Is supporting Palestinian Statehood anti-semitic?

[Lemon law]

Anyone can sue anyone else over anything, but as far as I can see, the person filing the lawsuit, as far as I can see, has not seemingly bothered to demonstrate any of his colleagues support him in his suit.

So how can he say he speaks for all his group on the issues in the lawsuit?

And to some extent, I know something about University level professors, how they act, and their common respect for the scientific method. Until something can be conclusively proven, they tend to respect others taking different views from their own. And the corollary is that they don't easily buy someone's else pity pot conspiracy theory or go gaga over it either.

 

[Whiskey16]

The OP is playing loosely with words as his opening question has little to due with the article he linked to. The issue raised is of Israeli state front groups lately promoting throughout many states (Canada, UK, USA, France, etc.) a loose mantra that criticism of Israel for it actions the West Bank and Gaza is, in itself, a front for anti-Semitism. Coincidently, all of these vocal actions around the world coincide with a recently legislated Israeli law whereby any group or individual may be held criminally accountable for damages (even if no damages are incurred) by Israeli businesses who are targeted for boycotts due to their activities/profiteering within the occupied territories. Such criticism expressed as boycotts is most certainly not an act of anti-Semitism nor may such a law be held as just under higher Israeli law. Whether or not Israeli courts may have the just and impartial gumption to struck such a populous law down is, sadly, of dubious hope.

In essence, what will likely play out is that of judicial and law enforcement corruption under the lead and support of the tyranny of the vocal and ruling groups. Such legal corruption of the Israeli state is what permits the continuing colonisation and Israeli military rule in the West Bank.

That's the pragmatic and honest reality. How one justifies such actions comes down to their bias', and sadly, a bigoted belief against the Palestinians as a people who are equally entitled the the universal right of self-determination and sovereignty.

Does supporting the state of Israel as being valid make one anti-Palestinian?

It's the same sort of question reversed.

Both questions are stupid.

Uhh...No. Particularly if support for the state of Israel entails support for the standing Israeli policy of militaristic & colonial Zionism. Israeli colonists continue moving into territory outside of that state's borders and under the protection of the Israeli Defence Forces.

What you have done in the above quote is the old failing debate method of false equivalency. Come back to the discussion when the Palestinians have comparable militaristic and economic might upon Israel and they enact a state policy of militarily invading, occupying, and colonising Israel against that of Israeli and international law. Currently the Palestinians are the ones being occupied and/or blockaded. Such acts of aggression by Israel have fostered varying levels of opposition. Be it from more recent violent militias in the form of Hamas, the older Fatah and their more mild actions, local groups throwing stones, to civil disobedience and peaceful protest/writings. Extremism promotes extremism. Occupation and blockades is quite are quite effective methods to radicalise components of an insurgency.

Yet when examining the belligerents the power is unbalanced. As Israel has the unequal power and holds control of the land, a solution to a two state impasse is entirely upon the Israelis to first act act with good will and express a cessation of expansion beyond their borders.

Upon those points it is not anti-Semitic for being critical of Israel, neither is it of being against Zionist expansion.

Palestine as a state is a myth,

It may be that of bigotry to all out racism to deny such to a geographically distinct people that which they define themselves as a group. Prior to the forceful borders imposed by European states, much these lands had long varying borders or no borders at all composed of distinct tribal groups. Many of such groups that are present in what is defined as Palestine, remain in place. It often comes down to bigotry for many to deny such people their own such identify and just rights of self determination and statehood under international law.

Now for the funny cundundrum. As those who are identified as Palestinian are equaly identifiable as Semites as those who are Israeli Jews, then the policy of militarily imposing rights of Israelis in favour of Palestinians and acting upon such Palestinians in the territories (or denying legal recourse to Arabs who are denied property and rental units int Israel...) is an Israeli state policy that is anti-Semitic.

As the term Semite is a classical term to denote people of this region (and beyond into Arabia, a portion of the Horn of Africa, and up to present day Turkey), then to only label those of Jewish decent to be Semitic is an act of political (both geographic and social) revisionism. It's part of a movement to deny a people, such as the Palestinians, an identity and equal historical presence upon this territory. The cry of anti-Semitism has long been part of the militant Zionist movement's dichotomy to further their efforts to supplant another people.

Such Zionism is vile bigotry -- on par with white ruling South African Apartheid. As Carter found, nothing like throwing out the spectre of the 'A' word to get some insecure people's blood boiling...

 

[Doboji]

The OP is playing loosely with words as his opening question has little to due with the article he linked to. The issue raised is of Israeli state front groups lately promoting throughout many states (Canada, UK, USA, France, etc.) a loose mantra that criticism of Israel for it actions the West Bank and Gaza is, in itself, a front for anti-Semitism. Coincidently, all of these vocal actions around the world coincide with a recently legislated Israeli law whereby any group or individual may be held criminally accountable for damages (even if no damages are incurred) by Israeli businesses who are targeted for boycotts due to their activities/profiteering within the occupied territories. Such criticism expressed as boycotts is most certainly not an act of anti-Semitism nor may such a law be held as just under higher Israeli law. Whether or not Israeli courts may have the just and impartial gumption to struck such a populous law down is, sadly, of dubious hope.

