dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,957
- 3,948
- 136
This.
They wouldn't know what to do if they couldn't keep playing the victim card to pseudo-intellectual euro-trash and other various gullible dupes.
This.
They wouldn't know what to do if they couldn't keep playing the victim card to pseudo-intellectual euro-trash and other various gullible dupes.
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
dainthomas somewhat misses the alternate Israel argument by saying, "They wouldn't know what to do if they couldn't keep playing the victim card to pseudo-intellectual euro-trash and other various gullible dupes."
When in fact what is being designated as the "euro-trash" here, are actually the segment in Israel who most buys into to western ideals, and in reality, what most drives Israeli irrationalism and hatreds are the various Jews imported from Russia, Africa, and various mid-east countries, who drive the various settler partisan's who have a manifest destiny doctrine that politicians like Netayahu pander to.
Those jews that were victims of the Holocaust, are the least of Israel's peace problems. By in large, they are highly educated human beings who understand that there are multiple ways of looking at things, its the great unwashed masses in Israel who worship ideology above reasoning that are the obstacles to any peaceful win win solution.
When in fact what is being designated as the "euro-trash" here, are actually the segment in Israel who most buys into to western ideals, and in reality, what most drives Israeli irrationalism and hatreds are the various Jews imported from Russia, Africa, and various mid-east countries, who drive the various settler partisan's who have a manifest destiny doctrine that politicians like Netayahu pander to.
Those jews that were victims of the Holocaust, are the least of Israel's peace problems. By in large, they are highly educated human beings who understand that there are multiple ways of looking at things, its the great unwashed masses in Israel who worship ideology above reasoning that are the obstacles to any peaceful win win solution.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was never legitimate, just as Israel's colonization of it isn't. We've been though this before, but you keep presenting the same tied arguments. Or rather, you don't even actually present them, let alone attempt to substantiate them, only elude to what in fact is nothing more than hot air. Regardless, here in reality, around a third of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are built on land owned by Palestinian individuals, taken under force of occupation. Furthermore, back in '47-'48 Zionist militias and terrorist groups depopulated hundreds of villages. . So yes, I am talking about many square miles of land Israel has taken from Palestinians by force.
I have tried to get you to attempt to substantiate your argument here before, but you didn't care to put the work in. So here is a summery to start from:
'48, the ethnic cleansing mentioned above was taking place on both sides of the UN partition plan for months before the Arab states sent their armies in.
'56 Israel with British and French backing parachuted into the Sinai to take the Suez Canal.
'67 Israel bombed Egypt, then Jordan and Syria.
'73 Egypt and Syria attacked first, but that was fought on occupied territory.
Now, where are you getting "Arabs clearly attacked first and rolled into Israeli territory" in any of this?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
What armies did the attacking in '48 - how far they the Arabs advance into ISrael proper - before being repelled
What Armies did the attacking in '56 - how far they the Arabs advance into ISrael proper -
What Armies were staging in '67 - I will grant that Israel did a preemptive strike - Egypt had threaten to close access to the Red Sea and the the Arabs may have been mainipulated by the USSR (their sponsor)
in '73 - again Egypt and Syria attacked - the occupied territory that Israel had proved its worth - neither of the armies made it onto Israeli land.
Jordan was given the responsibility of supervising the West Bank area until the Palestinians were determiend to be able to be self sufficient. Jordan failed in that regard and handed the problem off to Israel. Jordan did not want the West Bank (territory and population)
The Palestinians chose the wrong side of the battle multiple times - and they were willing to destroy Israel. Yet you feel that they deserve to be rewarded.
Had their leaders not been so willing to conduct wars/conflicts against Israel even when the Arab nations finally wisened up; they would not be in such a predictament.
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
No NO NO and NO, I firmly reject the common Courtesy argument that just because a few Palestinian leaders were clueless, it somehow justifies Israel to steal Palesti8nian land.
How would we feel if we were punished for GWB sins we never initially supported.
And besides that, the real clueless ones were people like the Egyptians who now have the Sinai back, tell me again why the Palestinians must suffer for the sins of others? Or why we allow the powerful to rape the powerless?
How would we feel if we were punished for GWB sins we never initially supported.
