Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How can the Palestinians, who were the inhabitants of Palestine before the European Jews invaded, be occupiers?
Eh, Monte, who was there on the land before Palestinians? Or was it Muslim or Christian Palestinians who built Solomon's Temple?
Aww. Hurt feelings?How can the Palestinians, who were the inhabitants of Palestine before the European Jews invaded, be occupiers?
Eh, Monte, who was there on the land before Palestinians? Or was it Muslim or Christian Palestinians who built Solomon's Temple?
The ancestors of many of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians built Solomon's Temple. Many of their ancestors practiced Judaism at the time. The ancestors of European converts to Judaism certainly had nothing to do with building it.
What does Solomon's Temple have to do with Islamic terrorists?What does that have to do with Solomon's Temple?
"just causes" clearly depends on what side of the fence one stands...
However, you are correct, there is NO just cause for terrorism... EVER!
I'm not sure that there is a "quest for more territory", rather, a quest to reclaim occupied territory... On that basis then one can consider there being 'freedom fighters' or, perhaps a 'resistance movement'...
So, we agree that a "freedom fighter" who uses terrorism is nothing but a terrorist, then? Since terrorism is never acceptable there is no point in cleaning up the language we use. A terrorist committing terror attacks for a "just cause" is still a terrorist.
Sure, if you want to call it a RE-acquisition of territory, rather than the acquisition of territory, it makes little enough difference. (Though, of course, BOTH sides can justify using that terminology and we both know that, technically, Arab Muslim Palestinians never had any territory under their own self-rule). Still, for the Palestinians it is fundamentally about the acquisition of territory.
For Hamas -- it is the (re)acquisition of the entire remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine. It is the belief that Arab Muslims should have sovereignty over 100% of the territory and the Jewish people should have sovereignty over none. They are not fighting for "freedom" or "resisting foreign rule". They have freedom, complete control over the territory they have. Freedom enough to use the resources available to them for purposes they choose. They are not under foreign rule. They rule Gaza. They don't even have a small Jewish influence there as Gaza has been deliberately made Judenrein. So, no, they are neither "freedom fighter" nor a "resistance movement" -- they are fighters demanding more territory and denying any sort of territory or self-determination for the other group for whom this place is a homeland.
For the PA -- it is the (re)acquisition of the territory to the 1967 lines, without compromise or exchanges or negotiations. And it requires this land, also, to be the Judenrein. And it requires the (re)acquisition of territory within Israel by the returnees. The PA, also has control over its own territory (Areas A and B). So no, neither "freedom fighters" nor a "resistance movement", but a drive to gain more territory.
The control that Israel has, especially over the West Bank/Judea & Samaria, is that of security. The only need Israel has in that territory is to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens and to ensure the sovereignty of Israel (on some territory).
But what is Israel fighting for? Israel is fighting an ideological and a physical war to defend itself, its citizens and its sovereignty. Israel isn't fighting for territory. Israel is fighting for its right to exist.
What I don't get about you, is why you occasionally insist that you support the rights of both peoples, yet continually support or argue for only the one side. Why do you support the acquisition of more territory by the Palestinists? Why aren't you arguing for a secure Israel?
"just causes" clearly depends on what side of the fence one stands...
However, you are correct, there is NO just cause for terrorism... EVER!
I'm not sure that there is a "quest for more territory", rather, a quest to reclaim occupied territory... On that basis then one can consider there being 'freedom fighters' or, perhaps a 'resistance movement'...
So, we agree that a "freedom fighter" who uses terrorism is nothing but a terrorist, then? Since terrorism is never acceptable there is no point in cleaning up the language we use. A terrorist committing terror attacks for a "just cause" is still a terrorist.
Sure, if you want to call it a RE-acquisition of territory, rather than the acquisition of territory, it makes little enough difference. (Though, of course, BOTH sides can justify using that terminology and we both know that, technically, Arab Muslim Palestinians never had any territory under their own self-rule). Still, for the Palestinians it is fundamentally about the acquisition of territory.
For Hamas -- it is the (re)acquisition of the entire remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine. It is the belief that Arab Muslims should have sovereignty over 100% of the territory and the Jewish people should have sovereignty over none. They are not fighting for "freedom" or "resisting foreign rule". They have freedom, complete control over the territory they have. Freedom enough to use the resources available to them for purposes they choose. They are not under foreign rule. They rule Gaza. They don't even have a small Jewish influence there as Gaza has been deliberately made Judenrein. So, no, they are neither "freedom fighter" nor a "resistance movement" -- they are fighters demanding more territory and denying any sort of territory or self-determination for the other group for whom this place is a homeland.