In essence, what will likely play out is that of judicial and law enforcement corruption under the lead and support of the tyranny of the vocal and ruling groups. Such legal corruption of the Israeli state is what permits the continuing colonisation and Israeli military rule in the West Bank.

That's the pragmatic and honest reality. How one justifies such actions comes down to their bias', and sadly, a bigoted belief against the Palestinians as a people who are equally entitled the the universal right of self-determination and sovereignty.

Uhh...No. Particularly if support for the state of Israel entails support for the standing Israeli policy of militaristic & colonial Zionism. Israeli colonists continue moving into territory outside of that state's borders and under the protection of the Israeli Defence Forces.

What you have done in the above quote is the old failing debate method of false equivalency. Come back to the discussion when the Palestinians have comparable militaristic and economic might upon Israel and they enact a state policy of militarily invading, occupying, and colonising Israel against that of Israeli and international law. Currently the Palestinians are the ones being occupied and/or blockaded. Such acts of aggression by Israel have fostered varying levels of opposition. Be it from more recent violent militias in the form of Hamas, the older Fatah and their more mild actions, local groups throwing stones, to civil disobedience and peaceful protest/writings. Extremism promotes extremism. Occupation and blockades is quite are quite effective methods to radicalise components of an insurgency.

Yet when examining the belligerents the power is unbalanced. As Israel has the unequal power and holds control of the land, a solution to a two state impasse is entirely upon the Israelis to first act act with good will and express a cessation of expansion beyond their borders.

Upon those points it is not anti-Semitic for being critical of Israel, neither is it of being against Zionist expansion.

It may be that of bigotry to all out racism to deny such to a geographically distinct people that which they define themselves as a group. Prior to the forceful borders imposed by European states, much these lands had long varying borders or no borders at all composed of distinct tribal groups. Many of such groups that are present in what is defined as Palestine, remain in place. It often comes down to bigotry for many to deny such people their own such identify and just rights of self determination and statehood under international law.

Now for the funny cundundrum. As those who are identified as Palestinian are equaly identifiable as Semites as those who are Israeli Jews, then the policy of militarily imposing rights of Israelis in favour of Palestinians and acting upon such Palestinians in the territories (or denying legal recourse to Arabs who are denied property and rental units int Israel...) is an Israeli state policy that is anti-Semitic.

As the term Semite is a classical term to denote people of this region (and beyond into Arabia, a portion of the Horn of Africa, and up to present day Turkey), then to only label those of Jewish decent to be Semitic is an act of political (both geographic and social) revisionism. It's part of a movement to deny a people, such as the Palestinians, an identity and equal historical presence upon this territory. The cry of anti-Semitism has long been part of the militant Zionist movement's dichotomy to further their efforts to supplant another people.

Such Zionism is vile bigotry -- on par with white ruling South African Apartheid. As Carter found, nothing like throwing out the spectre of the 'A' word to get some insecure people's blood boiling...

The question of anti-israel vs anti-semetism is a very tricky subject... and it's rarely an open and shut discussion. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize Israeli government actions and not be anti-semetic... but sometimes the language of such criticism is woven with anti-semetic messages. Nevertheless, I've heard people decry the over-usage of anti-semetism over and over and over again... but when looking over the issue, I've seen the term used far less broadly than people indicate. Take you for example... you claim that pro-israel groups are pressing the anti-semetism verbage when confronting criticism of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza. Would you care to give some examples of this? Because I don't see it...

As for the boycott law just passed... I think it's a bad law, and I hope it gets overturned in court. However one bad law does not label an entire society with words like ... "colonial", "corrupt", "tyranny", "bigoted" is ridiculous. Name me a country and I will point out an equally stupid law for that country. Name me a neighboring Arab country and I will point out a thousand.

You are however completely correct about the question of false equivalency.

Israel is a democracy, and as such is subject to the pendulum swings of public opinion. The question of settlements in particular pits one side... who believes it best to attempt to settle peace with the Palestinians and Arabs and a two state solution... vs the other side... who believes the Palestinians will never be satisfied and will never be peaceful, so do whats best for Israel and accept the Palestinian problem for eternity.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians are not a Democracy and are lead by Hamas.... a group whose policy has been to attempt to terrorize it's enemy Israel out of existence by killing as many women and children as possible. They generally kill people who oppose them, and still have declared the existence of Israel unacceptable.

Yes Israel has military superiority... thank god.... read the ideologies above and tell me who you'd rather have the military edge?

The Palestinian people are indeed a nation... now... they weren't before. But they've become a nation because of the conflict not just with Israel... but because of their violent unacceptance by the surrounding Arab nations... In my opinion there should be a country for the Palestinians on their own land... but the notion that the surrounding nations bear none of this responsibility is ridiculous.