And besides that, the real clueless ones were people like the Egyptians who now have the Sinai back, tell me again why the Palestinians must suffer for the sins of others? Or why we allow the powerful to rape the powerless?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/20...te/UPI-75701240415398/
What "great unwashed masses" are those?
The poll above is telling and is indicative of something everyone should be aware of concerning Israel, Palestine, and finalizing a two-state solution. The majority of both Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution. It's the small minority on either side who don't. That small minority has some control, but they aren't the real sticking point or the major problem. The sticking point is that while the majority on both sides want a Palestinian state they disagree on the details because they consistently fail to agree on concessions and compromise. Historically, Israel has shown a greater willingness to make concessions while the Palestinians have not been. The Palestinians could have had their own state decades ago but instead of listening to their heads they listened to their ME brethren whispering in their collective ears; whispers that more and more should be demanded or outright refused. It's not because those same brethren care about the Palestinians either. Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and others have used the Palestinians to fight their own proxy war, a war that continues to this very day, and they aren't ready to give it up yet.
What Israel does or does not do in regard to a two-state solution is completely meaningless which is why this thread is ultimately meaninglerss. The decision to accept a Palestinian state is directly in the lap of the Palestinians and until they tell their ME handlers to fuck off, and tell their militant governing minority to do the same, there will not be a solution.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
If you could answer your questions and substantiate your claims you'd have an argument, but again all you have hot air.
Even worse, is who argument is wrong on the face, Zionists took to ethnically cleansing the region on their own accord, Palestinians weren't given any choice.
Nonsense, which is why you can't even name one.
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I was actually willing to think TLC was finally being rational until I hit the last paragraph of " What Israel does or does not do in regard to a two-state solution is completely meaningless which is why this thread is ultimately meaninglerss. The decision to accept a Palestinian state is directly in the lap of the Palestinians and until they tell their ME handlers to fuck off, and tell their militant governing minority to do the same, there will not be a solution."
Does TLC really expect me to believe a mideast peace is meaningless????????????????????????????????????
Does TLC really expect us to believe, given all the land stolen since 1948 from Palestinians, that any Palestinian will accept what little
Israel has offered so far?????????????????????????? Not even Arifat would surrender the right to return that still drives this conflict!!!!!!!
The myth here is that the Palestinians Arab handlers are the villains, when in a sense they are as morally bankrupt as Israel itself, and in that TLC smokescreen, we lose sight of the real victim which are the Palestinians.
Until we realize that until a JUST peace is negotiated by both Israel and the Palestinians, a meaningful solution will not be merely meaningless, it will be UNATTAINABLE.
And face the facts, failing that just peace, sooner or later, stateless terrorists will obtain the technology to use extremely nasty biological and chemical weapons and make the whole state of Israel uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
Then in a sense, TLC can be right, then and only then can a just Israeli peace become meaningless.
Does TLC really expect me to believe a mideast peace is meaningless????????????????????????????????????
Does TLC really expect us to believe, given all the land stolen since 1948 from Palestinians, that any Palestinian will accept what little
Israel has offered so far?????????????????????????? Not even Arifat would surrender the right to return that still drives this conflict!!!!!!!
The myth here is that the Palestinians Arab handlers are the villains, when in a sense they are as morally bankrupt as Israel itself, and in that TLC smokescreen, we lose sight of the real victim which are the Palestinians.
Until we realize that until a JUST peace is negotiated by both Israel and the Palestinians, a meaningful solution will not be merely meaningless, it will be UNATTAINABLE.
And face the facts, failing that just peace, sooner or later, stateless terrorists will obtain the technology to use extremely nasty biological and chemical weapons and make the whole state of Israel uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
Then in a sense, TLC can be right, then and only then can a just Israeli peace become meaningless.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I sure can. The Gaza strip. Israel withdrew completely in 2005. We've all seen how well it's gone there since then. Hamas has been great for Gaza.
I can name another as well. The forced dismantling of Israeli settlements.
So where are the Palestinian concessions?
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
The Gaza Strip was never Israel's to concede, nor is the West Bank, both were and are still Israeli occupied Palestinian territory, with Israel still controlling Gaza at it's borders. As for Palestinians, they conceded their right to sovereignty over what was theirs beyond Gaza Strip and the West Bank back in '93 at Oslo, yet Israel has only increased settlement expansion in the West Bank since then.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Palestinians had no territory. The Arab countries officially rejected the UN partition plan back in 1948 and Arab and Palestinians have since effectively rejected any formation of a Palestinian state as well. Then they tried using military aggression to forcibly remove Israel and got their asses collectively handed to them. To the victor goes the spoils and Israel controlled Gaza after 1967. So it was theirs to concede, like it or not.
