Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Coyote]

There are NOT two sides to every issue. And sometimes is dangerous to think so. (I read a great article about this not long ago, but can't find it just now.)

One of the reasons why it is dangerous is for exactly what you are attempting to do here: minimize, reduce, push aside, claim something isn't real or isn't really happening. Its rejecting reality, specifically rejecting the reality of the target, which is gaslighting.

I do not agree - there are always multiple sides. That doesn't mean both sides and their arguments are equal, but to say there aren't two sides is to totally reject the other and to totally accept the dominant narrative even though sometimes that narrative is wrong.

Actually....I can think of things where there are NOT two sides that have legitimacy, and I guess those are things that deal with moral imperatives (if that is the correct term).

Targeting and killling innocent people, particularly children.
Genocide.

There are probably others. But if you are talking about the overall I/P conflict - a broad and complex issue, then yes there are two sides.

I wish I could find that article I was reading. It was about six months ago though. I'm pretty sure I printed it off and filed it somewhere for my work, but.... shrug.

I think we've clarified this enough that we are more-or-less on the same page here. I agree with your last sentence.

Still, you didn't post about the broad and complex issues -- you posted a list of all the bad things Israel is doing. As a direct response to comments about an ideology held by Arabs.

If you want to be seen as balanced and understanding and representing both sides, you need to NOT draw a straight line between Arab's vile ideology and bad things Israel is doing. You need to show your work. You need to demonstrate the broad and complex part.

I didn't post a list - just two examples, textbooks and Nakba. Two things.

And here you, again, confuse. You chastised me for expecting others to post both sides...and then chastise me for not posting both sides.

I was thinking of the other post and the other list. My bad.

I'm chastising you for claiming to be able to see and represent both sides while only posting one side. Its the internal inconsistency that I am calling out.

I don't think I've ever claimed to represent both sides...I've always said I see merit and right and wrong in both sides, but I've always been pro-Palestinian in my general position. I've never claimed otherwise.

I will add, because I am sure someone will attempt to say this. Being pro-Palestinian does not mean supporting acts of terrorism, murdering civilians, etc.

My views are that the State of Israel is a here to stay, has every right to exist as a state for the Jewish people (or what ever they determine since it's their right as a state to define themselves) and the Palestinians must recognize this if they are to move on. I believe they have the same rights as the Jewish people, including self determination in the region that is their homeland. That would have meant a two-state solution but that is increasingly unlikely so I'm not sure what it means now.

 

[Shusha]

I do not agree - there are always multiple sides. That doesn't mean both sides and their arguments are equal, but to say there aren't two sides is to totally reject the other and to totally accept the dominant narrative even though sometimes that narrative is wrong.

Actually....I can think of things where there are NOT two sides that have legitimacy, and I guess those are things that deal with moral imperatives (if that is the correct term).

Targeting and killling innocent people, particularly children.
Genocide.

There are probably others. But if you are talking about the overall I/P conflict - a broad and complex issue, then yes there are two sides.

I wish I could find that article I was reading. It was about six months ago though. I'm pretty sure I printed it off and filed it somewhere for my work, but.... shrug.

I think we've clarified this enough that we are more-or-less on the same page here. I agree with your last sentence.

Still, you didn't post about the broad and complex issues -- you posted a list of all the bad things Israel is doing. As a direct response to comments about an ideology held by Arabs.

If you want to be seen as balanced and understanding and representing both sides, you need to NOT draw a straight line between Arab's vile ideology and bad things Israel is doing. You need to show your work. You need to demonstrate the broad and complex part.

I didn't post a list - just two examples, textbooks and Nakba. Two things.

And here you, again, confuse. You chastised me for expecting others to post both sides...and then chastise me for not posting both sides.

I was thinking of the other post and the other list. My bad.

I'm chastising you for claiming to be able to see and represent both sides while only posting one side. Its the internal inconsistency that I am calling out.

