. They trash the Pals 24/7; enact laws that make them 2nd class citizens; jail them without charges; bulldoze their homes on a half hours notice; that's bullshit dude!

There is no apartheid either.

If there is no apartheid, then why are there no Arab communities in the Negev desert where they are the majority population? Why can Jews from all over the world come to Israel and an Arab-Israeli can't bring in his wife from the West Bank?

There are no separate accommodation rules.

Then what do you call the Admissions Communities Act?

There is no ethnic cleansing.

Tell that to the Bedouins.

Ethnic cleansing takes place at by death.

No shit Sherlock!

That isn't happening.

Almost 2000 Palestinian children have been murdered by the IDF since 2001.

I see Israeli media.

That's all you see.

They bend over backward to give the pali view.

Then why are 75% of Jewish-Israeli's okay with cultural segregation?

It doesn't help the Arab cause that they are such terrible actors, throwing rocks at worshipers, at cars. They get a reputation for bad behavior by behaving so badly.

They throw rocks at the occupiers. They have a legal right to resist occupation. You don't want rocks thrown at you, get the fuck off land that isn't yours!

Israel is a jewish state. How is that awful.

Pretty awful if you're not Jewish.

You don't do the palestinians any favors by lying so badly. Legitimate palestinian grievances get lost in the lies you do.

I don't give a flying fuck about the Palestinian's and I care even less about Israeli's.

What did I lie about?

 

[Billo_Really]

Tinny. Rocco has explained this to you, repeatedly, in excruciating detail. You don't get it because your insensate Joooooooo hatreds are more important to you than pretending to be a grownup.

Your posts are living proof the point in the OP is true.

No one hates the Pals more than you and no one trashes them more than you do.

You are their Waffen SS. From this moment on, you shall be known as...

...WaffenHollie!

 

[Hollie]

Tinny. Rocco has explained this to you, repeatedly, in excruciating detail. You don't get it because your insensate Joooooooo hatreds are more important to you than pretending to be a grownup.

Your posts are living proof the point in the OP is true.

No one hates the Pals more than you and no one trashes them more than you do.

You are their Waffen SS. From this moment on, you shall be known as...

...WaffenHollie!

Typically pointless as you made no attempt to address my posted comments.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three categories of theories opposed to the concept of the "right of return."

• The first is the dramatic shift in demographic it would cause the demise of the Jewish National Home, opening the Jewish People (unable to protect themselves) up to unnecessary persecution. The impact it would have economically and commercially.
• The development of another mediocre or fail state in the region; politically, economically/commercially, industrially. Leaving the precursors to the same set of conditions that gave rise to the Arab Spring.
• The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.
​

No, my opinions are not simplistic at all. Merely simple to state.

"The pro-Palestinians and especially the pro-HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) are fond of using the argument that the rest of the world is with them. And vocally, that may be true. Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.

In October of 2014, international donors pledged billions of dollars in aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. What have we seen a year later? Only a small fraction of that aid has arrived donated. The longer these problems go unaddressed, the more likely becomes the prospect of another devastating war, officials say. (See: The world promised billions to rebuild Gaza, but didn’t deliver. Why not? The GlobalPost, by Laura Dean, Aug 11, 2015)

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the

There is a correlation to the amount Congress authorized for the Palestinians and the increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; particularly in the troubled years of 2007, 2012, and 2014.

It does not appear that in deeds, the rest of the world demonstrates any greater support of the Palestinians, then do the individual countries members of the Arab League.

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Hostile Arab Palestinian poses a clear and present danger to both the security and integrity of Israel, as well as regional security. But it is just as important to note that the US has made its fair share in contributions to the Palestinians, as compared to the other major donor nations.

At least part of the reason for restrictions and countermeasures directed at Arab Palestinians is found in the reasonable acceptance of RISK. While the strategies and focus have changed over time, the extremist views and the conduct of hostile activities of the radical elements has not significantly changed. This to, supports the barriers to entry and the reduction of the threat. As of yet, the leadership of the Palestinian People has not yet demonstrated that they are seriously interested in peace. In fact,over the last two years, they have demonstrated the opposite. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians will make any significant and positive contribution to peace in the coming years.

The reasonable man, taking reasonable care, would not consider the Arab Palestinian at all for repatriation. The RISK is simply too great.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

The occupation and blockade are the cause of all the hostility in that area.