Ahhh I see you end with the semantic discussion of the term anti-semetic. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy... so you probably realize that human language, and words in particular change over time. Semite may indeed refer to a great many people beyond Jews, but the definition of the term anti-semetic in it's current form refers to the discrimination against jews. It developed based on the treatment of Jews in europe over the last few centuries... Just like the term "homophobic" really refers to fear of things that are the same, we both know thats not what it means.

The reason anti-semitism has long been a part of the Zionist battle-cry is because it was anti-semitism that gave birth to Zionism. Zionism at it's core is the idea that Jews will always be susceptible to anti-semetism, and therefore there must be a Jewish nation with a Jewish military built to defend the Jewish people.

Carter used the term Apartheid as a stinger... a quick glance at the history of Apartheid quickly dismantles the comparison... but it's really a typical example of utilizing a word associated with Evil to attack someone you disagree with. Really no different than comparing Obama or Bush to Hitler... which has been done many a time. But again a useless and baseless comparison.

Zionism certainly doesn't equate to Apartheid... and anyone who thinks it does should probably go back and read about Apartheid.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Uhh...No. Particularly if support for the state of Israel entails support for the standing Israeli policy of militaristic & colonial Zionism. Israeli colonists continue moving into territory outside of that state's borders and under the protection of the Israeli Defence Forces.

What you have done in the above quote is the old failing debate method of false equivalency. Come back to the discussion when the Palestinians have comparable militaristic and economic might upon Israel and they enact a state policy of militarily invading, occupying, and colonising Israel against that of Israeli and international law. Currently the Palestinians are the ones being occupied and/or blockaded. Such acts of aggression by Israel have fostered varying levels of opposition. Be it from more recent violent militias in the form of Hamas, the older Fatah and their more mild actions, local groups throwing stones, to civil disobedience and peaceful protest/writings. Extremism promotes extremism. Occupation and blockades is quite are quite effective methods to radicalise components of an insurgency.

Yet when examining the belligerents the power is unbalanced. As Israel has the unequal power and holds control of the land, a solution to a two state impasse is entirely upon the Israelis to first act act with good will and express a cessation of expansion beyond their borders.

Upon those points it is not anti-Semitic for being critical of Israel, neither is it of being against Zionist expansion.

I was making a simple observation. If anyone is forcing a false equivalency it's you doing so by making the completely unrealistic assertion that things must be equitable militarially and economically in order to make the comparison.

You employ the same sort of argument methodology as just about everyone else who criticizes Israel. Israel is the 800 lb gorilla and is far more powerful than the Palestinians, therefore it's unfair and the Pals don't have a chance. Supporting the "oppressed" underdog is popular because it resonants with people emotionally. That's pure bunk though because the Palestinians have had chance after chance after chance only to throw it away through unrealistic demands, and/or belligerence, and/or militant responses.

The simple fact is that Palestinians are their own worst enemy. Things are never going to be what they were pre-'48 or pre-'67. When they wise up to that fact and accept it progress will be possible. Until then they will continue to be pissing in the wind.

 

[epidemis]

yes

 

[RightIsWrong]

However, Americans (myself included) who want to cut off all foreign aid are not anti-semites. I really just don't have much regard for most of the Israelis (killed way too many people) nor most of the Arabs (they seem totally irrational, and they shouldn't want to kill all jews if that's true about their proposed charter). Both sides seem pretty beligerent to me.

+1

And I will add that Americans and others that don't support blindly everything that Israel does are antisemitic either.

 

[halik]

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world...ge-union-over-anti-semitic-treatment-1.371948





so supporting Palestinians and a boycott makes you an antisemite? lol. get real. i forgot about PN, until nick reminded me. thanks nick!

Throw that word enough and it will lose any meaning.

 

[halik]

I don't really know enough about this topic to make an educated answer.

However, Americans (myself included) who want to cut off all foreign aid are not anti-semites. I really just don't have much regard for most of the Israelis (killed way too many people) nor most of the Arabs (they seem totally irrational, and they shouldn't want to kill all jews if that's true about their proposed charter). Both sides seem pretty beligerent to me.

Wow probably the first time we're in an agreement. When I see two jackasses fighting, I don't go picking sides.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ever notice how it is OK for people on the left to suggest that racism and/or xenophobia may be a reason why some people staunchly oppose illegal immigration in the United States, but these same lefties, when confronted by the allegation that *some* anti-Israel sentiment just might be related to anti-semitism - then they say "no, of course not. You're playing the anti-semitism card." They are just certain that there is no connection at all, ever. I think it's clear that neither side is 100% correct on either issue. There is no necessary and essential connection between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel, just as there is no such necessary connection between opposition to illegal immigration and racism. However, the connection does undoubtedly exist for some people in each group.

I wonder if these same Israel critics will contest that a) anti-semitism is still present in Europe, to a far greater degree than it is in the US, and b) opposition to Israel is much higher in Europe than in the US. While correlation does not automatically establish causation, I find it hard to believe that anti-semitism which we know is still present in Europe couldn't possibly affect the assessments that many Europeans have of Israel. The usual response is that our media in the US has a pro-Israel bias. I doubt the accuracy of that assertion, but even if it is true to some degree, it's impossible to not take notice of the correlation between anti-semitism in Europe and opposition to Israel.