I don't think I've ever claimed to represent both sides...I've always said I see merit and right and wrong in both sides, but I've always been pro-Palestinian in my general position. I've never claimed otherwise.

I will add, because I am sure someone will attempt to say this. Being pro-Palestinian does not mean supporting acts of terrorism, murdering civilians, etc.

My views are that the State of Israel is a here to stay, has every right to exist as a state for the Jewish people (or what ever they determine since it's their right as a state to define themselves) and the Palestinians must recognize this if they are to move on. I believe they have the same rights as the Jewish people, including self determination in the region that is their homeland. That would have meant a two-state solution but that is increasingly unlikely so I'm not sure what it means now.

This seems to me to be the only reasonable view to take.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Why, would you say, is it that you argue the pro-Palestinian side primarily? Just curious.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That wasn't the Palestinian's fault. Why should they get bounced for that?

There was immigration on both sides - there were also Arabs, from Egypt, Syria etc. who immigrated to the region for work. Why don't you blame them as well?

The Arabs immigrated to be part of the Palestinian society.

The Zionist "immigrants" came to take over Palestine.

There were no similarities.

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

 

[Coyote]

There was immigration on both sides - there were also Arabs, from Egypt, Syria etc. who immigrated to the region for work. Why don't you blame them as well?

The Arabs immigrated to be part of the Palestinian society.

The Zionist "immigrants" came to take over Palestine.

There were no similarities.

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

 

[Shusha]

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

This is talking about the ideology used by Muslims...

by Muslims...not Muslim extremists...not some Muslims - every statement has been a broad brush, not a narrow one.

Well, two points

1. The posts, taken in their entirety (at least on I/P), clearly name the ideology as the problem, not the religion and not the people.

2. It takes a strong culture to support that much visible, tangible extremism.

 

[Rigby5]

I do not agree - there are always multiple sides. That doesn't mean both sides and their arguments are equal, but to say there aren't two sides is to totally reject the other and to totally accept the dominant narrative even though sometimes that narrative is wrong.

Actually....I can think of things where there are NOT two sides that have legitimacy, and I guess those are things that deal with moral imperatives (if that is the correct term).

Targeting and killling innocent people, particularly children.
Genocide.

There are probably others. But if you are talking about the overall I/P conflict - a broad and complex issue, then yes there are two sides.

I wish I could find that article I was reading. It was about six months ago though. I'm pretty sure I printed it off and filed it somewhere for my work, but.... shrug.

I think we've clarified this enough that we are more-or-less on the same page here. I agree with your last sentence.

Still, you didn't post about the broad and complex issues -- you posted a list of all the bad things Israel is doing. As a direct response to comments about an ideology held by Arabs.

If you want to be seen as balanced and understanding and representing both sides, you need to NOT draw a straight line between Arab's vile ideology and bad things Israel is doing. You need to show your work. You need to demonstrate the broad and complex part.

I didn't post a list - just two examples, textbooks and Nakba. Two things.

And here you, again, confuse. You chastised me for expecting others to post both sides...and then chastise me for not posting both sides.

I was thinking of the other post and the other list. My bad.

I'm chastising you for claiming to be able to see and represent both sides while only posting one side. Its the internal inconsistency that I am calling out.

I don't think I've ever claimed to represent both sides...I've always said I see merit and right and wrong in both sides, but I've always been pro-Palestinian in my general position. I've never claimed otherwise.

I will add, because I am sure someone will attempt to say this. Being pro-Palestinian does not mean supporting acts of terrorism, murdering civilians, etc.

My views are that the State of Israel is a here to stay, has every right to exist as a state for the Jewish people (or what ever they determine since it's their right as a state to define themselves) and the Palestinians must recognize this if they are to move on. I believe they have the same rights as the Jewish people, including self determination in the region that is their homeland. That would have meant a two-state solution but that is increasingly unlikely so I'm not sure what it means now.