Palistanians should change their occupation, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Among these hostile cultures are the Arab Palestinians that have taken a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. What was it that they wanted to partition again?

Jewish property and holdings, of course! What else did those arab immigrant bumz from the hood want to partition?

 

[docmauser1]

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

Drivel?

 

[docmauser1]

If there is no apartheid, then why are there no Arab communities in the Negev desert where they are the majority population?

Oh, that's easy! They prefer to stay close to the social security offices they enjoy bilking so much, together with stealing electric power and water, of course.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three categories of theories opposed to the concept of the "right of return."

• The first is the dramatic shift in demographic it would cause the demise of the Jewish National Home, opening the Jewish People (unable to protect themselves) up to unnecessary persecution. The impact it would have economically and commercially.
• The development of another mediocre or fail state in the region; politically, economically/commercially, industrially. Leaving the precursors to the same set of conditions that gave rise to the Arab Spring.
• The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.
​

No, my opinions are not simplistic at all. Merely simple to state.

"The pro-Palestinians and especially the pro-HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) are fond of using the argument that the rest of the world is with them. And vocally, that may be true. Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.

In October of 2014, international donors pledged billions of dollars in aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. What have we seen a year later? Only a small fraction of that aid has arrived donated. The longer these problems go unaddressed, the more likely becomes the prospect of another devastating war, officials say. (See: The world promised billions to rebuild Gaza, but didn’t deliver. Why not? The GlobalPost, by Laura Dean, Aug 11, 2015)

View attachment 50480
View attachment 50483​

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the

View attachment 50484​

There is a correlation to the amount Congress authorized for the Palestinians and the increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; particularly in the troubled years of 2007, 2012, and 2014.

View attachment 50486​

It does not appear that in deeds, the rest of the world demonstrates any greater support of the Palestinians, then do the individual countries members of the Arab League.

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Hostile Arab Palestinian poses a clear and present danger to both the security and integrity of Israel, as well as regional security. But it is just as important to note that the US has made its fair share in contributions to the Palestinians, as compared to the other major donor nations.

At least part of the reason for restrictions and countermeasures directed at Arab Palestinians is found in the reasonable acceptance of RISK. While the strategies and focus have changed over time, the extremist views and the conduct of hostile activities of the radical elements has not significantly changed. This to, supports the barriers to entry and the reduction of the threat. As of yet, the leadership of the Palestinian People has not yet demonstrated that they are seriously interested in peace. In fact,over the last two years, they have demonstrated the opposite. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians will make any significant and positive contribution to peace in the coming years.

The reasonable man, taking reasonable care, would not consider the Arab Palestinian at all for repatriation. The RISK is simply too great.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why doesn't your propaganda graph show the munitions fired into Gaza?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three categories of theories opposed to the concept of the "right of return."

• The first is the dramatic shift in demographic it would cause the demise of the Jewish National Home, opening the Jewish People (unable to protect themselves) up to unnecessary persecution. The impact it would have economically and commercially.
• The development of another mediocre or fail state in the region; politically, economically/commercially, industrially. Leaving the precursors to the same set of conditions that gave rise to the Arab Spring.
• The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.
​

No, my opinions are not simplistic at all. Merely simple to state.

"The pro-Palestinians and especially the pro-HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) are fond of using the argument that the rest of the world is with them. And vocally, that may be true. Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.

In October of 2014, international donors pledged billions of dollars in aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. What have we seen a year later? Only a small fraction of that aid has arrived donated. The longer these problems go unaddressed, the more likely becomes the prospect of another devastating war, officials say. (See: The world promised billions to rebuild Gaza, but didn’t deliver. Why not? The GlobalPost, by Laura Dean, Aug 11, 2015)

View attachment 50480
View attachment 50483​

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the

View attachment 50484​

There is a correlation to the amount Congress authorized for the Palestinians and the increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; particularly in the troubled years of 2007, 2012, and 2014.

View attachment 50486​

It does not appear that in deeds, the rest of the world demonstrates any greater support of the Palestinians, then do the individual countries members of the Arab League.

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Hostile Arab Palestinian poses a clear and present danger to both the security and integrity of Israel, as well as regional security. But it is just as important to note that the US has made its fair share in contributions to the Palestinians, as compared to the other major donor nations.