Common Courtesy already explained these issues to you but instead of answering him you came back with a lame reply about "hot air" and rants about Zionists. Sorry, but the hot air seems to be eminating from you.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
why is it that no one was sheeding tears when the arabs (Numerically superior by a large margin) would attack Israel. The only tears shed was when the Arabs realized that they were whipped again and wanted the world to intervene to save them from annialation.
The Palestinians are suffering for their own sins.
30 years of running with the wrong crowd. And even being treated better by Israel than their own gang members. Then 30 years of repeating the lessons learned by thinking that they can twist the tigers tail enough to have Israel let them have their own way.
As long as they persist in poking Israel, Israel WILL NOT TRUST them. Israel is not going to delineate between Gaza Palestinians, West Bank Palestinians and those sponsored by Syria & others.
Red Irish
Guest
- Mar 6, 2009
- 1,605
- 0
- 0
The arabs may be numerically superior; however, they are not supplied arms by the US and Europe and all military conflicts have been horrendously one-sided.
The Palestinian people are living in abject poverty. They are not suffering for their own sins, but rather the sins of corrupt Palestinian leaders and corrupt leaders in the west.
How much input do you have on US foreign policy? Why judge Palestinians for failing to oust their leaders? I wouldn't judge all Americans on the basis of the fact that George Bush served two terms of office. Moreover, Israel has done little to create an atmosphere of restraint and forgiveness amongst the Palestinian people in recent years. The last series of attacks were appauling and undoubtedly did much to strengthen Hamas' ability to recruit new members.
Indeed, we might begin to wonder if both the Israeli government and Hamas have a vested interest in the continuance of the conflict and are willing to pay the cost in human lives.
The average Palestinian is probably more concerned about the next meal rather than the call for armed liberation.
Personally, I believe a tear should be shed every time a life is taken, irrespective of whether that life belongs to an Israeli or a Palestinian; however, whilst a life is a life, more tears have been shed for and by Palestinians in recent years.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
It only seems that way to you because you are delusional. The Arab countries voted against the partition, but they never had any authority to reject it, and since then they have all accepted the formation of a Palestinian state.. Again, I'd ask you to substantiate your arguments to the contrary, but I know all you have is hot air.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
No, but they have been supplied by the Soviet Union/Russia, Iran, Iraq, and China.
All of the conflicts have been heavily one-sided in Israel's favor since the Arab armies were composed of conscripts and mercenaries fighting for their government's policy. The Israeli's were volunteers and reservists fighting for their own lives and homes.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The Arab countries voted against the partition because they did not want a Jewish state.
The majority of the Arab countries are also against Israel.
The Palestinian people and their leaders still support attacks against Israel and/or seem to have a problem preventing such. when attacks do happen, you see celebration in the streets - peaceful/friendly neighbors?
Why should Israel bend over backwards to allow an enemy within it's midsts?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
By voting against the plan the Arab countries rejected it. Does that statement REALLY need to be explained to you?
In regard to your link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...ration_of_Independence
As we all know, particularly in the Arab world, making proclamations doesn't mean squat. Until the Palestinians accept an actual chunk of land, claiming there's a Palestinian state is nothing but pure dog & pony show, except without any dog or ponies.
Other than that, all you can seem to do is throw around insults at people and proffer rank, superficial arguments, just like every other Palestinian apologist.
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Common Courtesy asks a fair enough question, but its also a moving goal posts answers. Back in the days when the Palestinians had little more than rocks and bottles to throw, its was possible to envision a walled fortress Israel keeping the wretched rabble away, even though a occasional suicide bomber slipped in.
Now that times have changed and a ready supply of rockets exist, and these rockets leap tall walls with total ease, meaning that fortress Israel is not as tenable. And right now, Israel is still fairly safe because the range of the rockets are only 60 miles and the guidance systems are very primitive, But twice in the last 3 years, Israel has engaged in massive collective punishment in Gaza and Lebanon, when perhaps only a 1% of the respective populations were actively involved. Decimating even the local police forces that might prevent these attacks from happening in the first place.