- wolf

 

[SandEagle]

Throw that word enough and it will lose any meaning.

tbh, i didnt even read the link lol. i just created this because nick called me a raging antisemite. the reason? he lost a financial argument and it was the best he can come up with. people like him are the reason its losing its meaning

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Supporting people like this is supporting murderous fascists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14168618

 

[Doboji]

Supporting people like this is supporting murderous fascists: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14168618

Interesting... I read this article, and I take away that Israel is aware of it's religious fanatics, considers them illegal and acts aggressively to contain them. How does Hamas respond to it's fanatics?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Interesting... I read this article, and I take away that Israel is aware of it's religious fanatics, considers them illegal and acts aggressively to contain them. How does Hamas respond to it's fanatics?

Hamas has had problems with Al Qaida followers, just like Israel has had problems with settlers. But where Israel arms most of them, steals land from the Palestinians and gives that to those settlers the Palestinians don't have that luxury.

 

[Nebor]

Hamas has had problems with Al Qaida followers, just like Israel has had problems with settlers. But where Israel arms most of them, steals land from the Palestinians and gives that to those settlers the Palestinians don't have that courage and combat expertise.

Fixed to reflect that the Palestinians have been getting their asses kicked for 60 years.

 

[Whiskey16]

Sorry, very rushed, and can't provide an adequate replyto your decent post, Doboji.

But where Israel arms most of them, steals land from the Palestinians and gives that to those settlers the Palestinians don't have that luxury.

Ahh, the term "settlers" is a quaint and fairly inoffensive term, long initiated by Israel and maintained by others to avoid antagonising that state.

Colonisation:

Rather than "settlers," a much more accurate term is that of "colonists" as these are people sent into land beyond their state borders and offered support and protection by that state's military. Israel has a policy of expanding colonies in the West Bank in order to supplant the indigenous Palestinian (Christians, Muslim, Druze, etc..) population with those who are generally recent Jewish Israeli citizens.
​

Bigotry:

This is an aggressive militaristic policy of socially, representatively, and physically favouring a specific ethnic population above another.
​

Corrupt:

State enacted policy of retaining spoils of war. In violation of international law, Israel may not expand its borders and may not deny the rights of self determination and chosen sovereignty of people within another territory. Corruption permeates into Israeli society evident by the latest anti-boycott law, through to local councils supporting individuals and businesses in the denial of renting and of selling property to Israeli citizens who are identifed as Muslim.
​

Tyranny

The oppressed life in the West Bank is what it is. Israel controls the land, sea, and air of the Palestinian territories without Palestinian representation nor discourse upon such Israeli policy. Israel has control upon Palestinian trade, much of its aid, and even through to withholding Palestinian taxation... That's before even discussing Israeli rulings upon individual land titles (often voiding many validated documents presented by Palestinians) in territory that is not Israel's to dictate.
​

Language is important and it is vital in most discussions to use accurately. What language is used to dishonestly portray actions and policy in a favourable light has long been a propaganda weapon. For the application of "anti-Semitism," in the above post I presented the words and use as an example of how fellow Semites have been nullified of their identity and their historical ties to the very same land. As some here have presented, attempting to be insecure and going an extra length to be inoffensive PC upon Israeli actions does not lend to an honest discourse and method to reach a balanced and fair resolution. Be blunt and accurate with the language to describe reality as it is.

Supporting the "oppressed" underdog is popular because it resonants with people emotionally. That's pure bunk though because the Palestinians have had chance after chance after chance only to throw it away through unrealistic demands, and/or belligerence, and/or militant responses.

Nice unrealistic revisionism there. Funny with you quotations surrounding the term oppressed. A Palestinians not oppressed? Are you so dishonest to close your to the reality of your fellow people upon this earth?

My statements are founded upon the reality of Israeli actions, policy, and its criminal intentions against international law. What may the Palestinians offer in concessions while Israeli maintains control of the land, sea, and air, plus continues to colonise such lands? Surely and alternative to satisfy yours and many Israeli ambitions would be for millions more Palestinians to flee their homes upon desirable land and increase the levels of refugees, as Israel wants that land and certainly won't accept them as citizens in the state of Israel.

Israel alone is in control and it is entirely up to Israel to resolve the situation. In light of Israeli control and actions it is Israeli policy that perpetuates a policy to further antagonise minority extremism among a people who have lost a sense of other recourse. Does the USA not have any sense of rebellion? Though its history is brutally bloody and with little recognition to the varied methods of rebellion that do not always equate to bloodshed. It is criminal bigotry to call for complete and utter surrender of Palestinians to the ethnic cleansing policy of Israel. Loaded words again, but that is what it has. Israel has an expansionist policy that will not tolerate a state where its Jewish population is outnumbered.

My summary as what the reality is from a true policy perspective of Israel?