For the PA -- it is the (re)acquisition of the territory to the 1967 lines, without compromise or exchanges or negotiations. And it requires this land, also, to be the Judenrein. And it requires the (re)acquisition of territory within Israel by the returnees. The PA, also has control over its own territory (Areas A and B). So no, neither "freedom fighters" nor a "resistance movement", but a drive to gain more territory.
The control that Israel has, especially over the West Bank/Judea & Samaria, is that of security. The only need Israel has in that territory is to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens and to ensure the sovereignty of Israel (on some territory).
But what is Israel fighting for? Israel is fighting an ideological and a physical war to defend itself, its citizens and its sovereignty. Israel isn't fighting for territory. Israel is fighting for its right to exist.
What I don't get about you, is why you occasionally insist that you support the rights of both peoples, yet continually support or argue for only the one side. Why do you support the acquisition of more territory by the Palestinists? Why aren't you arguing for a secure Israel?
Well, we almost agree... Though I am more prepared to be a little bit broad minded as far as "freedom fighters" and "just causes"...
Your belief that Gaza is "free" and has no "Jewish influence" is, at best naive! They do NOT have "complete control over the territory they have"... Goodness me, Gaza is FAR from "free"! The occupied West Bank, there is a clue in the name, occupied by Israel! Israel has no right to be there! If it did then it would NOT be called "occupied" would it!
And you are VERY wrong that I do not argue for a "secure Israel"! I believe that Jews have the right of a homeland, Israel is that homeland and should remain so! I often criticize Hamas and the terror attacks, tunnels etc etc...
As opposed to the zionists here who believe that Israel can do NO wrong and never criticize ANYTHING that Israel does wrong... Even going so far as to suggest that 'Israeli/Jewish terrorism' is in some way 'different'! Not seen you criticizing Israel?
Your belief that Gaza is "free" and has no "Jewish influence" is, at best naive! They do NOT have "complete control over the territory they have"... Goodness me, Gaza is FAR from "free"!
Not seen you criticizing Israel?
(COMMENT)Not seen you criticizing Israel?
Then you haven't been paying attention. I criticize Israel when we are discussing things for which Israel should be criticized. Not two days ago, I was critical of Israel on a point, arguing against my fellow "zionists". (I don't criticize Israel for for wanting self-determination in their homeland, for example. Nor do I use the term "zionist" to separate the "good" Jews from the "bad" Jews).
Soon the evolutionary sequence for the "Zionist" will be more historical in nature than contemporary.
Most Respectfully,
R
"just causes" clearly depends on what side of the fence one stands...
However, you are correct, there is NO just cause for terrorism... EVER!
I'm not sure that there is a "quest for more territory", rather, a quest to reclaim occupied territory... On that basis then one can consider there being 'freedom fighters' or, perhaps a 'resistance movement'...
So, we agree that a "freedom fighter" who uses terrorism is nothing but a terrorist, then? Since terrorism is never acceptable there is no point in cleaning up the language we use. A terrorist committing terror attacks for a "just cause" is still a terrorist.
Sure, if you want to call it a RE-acquisition of territory, rather than the acquisition of territory, it makes little enough difference. (Though, of course, BOTH sides can justify using that terminology and we both know that, technically, Arab Muslim Palestinians never had any territory under their own self-rule). Still, for the Palestinians it is fundamentally about the acquisition of territory.
For Hamas -- it is the (re)acquisition of the entire remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine. It is the belief that Arab Muslims should have sovereignty over 100% of the territory and the Jewish people should have sovereignty over none. They are not fighting for "freedom" or "resisting foreign rule". They have freedom, complete control over the territory they have. Freedom enough to use the resources available to them for purposes they choose. They are not under foreign rule. They rule Gaza. They don't even have a small Jewish influence there as Gaza has been deliberately made Judenrein. So, no, they are neither "freedom fighter" nor a "resistance movement" -- they are fighters demanding more territory and denying any sort of territory or self-determination for the other group for whom this place is a homeland.
For the PA -- it is the (re)acquisition of the territory to the 1967 lines, without compromise or exchanges or negotiations. And it requires this land, also, to be the Judenrein. And it requires the (re)acquisition of territory within Israel by the returnees. The PA, also has control over its own territory (Areas A and B). So no, neither "freedom fighters" nor a "resistance movement", but a drive to gain more territory.
The control that Israel has, especially over the West Bank/Judea & Samaria, is that of security. The only need Israel has in that territory is to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens and to ensure the sovereignty of Israel (on some territory).