Except that no Jews in Israel has ever paid for any land.
It is given to them for free by the state, and that is because the state never paid for it.
Instead, all the land was paid for and owned by Arab Palestinians, and the land was all stolen by force.
The actual owners then were either murdered or threatened with violence until they fled.

Since the state of Israel has then been complicit in these criminal confiscations of Arab homes, how is the State of Israel legitimate or have a right to exist?
Look at the census data going back to 1900 or before.
The Jews in Israel are almost all illegal immigrants after 1930 to 1960.
That means they really have no legal right to be there even, much less to take land by force.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

Why, would you say, is it that you argue the pro-Palestinian side primarily? Just curious.

Good question. My views have somewhat shifted over my stay here so I'm not as unilaterally pro-Palestinian as I once was (I think I recognize the more complex nature of the conflict).

I guess I tend to support the underdog - which right now, is how I see the Palestinians. The Israeli's operate from the side of strength - they won, they hold all the cards, they strong in terms of their military, in stability and purpose. The Palestinians are a mess but they are real human beings, trying to raise families, trying to do their best to survive in pretty hard situations caught between corrupt leadership and Israel.

Many have immigrated and built thriving successful communities in other countries, such as the US. So clearly they aren't the all encompassing evil they are portrayed as by many.

I also hate to see any group demonized whether it's Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Blacks - it's dangerous. What if no one stands up for them?

That's a bit rambling I guess.

 

[Coyote]

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

This is talking about the ideology used by Muslims...

by Muslims...not Muslim extremists...not some Muslims - every statement has been a broad brush, not a narrow one.

Well, two points

1. The posts, taken in their entirety (at least on I/P), clearly name the ideology as the problem, not the religion and not the people.

2. It takes a strong culture to support that much visible, tangible extremism.

1. In the reference, the ideology and people are the same. It's not a specific part of Islam being referred to.

2. Do you mean Islam worldwide? I think you have to look at it in a larger context - many conflicts involving religious factions are ethnic conflicts rather than religious conflicts. The causes of a rise of extremism are also complicated - you can't just boil it down to a religion. For example we are seeing a rise in rightwing extremism/white nationalism worldwide. What drives it are some of the same factors that drive Islamic extremism (similar vulnerabilities in individuals that allow them to be recruited). It's Islam now, but before that it was something else.

 

[Rigby5]

The Arabs immigrated to be part of the Palestinian society.

The Zionist "immigrants" came to take over Palestine.

There were no similarities.

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

That is simply a lie.
There were no Arab immigrants to Palestine.
The Palestinians are the indigenous natives, going back over 5000 years, way before the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It was called the Land of Canaan for the reason it was owned by and populated by Canaanites, not Hebrew.
In fact, there were more Akkadians, Urites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, etc., than there ever were Hebrew.
The Hebrew were never the natives.
They invaded around 1000 BC, and were kicked out continually by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and finally Romans.
There was no significant Jewish population in Palestine from 160 AD to 1945 AD.

 

[Rigby5]

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

This is talking about the ideology used by Muslims...

by Muslims...not Muslim extremists...not some Muslims - every statement has been a broad brush, not a narrow one.

Well, two points

1. The posts, taken in their entirety (at least on I/P), clearly name the ideology as the problem, not the religion and not the people.

2. It takes a strong culture to support that much visible, tangible extremism.

This has nothing to do with religion, race, people, or culture.
If the land illegal taken from Arabs was returned or at least exchanged, then there would be no problem at all.

 

[Hollie]

So. Show me where the distinction is made in her post. In the meantime, I'll use YOUR logic and assume that Tinmore doesn't really have issues against Jews but only "Zionists".

Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: The indoctrination and exploitation of people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology which has a source in Islam.

And you can't see the difference?

It is rather difficult to "see the difference" when you create a quote from Tinmore (based on your reading of what his views are) and then quote literally from Hollie with no personal interpretation.

Try this:
Tinmore: Its permissible, even honorable, to kill children because they are Jewish and present.

Hollie: Islam - a religion which indoctrinates and exploits people, including children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology.