At least part of the reason for restrictions and countermeasures directed at Arab Palestinians is found in the reasonable acceptance of RISK. While the strategies and focus have changed over time, the extremist views and the conduct of hostile activities of the radical elements has not significantly changed. This to, supports the barriers to entry and the reduction of the threat. As of yet, the leadership of the Palestinian People has not yet demonstrated that they are seriously interested in peace. In fact,over the last two years, they have demonstrated the opposite. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians will make any significant and positive contribution to peace in the coming years.

The reasonable man, taking reasonable care, would not consider the Arab Palestinian at all for repatriation. The RISK is simply too great.

Most Respectfully,
R

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the...​

Indeed, but they would not need any without Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three categories of theories opposed to the concept of the "right of return."

• The first is the dramatic shift in demographic it would cause the demise of the Jewish National Home, opening the Jewish People (unable to protect themselves) up to unnecessary persecution. The impact it would have economically and commercially.
• The development of another mediocre or fail state in the region; politically, economically/commercially, industrially. Leaving the precursors to the same set of conditions that gave rise to the Arab Spring.
• The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.
​

No, my opinions are not simplistic at all. Merely simple to state.

"The pro-Palestinians and especially the pro-HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) are fond of using the argument that the rest of the world is with them. And vocally, that may be true. Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.

In October of 2014, international donors pledged billions of dollars in aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. What have we seen a year later? Only a small fraction of that aid has arrived donated. The longer these problems go unaddressed, the more likely becomes the prospect of another devastating war, officials say. (See: The world promised billions to rebuild Gaza, but didn’t deliver. Why not? The GlobalPost, by Laura Dean, Aug 11, 2015)

View attachment 50480
View attachment 50483​

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the

View attachment 50484​

There is a correlation to the amount Congress authorized for the Palestinians and the increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; particularly in the troubled years of 2007, 2012, and 2014.

View attachment 50486​

It does not appear that in deeds, the rest of the world demonstrates any greater support of the Palestinians, then do the individual countries members of the Arab League.

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Hostile Arab Palestinian poses a clear and present danger to both the security and integrity of Israel, as well as regional security. But it is just as important to note that the US has made its fair share in contributions to the Palestinians, as compared to the other major donor nations.

At least part of the reason for restrictions and countermeasures directed at Arab Palestinians is found in the reasonable acceptance of RISK. While the strategies and focus have changed over time, the extremist views and the conduct of hostile activities of the radical elements has not significantly changed. This to, supports the barriers to entry and the reduction of the threat. As of yet, the leadership of the Palestinian People has not yet demonstrated that they are seriously interested in peace. In fact,over the last two years, they have demonstrated the opposite. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians will make any significant and positive contribution to peace in the coming years.

The reasonable man, taking reasonable care, would not consider the Arab Palestinian at all for repatriation. The RISK is simply too great.

Most Respectfully,
R

The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.​

They only attack the occupation. It has nothing to do with the region.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three categories of theories opposed to the concept of the "right of return."

• The first is the dramatic shift in demographic it would cause the demise of the Jewish National Home, opening the Jewish People (unable to protect themselves) up to unnecessary persecution. The impact it would have economically and commercially.
• The development of another mediocre or fail state in the region; politically, economically/commercially, industrially. Leaving the precursors to the same set of conditions that gave rise to the Arab Spring.
• The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.
​

No, my opinions are not simplistic at all. Merely simple to state.

"The pro-Palestinians and especially the pro-HAMAS (Islamic Resistance) are fond of using the argument that the rest of the world is with them. And vocally, that may be true. Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.

In October of 2014, international donors pledged billions of dollars in aid to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. What have we seen a year later? Only a small fraction of that aid has arrived donated. The longer these problems go unaddressed, the more likely becomes the prospect of another devastating war, officials say. (See: The world promised billions to rebuild Gaza, but didn’t deliver. Why not? The GlobalPost, by Laura Dean, Aug 11, 2015)

View attachment 50480
View attachment 50483​

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the

View attachment 50484​

There is a correlation to the amount Congress authorized for the Palestinians and the increase in the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel; particularly in the troubled years of 2007, 2012, and 2014.

View attachment 50486​

It does not appear that in deeds, the rest of the world demonstrates any greater support of the Palestinians, then do the individual countries members of the Arab League.