But what is Israel fighting for? Israel is fighting an ideological and a physical war to defend itself, its citizens and its sovereignty. Israel isn't fighting for territory. Israel is fighting for its right to exist.
What I don't get about you, is why you occasionally insist that you support the rights of both peoples, yet continually support or argue for only the one side. Why do you support the acquisition of more territory by the Palestinists? Why aren't you arguing for a secure Israel?
Well, we almost agree... Though I am more prepared to be a little bit broad minded as far as "freedom fighters" and "just causes"...
Your belief that Gaza is "free" and has no "Jewish influence" is, at best naive! They do NOT have "complete control over the territory they have"... Goodness me, Gaza is FAR from "free"! The occupied West Bank, there is a clue in the name, occupied by Israel! Israel has no right to be there! If it did then it would NOT be called "occupied" would it!
And you are VERY wrong that I do not argue for a "secure Israel"! I believe that Jews have the right of a homeland, Israel is that homeland and should remain so! I often criticize Hamas and the terror attacks, tunnels etc etc...
As opposed to the zionists here who believe that Israel can do NO wrong and never criticize ANYTHING that Israel does wrong... Even going so far as to suggest that 'Israeli/Jewish terrorism' is in some way 'different'! Not seen you criticizing Israel?
Bravo Humanity . You are so right that Gaza is anything but free from Israeli rule & control. Just look what those Zionists & their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions have done to keep fueling this endless conflict. As long as the Zionists keep the Palestinians captives anywhere in Israel's land there will be no peace. History has proven king Hussein was right in how to deal with Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace. Don't you agree? LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Your belief that Gaza is "free" and has no "Jewish influence" is, at best naive! They do NOT have "complete control over the territory they have"... Goodness me, Gaza is FAR from "free"!
How so? They have the freedom to import weapons and make war (actually terrorism) on Israel. They have the freedom to build tunnels or they have the freedom to build homes, hospitals, sewage treatment plants, luxury hotels. They have the freedom to police their own citizens, including executing those who "co-operate" with Israel. They have the freedom to collect aide from the international community. And the freedom to develop an economy, tourism, trade.
Sure, they don't have the freedom to fish beyond a certain range. They don't have the freedom to enter buffer zones between Gaza and Israel. They don't have the freedom to travel to Israel without crossing a border and the checkpoints (nearly all nations have borders and checkpoints). They don't have the freedom to import certain "dual use" items. But these are all consequences of Israel's need for security against actions of the Gazans themselves and of their government.
Aren't the consequences of war that they are currently facing actually a direct result of their ability to act on their freedoms?
Not seen you criticizing Israel?
Then you haven't been paying attention. I criticize Israel when we are discussing things for which Israel should be criticized. Not two days ago, I was critical of Israel on a point, arguing against my fellow "zionists". (I don't criticize Israel for for wanting self-determination in their homeland, for example. Nor do I use the term "zionist" to separate the "good" Jews from the "bad" Jews).
How so?
Israel controls air, land and sea of Gaza...
Keep up!
Then you too have not been paying attention to the posts where I criticize Hamas, terror attacks and back the right of Israel to exist!
How so?
Israel controls air, land and sea of Gaza...
Keep up!
Oh come on. Is that the best you can do? Aim for a higher level of discussion.
First, Israel does not control Gaza's land. Israel has created a buffer zone between itself and Gaza in order to protect Israel against Gazan attacks. Gaza has the freedom to attack, and has attacked through the land crossings, thus the consequences of Gaza's freedom to attack is the buffer zone to prevent such attacks and the checkpoints at the border. The solution to removing the buffer zone is to use the freedom enjoyed by Gaza to do something other than attack Israel. Trade and tourism come immediately to mind.
Israel does not control Gaza's sea. It controls a buffer zone between itself and Gaza in order to protect Israel from Gazan attacks and the importation of material with which to attack Israel. It is a consequence of Gaza's freedom and the use of Gaza's freedom to attack Israel. And the solution is to stop importing weapons with which to attack Israel. Using your own freedom.
If Gaza were controlled by any other country, the way Israel has control, then, I am pretty sure, you would consider it unacceptable!
"Trade and tourism come immediately to mind."? Seriously? Want to tell me how?
If you supported the right of Israel to exist you would stop using the term "zionist" as though it were a bad word and separated the "good" Jews from the "bad" ones.
And, I will continue to use the term "zionist" as though it is a bad word, because it is!
And, I will continue to support the existence of Israel as a homeland for Jews!