She will go on about how Mohammed was a pedo and Islam is a religion of pedophilia if given a chance as well.

She is not separating out extremists - she was very clear.

I’ve never posyed that Muhammud was a pedophile so I ask that you use the “quote” function when you attribute comments to me.

As to Islamic ideology being the catalyst to indoctrinate and exploit children, which encourages, celebrates, rewards and glorifies killing innocent people in mass attacks while committing suicide is a vile ideology, I can point you to any number of articles I have linked to the PA and Hamas. The Hamas Charter has 92 separate references to “Allah”. So yes, Islamic ideology is a function of the actions perpetrated by Hamas, for one example,

It’s not attacking anything to point out the realities of Islamic terrorism. While I understand you would hope to relegate any demands of accountability to “attacking Islam”, the fact is, we live in a very dangerous reality where adherents to a particular politico-religious ideology are, with virtual exclusivity, responsible for the most outrageous acts of mass murder. Ignoring that reality or hoping to excuse it with references such as “but… but… but… but what about…” is not going to address the reality of Islamic terrorism.

I read the koran, which Moslems believe is God's uncreated, perfect, and literal word. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for subjugation of the kuffar and for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the koran confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read Sirat Rasul Allah, Muhammad's sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the 'Umdat al-Salik manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from sheikhs and “scholars”. I've read up on Islam's history, particularly focusing on gee-had and its colonialist/imperialistic character. I also began to follow the worldwide gee-had in the media, and I started to pay more attention to what had been going on in the islamist Middle East.

You’ve made no supportable case that the atrocities committed by islamists are unislamic. When clear and identifiable associations are made by Moelems that their atrocities are in furtherance of Islamic ideology, I have no reason to believe that they are somehow misguided.

 

[Hollie]

These are the Peaceful Inner Strugglers who have permanently dropped anchor in the seventh century and who are looking toward ways to expand the fascistic infliction of suffering and mass murder / suicide into the illusion of a pious man being granted a noble martyr's death: Hey, it's your delusion—have at it. The reality is, however, that Islamic killers live and thrive off of the suffering of everyday, decent humans. They find a religious duty in causing bloodshed. They see God's design in destruction and suffering. They feed on inculcating hatred and causing the agony of others. You may think that worldview is holy, but I happen to know that it's vile.

There are many many Palestinians who just want a decent life for themselves and their families and see nothing coming from leadership, corruption, and constant threats of violence from Israel. Infrastructure is repeatedly targeted and destroyed. Embargos place severe restrictions on how they live. Many of the people massing at the border fence aren't "Islamic terrorists" but just plain fed up and desperate people. People who are sick and tired of seeing their agriculture destroyed, children assaulted by stone throwing settlers and land taken.

Your response here absolutely REEKS of "its all the Jews fault".

"If only the Jews would stop attacking the poor, innocent Arabs so that the Arabs could just have a decent life for themselves, then everything would be rainbows and unicorns."

You pretend that the culture of violence and the ideology of mass murder and suicide is nothing but a response to Jewish "evil", as if the "Jews made them do it".

Tinmore couldn't have said it better.

Oh bullshit. You are totally ignoring the complexity of the issue - TOTALLY. I'm not laying blame - I'm calling bull on your claim that it is entirely one sided and simplistic. You know it isn't. So quit jumping to the "it's the Jooooos" victimhood defense!

Oh please.

Hollie's paragraph was about ideology.

If you want me to stop using the "Joooooooos victimhood defense" STOP giving me cause to.

You can do that by addressing Hollie's points in her post. Instead of (one-sidedly and without context) listing all the things which Israel (Jews) are "doing" to the Arabs which is preventing their "peaceful" life. Stop ignoring the ideology and claiming that "if only the Jews would stop doing these terrible things, then there would be peace".

Oh Please. Try to apply your standards evenly and DO NOT CLAIM I AM SAYING THINGS I DID NOT SAY. That is incredibly dishonest!