Your opinion on the right of return is very simplistic and Israel centric.

(COMMENT)

There is no question that the Hostile Arab Palestinian poses a clear and present danger to both the security and integrity of Israel, as well as regional security. But it is just as important to note that the US has made its fair share in contributions to the Palestinians, as compared to the other major donor nations.

At least part of the reason for restrictions and countermeasures directed at Arab Palestinians is found in the reasonable acceptance of RISK. While the strategies and focus have changed over time, the extremist views and the conduct of hostile activities of the radical elements has not significantly changed. This to, supports the barriers to entry and the reduction of the threat. As of yet, the leadership of the Palestinian People has not yet demonstrated that they are seriously interested in peace. In fact,over the last two years, they have demonstrated the opposite. There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab Palestinians will make any significant and positive contribution to peace in the coming years.

The reasonable man, taking reasonable care, would not consider the Arab Palestinian at all for repatriation. The RISK is simply too great.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yet these supporting countries, from all over the world, do not actually demonstrate, in any meaningful way, their support.​

There is a difference between people and the lackeys in governments.

Particularly our own Uncle Lackey.

 

[docmauser1]

America may not be the best ally the Palestinians have, but it is the most consistent ally they have. The US, was the largest single nation contributor to the Palestinian of any other donor nation; nearly matching the total contribution of the entire oil rich Arab League until the...​

Indeed, but they would not need any without Israel.

Ah, still dreaming of killing jews and redistributing jewish property. Palistanian occupation, that is.

 

[docmauser1]

The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.​

They only attack the occupation. It has nothing to do with the region.

It's the palistanian occupation, they can't attack what's theirs, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Particularly our own Uncle Lackey.

Funny drivel.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, that has to do with the fact that it is not relevant.

Why doesn't your propaganda graph show the munitions fired into Gaza?

(COMMENT)

The first use of armed force by HAMAS constitutes prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (re-initiating hostilities); and the use of force was directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel (as recognized by the UN)(Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions). This act of aggression triggers the inherent right of Israel to exercise the right of self-defense. Defending against an armed attack from HAMAS, a constituent of the Unity Government for the State of Palestine.

It is not a matter of how much ordnance was exchange. It is the use of deadly force in connection with an attack by the HAMAS.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, that has to do with the fact that it is not relevant.

Why doesn't your propaganda graph show the munitions fired into Gaza?

(COMMENT)

The first use of armed force by HAMAS constitutes prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (re-initiating hostilities); and the use of force was directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel (as recognized by the UN)(Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions). This act of aggression triggers the inherent right of Israel to exercise the right of self-defense. Defending against an armed attack from HAMAS, a constituent of the Unity Government for the State of Palestine.

It is not a matter of how much ordnance was exchange. It is the use of deadly force in connection with an attack by the HAMAS.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, attacking an occupying force is aggression?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The regional security impact on the destabilization of Israel would be significant. But, be that as it may, any attack on Israel by the Arab Palestinians is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.​

​

They only attack the occupation. It has nothing to do with the region.

(COMMENT)

See Article 68 for the Fourth Geneva Convention. Hostile Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Israel Occupying Power, acts of espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the IDF installations of the Occupying Power --- or --- of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, is in violation of the Geneva Convention (IHL). The Arab Palestinians has no special authority (legal or moral) to attack Israel (especially non-combatants).

The statement: --- "They only attack the occupation." --- is an admission of guilt.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh it is more than just that.

Oh, that has to do with the fact that it is not relevant.

Why doesn't your propaganda graph show the munitions fired into Gaza?

(COMMENT)

The first use of armed force by HAMAS constitutes prima facie evidence of an act of aggression (re-initiating hostilities); and the use of force was directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel (as recognized by the UN)(Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions). This act of aggression triggers the inherent right of Israel to exercise the right of self-defense. Defending against an armed attack from HAMAS, a constituent of the Unity Government for the State of Palestine.

It is not a matter of how much ordnance was exchange. It is the use of deadly force in connection with an attack by the HAMAS.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, attacking an occupying force is aggression?

(COMMENT)

You may think it is screwy, but it is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (Article 68 of the GCIV). The Hostile Arab Palestinians have no special right to demonstrate hostile behaviors.

Most Respectfully,
R