1. It is in Israel's favour to maintain the wide xenophobic fear of all who are Arab/Muslim. This fear permits a perpetual military footing and drive to hold conquered lands. Regardless of law or morality, the fear increases public support and patriotic fervour.
2. This fear fosters an uncivilised to dehumanising view of the Palestinian foe as being incapable of ever governing themselves, and requiring Israeli oversight and supervision.
3. Israeli policy has long been that of an attempt to weaken the Palestinian political and social structures via segmenting populations between Israeli border patrol checkpoints, withholding Palestinian holdings to financially weaken Palestinian services, politically dividing Palestinian politics with at first side-line fostering of Hamas inception against Fatah.
4. The combination of patriotic Zionism and a weakened opponent lends to continued state expansionist policy of ethnic colonisation of the West Bank and displacement of living Palestinians from their entitled land.

Israel does not yet want a resolution nor certainly any Palestinian recognition of statehood that is without Israeli authorisation. An early resolution to this mess would be that of futher solidifying the state border limitations of Israel and of increased opposition to Israel for its continued expansion and colonisation of the West Bank.

 

[Atreus21]

Sorry, very rushed, and can't provide an adequate replyto your decent post, Doboji.

Ahh, the term "settlers" is a quaint and fairly inoffensive term, long initiated by Israel and maintained by others to avoid antagonising that state.

Colonisation:

Rather than "settlers," a much more accurate term is that of "colonists" as these are people sent into land beyond their state borders and offered support and protection by that state's military. Israel has a policy of expanding colonies in the West Bank in order to supplant the indigenous Palestinian (Christians, Muslim, Druze, etc..) population with those who are generally recent Jewish Israeli citizens.
​

Bigotry:

This is an aggressive militaristic policy of socially, representatively, and physically favouring a specific ethnic population above another.
​

Corrupt:

State enacted policy of retaining spoils of war. In violation of international law, Israel may not expand its borders and may not deny the rights of self determination and chosen sovereignty of people within another territory. Corruption permeates into Israeli society evident by the latest anti-boycott law, through to local councils supporting individuals and businesses in the denial of renting and of selling property to Israeli citizens who are identifed as Muslim.
​

Tyranny

The oppressed life in the West Bank is what it is. Israel controls the land, sea, and air of the Palestinian territories without Palestinian representation nor discourse upon such Israeli policy. Israel has control upon Palestinian trade, much of its aid, and even through to withholding Palestinian taxation... That's before even discussing Israeli rulings upon individual land titles (often voiding many validated documents presented by Palestinians) in territory that is not Israel's to dictate.
​

Language is important and it is vital in most discussions to use accurately. What language is used to dishonestly portray actions and policy in a favourable light has long been a propaganda weapon. For the application of "anti-Semitism," in the above post I presented the words and use as an example of how fellow Semites have been nullified of their identity and their historical ties to the very same land. As some here have presented, attempting to be insecure and going an extra length to be inoffensive PC upon Israeli actions does not lend to an honest discourse and method to reach a balanced and fair resolution. Be blunt and accurate with the language to describe reality as it is.

Nice unrealistic revisionism there. Funny with you quotations surrounding the term oppressed. A Palestinians not oppressed? Are you so dishonest to close your to the reality of your fellow people upon this earth?

My statements are founded upon the reality of Israeli actions, policy, and its criminal intentions against international law. What may the Palestinians offer in concessions while Israeli maintains control of the land, sea, and air, plus continues to colonise such lands? Surely and alternative to satisfy yours and many Israeli ambitions would be for millions more Palestinians to flee their homes upon desirable land and increase the levels of refugees, as Israel wants that land and certainly won't accept them as citizens in the state of Israel.

Israel alone is in control and it is entirely up to Israel to resolve the situation. In light of Israeli control and actions it is Israeli policy that perpetuates a policy to further antagonise minority extremism among a people who have lost a sense of other recourse. Does the USA not have any sense of rebellion? Though its history is brutally bloody and with little recognition to the varied methods of rebellion that do not always equate to bloodshed. It is criminal bigotry to call for complete and utter surrender of Palestinians to the ethnic cleansing policy of Israel. Loaded words again, but that is what it has. Israel has an expansionist policy that will not tolerate a state where its Jewish population is outnumbered.

My summary as what the reality is from a true policy perspective of Israel?

1. It is in Israel's favour to maintain the wide xenophobic fear of all who are Arab/Muslim. This fear permits a perpetual military footing and drive to hold conquered lands. Regardless of law or morality, the fear increases public support and patriotic fervour.
2. This fear fosters an uncivilised to dehumanising view of the Palestinian foe as being incapable of ever governing themselves, and requiring Israeli oversight and supervision.
3. Israeli policy has long been that of an attempt to weaken the Palestinian political and social structures via segmenting populations between Israeli border patrol checkpoints, withholding Palestinian holdings to financially weaken Palestinian services, politically dividing Palestinian politics with at first side-line fostering of Hamas inception against Fatah.
4. The combination of patriotic Zionism and a weakened opponent lends to continued state expansionist policy of ethnic colonisation of the West Bank and displacement of living Palestinians from their entitled land.

Israel does not yet want a resolution nor certainly any Palestinian recognition of statehood that is without Israeli authorisation. An early resolution to this mess would be that of futher solidifying the state border limitations of Israel and of increased opposition to Israel for its continued expansion and colonisation of the West Bank.