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

"....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths..."

How else does one describe a cradle to grave program of indoctrination with a singular focus of gee-had against the Jewish people?

You obviously want to excuse the Hamas run, Hitler Youth styled "summer camps" as innocuous play time. I won't.

I’m a bit more of a realist regarding the intentions of islam’s gee-had superstars. Their agenda is, of course, an Islamic Middle East (and more) modeled on a very rigid interpretation of the koran. An exclusively Arab Middle East, free of external influences (especially the hated “West”) is the stated goal. There’s little room for doubt, there. The tidal wave of anti-Americanism / anti-"westernism" has multiple wellsprings, of course. And they're understandably attached to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough in placating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and in parts of Western Europe -- ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place -- but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment of the US as the motivator of all the ills afflicting the moslem world and you have a recipe for a belligerent, 7th century politico-religious ideology that cannot confront its failures.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Arabs immigrated to be part of the Palestinian society.

The Zionist "immigrants" came to take over Palestine.

There were no similarities.

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

 

[Coyote]

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

 

[Hollie]

Oh bullshit. They migrated for JOBS.

If we applied the logic equally - Jews immigrated to become part of the native Jewish society - in fact they originally settled in established Jewish communities. There is no difference except different standards being applied.

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Gee-had carries consequences.

When you start a war, don't cry foul because you are trashed by a better trained, better equipped and more motivated opponent.

The crocodiles you can shed tears with are over there ------>

 

[Coyote]

There are many many Palestinians who just want a decent life for themselves and their families and see nothing coming from leadership, corruption, and constant threats of violence from Israel. Infrastructure is repeatedly targeted and destroyed. Embargos place severe restrictions on how they live. Many of the people massing at the border fence aren't "Islamic terrorists" but just plain fed up and desperate people. People who are sick and tired of seeing their agriculture destroyed, children assaulted by stone throwing settlers and land taken.

Your response here absolutely REEKS of "its all the Jews fault".

"If only the Jews would stop attacking the poor, innocent Arabs so that the Arabs could just have a decent life for themselves, then everything would be rainbows and unicorns."

You pretend that the culture of violence and the ideology of mass murder and suicide is nothing but a response to Jewish "evil", as if the "Jews made them do it".

Tinmore couldn't have said it better.

Oh bullshit. You are totally ignoring the complexity of the issue - TOTALLY. I'm not laying blame - I'm calling bull on your claim that it is entirely one sided and simplistic. You know it isn't. So quit jumping to the "it's the Jooooos" victimhood defense!

Oh please.

Hollie's paragraph was about ideology.

If you want me to stop using the "Joooooooos victimhood defense" STOP giving me cause to.

You can do that by addressing Hollie's points in her post. Instead of (one-sidedly and without context) listing all the things which Israel (Jews) are "doing" to the Arabs which is preventing their "peaceful" life. Stop ignoring the ideology and claiming that "if only the Jews would stop doing these terrible things, then there would be peace".

Oh Please. Try to apply your standards evenly and DO NOT CLAIM I AM SAYING THINGS I DID NOT SAY. That is incredibly dishonest!

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

"....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths..."

How else does one describe a cradle to grave program of indoctrination with a singular focus of gee-had against the Jewish people?

You obviously want to excuse the Hamas run, Hitler Youth styled "summer camps" as innocuous play time. I won't.

I’m a bit more of a realist regarding the intentions of islam’s gee-had superstars. Their agenda is, of course, an Islamic Middle East (and more) modeled on a very rigid interpretation of the koran. An exclusively Arab Middle East, free of external influences (especially the hated “West”) is the stated goal. There’s little room for doubt, there. The tidal wave of anti-Americanism / anti-"westernism" has multiple wellsprings, of course. And they're understandably attached to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough in placating Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and in parts of Western Europe -- ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place -- but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment of the US as the motivator of all the ills afflicting the moslem world and you have a recipe for a belligerent, 7th century politico-religious ideology that cannot confront its failures.

So...let's be clear Hollie - your issue is with ALL Muslims? For example many many Muslim's who have immigrated to western countries adopted western values and are hardly extremists. Majority of Muslims around the world do not support terrorism.

 

[Coyote]

....used by Moslems to breed generation after generation of religious psychopaths...


That is talking about MUSLIMS.

Go ahead and defend. I do not find any more defendable then Tinmore's comments.

This is talking about the ideology used by Muslims...

by Muslims...not Muslim extremists...not some Muslims - every statement has been a broad brush, not a narrow one.

Well, two points

1. The posts, taken in their entirety (at least on I/P), clearly name the ideology as the problem, not the religion and not the people.

2. It takes a strong culture to support that much visible, tangible extremism.

This has nothing to do with religion, race, people, or culture.
If the land illegal taken from Arabs was returned or at least exchanged, then there would be no problem at all.

What's legal and what's illegal? That land has been over run and taken by many peoples at many different times. It's a popular spot. The Muslims took it from the Christians who took it from the Jews.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Of course, Muslims would suddenly become peaceful if Israel gave land to some Muslims.

Moron.

So be a man and show us a single example of anti-americanism in the arab - muslim world before 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The purpose of the immigration makes a big difference.

Enter David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), one of the Yishuv leaders who was born in Poland as David Gruen and arrived in Palestine in 1906 at the age of 20 and later became the first prime minister of Israel. He strongly advanced the idea of transfer and saw a clear link between the separation of the Palestinians and of the Jews and the plan for the eventual transfer of the Palestinians out of Palestine.

When the Palestinian Revolt took place between 1936 and 1939, the Zionists saw a chance for the strengthening of their underground forces and the expansion of their military infrastructure. It was becoming clear to the Yishuv that the solution to the Palestinian demographic problem can only be achieved through military force.

Introduction - 1948​

The purposes of immigration were pluralistic. There had long been Jewish immigration to Israel, as a form of returning to one's native land, without the idea of creating a state.

There was immigration, particularly after the Holocaust, where the idea of a state became a matter of survival.

There were PLURALISTIC views among Jews at the time as to the creation of a state, the make up of the state, and the ethnicity of it's citizenry. The attitude that won out was a democratic state, set up as a homeland for the Jewish people, and all citizenry having equal rights (at least in theory). The minority factions that called for driving out the Arabs were decisively overruled.

All of this 70 years ago...3 generations of people.

Are we going to bang on about the events 70 years ago?

You are arguing with me without looking at the information I posted.

Your information is taking one faction, and it's out of a larger context. I do not disagree that there was desire for increased territory (and still is) and that there were and are factions who still desire this. BUT - that is not what Israel ended up being. Despite some very real issues imo (and I've gone on about them - absentee landowner laws, refusal to allow many to return, etc) - they set up a democratic state where Arab citizens have the right to vote, have a voice in politics and that is what we have now...70 years later. What you said doesn't support the claim you made that all Jewish immigration was to "invade" or even create a state. There were many reasons. So if you're going to damn the Jewish immigrants, then you need to be consistent and damn the Arab immigrants.

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children - I simply can't. If you view Israeli airstrikes that kill children with horror - how can you not view slitting a baby's throat with horror?

And honestly Tinmore...I know you are a grandfather, I can't understand how you can justify terrorism that targets and kills children

I really don't. I just try to point out a double standard.

Israel can kill hundreds of Palestinian children and it is ho hum. If one Israeli child gets killed it is world wide front page news and we hear about on this board for years.

So why is it OK for Israel but not OK for the Palestinians.

Israel kills children yet the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

Remember These Children 2014 Memorial

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131
Palestinians: 1656

Let's agree - it is wrong to kill children.

Can we agree it is unequivocally wrong to TARGET and KILL Palestinian children AND Jewish children?

Sure, I can agree.

Now can we dump the double standard?