Expansionist? Are you kidding? When was the last time Israel expanded its borders?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Nice unrealistic revisionism there. Funny with you quotations surrounding the term oppressed. A Palestinians not oppressed? Are you so dishonest to close your to the reality of your fellow people upon this earth?

I put it in quotes because, imo, the biggest oppressors of the Palestinians is their own leadership. Their own struggle for power between the various factions prevent any sort of peace deal to be brokered with Israel.

My statements are founded upon the reality of Israeli actions, policy, and its criminal intentions against international law. What may the Palestinians offer in concessions while Israeli maintains control of the land, sea, and air, plus continues to colonise such lands? Surely and alternative to satisfy yours and many Israeli ambitions would be for millions more Palestinians to flee their homes upon desirable land and increase the levels of refugees, as Israel wants that land and certainly won't accept them as citizens in the state of Israel.

Israel alone is in control and it is entirely up to Israel to resolve the situation. In light of Israeli control and actions it is Israeli policy that perpetuates a policy to further antagonise minority extremism among a people who have lost a sense of other recourse. Does the USA not have any sense of rebellion? Though its history is brutally bloody and with little recognition to the varied methods of rebellion that do not always equate to bloodshed. It is criminal bigotry to call for complete and utter surrender of Palestinians to the ethnic cleansing policy of Israel. Loaded words again, but that is what it has. Israel has an expansionist policy that will not tolerate a state where its Jewish population is outnumbered.

My summary as what the reality is from a true policy perspective of Israel?

1. It is in Israel's favour to maintain the wide xenophobic fear of all who are Arab/Muslim. This fear permits a perpetual military footing and drive to hold conquered lands. Regardless of law or morality, the fear increases public support and patriotic fervour.
2. This fear fosters an uncivilised to dehumanising view of the Palestinian foe as being incapable of ever governing themselves, and requiring Israeli oversight and supervision.
3. Israeli policy has long been that of an attempt to weaken the Palestinian political and social structures via segmenting populations between Israeli border patrol checkpoints, withholding Palestinian holdings to financially weaken Palestinian services, politically dividing Palestinian politics with at first side-line fostering of Hamas inception against Fatah.
4. The combination of patriotic Zionism and a weakened opponent lends to continued state expansionist policy of ethnic colonisation of the West Bank and displacement of living Palestinians from their entitled land.

Israel does not yet want a resolution nor certainly any Palestinian recognition of statehood that is without Israeli authorisation. An early resolution to this mess would be that of futher solidifying the state border limitations of Israel and of increased opposition to Israel for its continued expansion and colonisation of the West Bank.

You, like so many others making this same sort of argument, try to make it sound like Israel is purely out for ethnic cleansing and a land grab all while blindly turning an eye to Palestinian culpability. Nice pretense. Ignore the fact that Israel has done what it has done over the years because of the aggression and actions of Palestinians and their affiliated Middle Eastern puppet masters.

Regarding your first point you don't even seem to realize that a vast number of Israelis are Arabs or have Arab heritage. Xenophobic? I mean...wow. I've heard of self-loathing jews, but that takes it to a new level completely.

In response to number 2, I don't see Israel producing childrens programs that teach their young ones to hate Muslims. Are their Palestinian TV programs that indoctrinate their children to hate jews? Damn skippy. Do you also realize that a decent percentage of Palestinians live in Israel and recent polls have shown that a large majority of them would rather stay in Israel than move to a Palestinian controlled locale.

Number 3, Palestinian checkpoints are necessary because without them there would be more weapons smuggled into Palestinian territory and more suicide bombers coming into Israel. Again, if it wasn't for past Palestinian actions these things wouldn't be necessary. But Palestinian militantism has brought those things upon themselves. They are their own worst enemy.

Last of all, If Palestinians want to stop Israeli settlers from expanding they should get their ass to the bargaining table and pound out a peace agreement. That doesn't appear likely though as long as they keep voting in militant political organizations like Hamas though. Once again, they are their own worst enemy.

 

[Whiskey16]

I put it in quotes because, imo, the biggest oppressors of the Palestinians is their own leadership. Their own struggle for power between the various factions prevent any sort of peace deal to be brokered with Israel.
...
...as they keep voting in militant political organizations like Hamas though. Once again, they are their own worst enemy.

The election of Hamas and its oppression in Gaza is of domestic concern and open to critique. The Fatah coup in the West Bank against the elected government of Hamas is also of domestic concern. Unlike those domestic points, the oppression by Israel upon a people beyond the state of Israel is in violation of international law.

Domestic politics and policy are for a sovereign Palestine to determine. Recognise the paramount differences between domestic and international affairs.

As long as Israel continues to violate international law and through its occupation continue to aggravate Palestinian social, economic, and political conditions, then the domestic status of Palestine will continue to be dire and provide plenty to critique.

Number 3, Palestinian checkpoints are necessary because without them there would be more weapons smuggled into Palestinian territory and more suicide bombers coming into Israel. Again, if it wasn't for past Palestinian actions these things wouldn't be necessary.

Further nonsensical revisionism. Israel has every right to secure its borders and apply levels of checkpoints at those borders as it sees fit. Sadly, to formulate a dishonest argument, you choose to ignore Israeli checkpoints within the West Bank, between West Bank communities. This tyranny is to fragment and impose unrepresented control upon Palestinians in favour of Israeli expansionism.

But Palestinian militantism has brought those things upon themselves. They are their own worst enemy.

Palestinian militarism has not resulted out of a void.

Nice pretense. Ignore the fact that Israel has done what it has done over the years because of the aggression and actions of Palestinians and their affiliated Middle Eastern puppet masters.

Nonsensical revisionism. Sadly, you ignore the primary provocation upon Palestinians has been that of Israel expansion and tyranny upon Palestinians in territory beyond the state of Israel.

The last of the Arab wars were nearly 4 decades ago. Regardless of how any of those wars ended, it is criminal under international law to commit to territorial expansion and mass punishment upon a population. Israeli actions are immoral and criminal. Israeli policy is a century too late to attain success.

The security card used to warrant Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories has long been a populous front to enable the primary intention to expand Israeli borders and displace the existing Palestinian population.

If Israel remained within Israel then the security situation and antagonisms would be much improved than the status-quo, no? That is measured reality and may not be flippantly dismissed.

Expansionist? Are you kidding? When was the last time Israel expanded its borders?

:\ So sad that people will argue with nonsense. Thankfully, TastesLikeChicken is more aware and honest with portions of reality.

]Last of all, If Palestinians want to stop Israeli settlers from expanding they should get their ass to the bargaining table and pound out a peace agreement.

The facts are that Israel continues to colonise via military incursion upon lands beyond the borders of Israel. The facts are of Israeli policy goals to expand its existing border to absorb these new colonies.

Palestinians have no room for negotiations as long as Israel maintains control upon the, land, air, and sea, whilst imposing military control and colonisation of Palestinian lands. All of those actions provoke antagonism and leave no room for a peaceful resolution.

Israel holds the cards for a resolution and as I previously argued, Israel currently has no desire for any such resolution as it would seriously deter their continued policy of displacing Palestinians for colonial expansion.

 

[Doboji]

The election of Hamas and its oppression in Gaza is of domestic concern and open to critique. The Fatah coup in the West Bank against the elected government of Hamas is also of domestic concern. Unlike those domestic points, the oppression by Israel upon a people beyond the state of Israel is in violation of international law.

Domestic politics and policy are for a sovereign Palestine to determine. Recognise the paramount differences between domestic and international affairs.

As long as Israel continues to violate international law and through its occupation continue to aggravate Palestinian social, economic, and political conditions, then the domestic status of Palestine will continue to be dire and provide plenty to critique.

Further nonsensical revisionism. Israel has every right to secure its borders and apply levels of checkpoints at those borders as it sees fit. Sadly, to formulate a dishonest argument, you choose to ignore Israeli checkpoints within the West Bank, between West Bank communities. This tyranny is to fragment and impose unrepresented control upon Palestinians in favour of Israeli expansionism.

Palestinian militarism has not resulted out of a void.

Nonsensical revisionism. Sadly, you ignore the primary provocation upon Palestinians has been that of Israel expansion and tyranny upon Palestinians in territory beyond the state of Israel.

The last of the Arab wars were nearly 4 decades ago. Regardless of how any of those wars ended, it is criminal under international law to commit to territorial expansion and mass punishment upon a population. Israeli actions are immoral and criminal. Israeli policy is a century too late to attain success.

The security card used to warrant Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories has long been a populous front to enable the primary intention to expand Israeli borders and displace the existing Palestinian population.

If Israel remained within Israel then the security situation and antagonisms would be much improved than the status-quo, no? That is measured reality and may not be flippantly dismissed.

:\ So sad that people will argue with nonsense. Thankfully, TastesLikeChicken is more aware and honest with portions of reality.

The facts are that Israel continues to colonise via military incursion upon lands beyond the borders of Israel. The facts are of Israeli policy goals to expand its existing border to absorb these new colonies.

Palestinians have no room for negotiations as long as Israel maintains control upon the, land, air, and sea, whilst imposing military control and colonisation of Palestinian lands. All of those actions provoke antagonism and leave no room for a peaceful resolution.

Israel holds the cards for a resolution and as I previously argued, Israel currently has no desire for any such resolution as it would seriously deter their continued policy of displacing Palestinians for colonial expansion.

I understand your trepidation about Israel's military presence and enforcement on the Palestinian territories. This is forever a case of the chicken and the egg... did Israel's military presence happen because of Palestinian militancy, or did Palestinian militancy happen because of the military presence?

Looking back through history we can see that this occupation resulted from the 6-day war in 1967... which becomes another discussion of chicken or egg... which leads to another.

Fact is, who started it is irrelevant and will never be known.. we have to deal with the way things are. Which returns us to the two schools of thought within Israel...

1. Israel will never be able to make peace with the crazy Palestinians who are hell bent on Israel's complete destruction.

2. Israel must give up some of it's aspirations and allow the Palestinians to make their own state.

If you look at everything Israel does politically from the context of understanding these two schools of thoughts combined with the democratic pendulum swing between the two schools of thought it's easy to understand Israeli policy swings. A deeper look and you can even see how Palestinian violence directly effects the political swing. The more violent the Palestinians the more School 1 gains in power... the longer the lulls of peace the more school 2 gains.

So with that in mind look at the history of the Settlements... when school 2 is in power the settlements freeze and begin to be withdrawn.. when school 1 is in power the settlements grow...

Pretty simple.

You will likely completely disagree with me.. but I wish Israel had just shipped ALL the Palestinians over the Egyptian and Jordanian borders long ago. Then those Arab neighbors would have been forced to deal with their Palestinian population, eventually integrating them into their societies. This would have led to a much better life for the Palestinians and the Israelis.... and likely would have resulted in much less death and destruction cumulatively.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The election of Hamas and its oppression in Gaza is of domestic concern and open to critique. The Fatah coup in the West Bank against the elected government of Hamas is also of domestic concern. Unlike those domestic points, the oppression by Israel upon a people beyond the state of Israel is in violation of international law.

Domestic politics and policy are for a sovereign Palestine to determine. Recognise the paramount differences between domestic and international affairs.

When the adherents of those groups are creating international incidents it goes beyond just domestic concerns. When Hamas refuses to recognize the State of Israel it goes beyond domestic concerns. When Hamas creates TV shows that teach their children to hate Israeli jews, it goes beyond domestic concerns and policies.

As long as Israel continues to violate international law and through its occupation continue to aggravate Palestinian social, economic, and political conditions, then the domestic status of Palestine will continue to be dire and provide plenty to critique.

I'm not sure that people have been paying attention, but "international law" is generally toothless and void of any real power, particularly when it eminates from the UN. You can cite it over and over again but it's ultimately meaningless.

Further nonsensical revisionism. Israel has every right to secure its borders and apply levels of checkpoints at those borders as it sees fit. Sadly, to formulate a dishonest argument, you choose to ignore Israeli checkpoints within the West Bank, between West Bank communities. This tyranny is to fragment and impose unrepresented control upon Palestinians in favour of Israeli expansionism.

You mean no weapons are being smuggled between those points in teh West Bank? How about the Israeli vehicles that were regularly fired upon?

According to the Oslo Accords Israel is afforded some control in the West Bank. Unfortunately it's necessary to protect their citizens from the crazies who would gladly kill them, given the opportunity. I mean, sheesh. Talk about formulating a dishonest argument. You seem absolutely unable to come to terms with how brutal the Palestinians are. You simply refuse to acknowledge it or pass it off as "rebellion," so that makes their actions righteous. Give me a break.

Palestinian militarism has not resulted out of a void.

Neither has Israeli reaction to that militantism.

Nonsensical revisionism. Sadly, you ignore the primary provocation upon Palestinians has been that of Israel expansion and tyranny upon Palestinians in territory beyond the state of Israel.

And you ignore that the expansion came about as a means for Israel to protect its own country after it was attacked by surrounding Arab countries on numerous occassions, with help from the Palestinians. Methinks you are confused about who is the actual provoker. Israel is nearly always in a defensive posture, not offensive. They are rarely ever the attacker. Ask yourself why that is and get back to me.

The last of the Arab wars were nearly 4 decades ago. Regardless of how any of those wars ended, it is criminal under international law to commit to territorial expansion and mass punishment upon a population. Israeli actions are immoral and criminal. Israeli policy is a century too late to attain success.

The security card used to warrant Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories has long been a populous front to enable the primary intention to expand Israeli borders and displace the existing Palestinian population.

If Israel remained within Israel then the security situation and antagonisms would be much improved than the status-quo, no? That is measured reality and may not be flippantly dismissed.

You can't be serious. If Israel pulled back they would continue to be bombarded by rockets on a regular basis but the idiots on the other side. In fact, they would be even more emboldened by such a move because they aren't happy with just the land they already could have had long ago, before those Arab wars that are decades old began.

:\ So sad that people will argue with nonsense. Thankfully, TastesLikeChicken is more aware and honest with portions of reality.

:roll;

I'm aware of youyr opinion and, imo, your opinion rarely touches reality.

The facts are that Israel continues to colonise via military incursion upon lands beyond the borders of Israel. The facts are of Israeli policy goals to expand its existing border to absorb these new colonies.

Palestinians have no room for negotiations as long as Israel maintains control upon the, land, air, and sea, whilst imposing military control and colonisation of Palestinian lands. All of those actions provoke antagonism and leave no room for a peaceful resolution.

Israel holds the cards for a resolution and as I previously argued, Israel currently has no desire for any such resolution as it would seriously deter their continued policy of displacing Palestinians for colonial expansion.

When one faction of Palestinians refuses to recognize Israel and refuses to come to any peace agreement Israel holds no cards whatsoever. All cards are trumped by that single card. That's reality. You can try to blame Israel all blow that smoke up someone's ass all day but that's not reality. I've just explained reality to you.