Because the range of the rockets will likely increase in the future as will the quality of the guidance systems, it either means that Israel will either need a bigger buffer zone or more friendly neighbors. And since Israel can't acquire that bigger buffer zone, that implies the latter alternative of friendlier neighbors.
Or will Israel wait until stateless terrorists acquire longer range rockets that carry far deadlier chemical and biological weapons. And to really make a point, they could be launched from primitive boats from the seaward. As it is, such methods are used to target the USA except the cargo is drugs and not missiles. And fleets of cheap semi submarine type vessels, very hard to detect from the air
try to smuggle in drugs all long the US seacoasts. In terrorists hands such a vessel could surface, fire a missile, and re semerge in under two minutes. Or without the knowledge or consent of Friendly nations like Jordon, stateless terrorists could smuggle in and fire such missiles at Israel. And such stateless terrorists would not care if Israel retaliated against Jordon.
If Israel keeps building settlements in the West Bank, the Arab anger and funding will be there to finance it.
What I mention is just two of the future tactical options that may exists, I am sure many in the mid-east are busy trying to make that and other things a reality.
And the only way to reduce that probable reality may be for Israel to go to the peace table with some real concessions.
Now that times have changed and a ready supply of rockets exist, and these rockets leap tall walls with total ease, meaning that fortress Israel is not as tenable. And right now, Israel is still fairly safe because the range of the rockets are only 60 miles and the guidance systems are very primitive, But twice in the last 3 years, Israel has engaged in massive collective punishment in Gaza and Lebanon, when perhaps only a 1% of the respective populations were actively involved. Decimating even the local police forces that might prevent these attacks from happening in the first place.
Because the range of the rockets will likely increase in the future as will the quality of the guidance systems, it either means that Israel will either need a bigger buffer zone or more friendly neighbors. And since Israel can't acquire that bigger buffer zone, that implies the latter alternative of friendlier neighbors.
Or will Israel wait until stateless terrorists acquire longer range rockets that carry far deadlier chemical and biological weapons. And to really make a point, they could be launched from primitive boats from the seaward. As it is, such methods are used to target the USA except the cargo is drugs and not missiles. And fleets of cheap semi submarine type vessels, very hard to detect from the air
try to smuggle in drugs all long the US seacoasts. In terrorists hands such a vessel could surface, fire a missile, and re semerge in under two minutes. Or without the knowledge or consent of Friendly nations like Jordon, stateless terrorists could smuggle in and fire such missiles at Israel. And such stateless terrorists would not care if Israel retaliated against Jordon.
If Israel keeps building settlements in the West Bank, the Arab anger and funding will be there to finance it.
What I mention is just two of the future tactical options that may exists, I am sure many in the mid-east are busy trying to make that and other things a reality.
And the only way to reduce that probable reality may be for Israel to go to the peace table with some real concessions.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Why is Israel going out of their way to establish and expand settlements in the midst of Palestinian territory all across the West Bank? The whole point of the two-state solution is to put a border between the belligerents on both sides, while Israel has been doing exactly the opposite. On the other hand, Israel de facto rejected the partition plan by ethnically cleansing Arab localities on both sides of the partition over the months prior to the Arab states declaring war on Israel.
As for celebrating attacks, that shamefully happens on both sides.
By the way, are you still in denial of the fact that most of the land Israel controls wasn't purchased, and much of it was taken by force, from Palestinians? If so, I am curious to know how you dismiss the evidence I posted above.
That statement is absurd, one might as well claim anyone who voted against Obama has officially rejected him as President.
What "chunk of land" would you have them accept other than that of the Palestinian side of the U.N. plan as noted in their Declaration of Independence minus that which they ceded to Israel at Oslo? That is the land the whole Arab League have since accept the formation of a Palestinian state on, as noted above.
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
By the end of the year the "Iron Dome" should come online, at least partially. 2014 for the ability to intercept missiles which Iran would use to target Israel. This right now involves two rocket interceptors (of two types I believe) guided by radar to intercept rockets and motor shells. The more advance and bigger/longer range the rockets become, the fewer of them there will be which will work in Israel's favor. This would in turn make smaller, cheaper and shorter range rockets more attractive which a buffer zone would help with.
While a very imperfect system, sporadic rocket and motor attacks will not work. A large and coordinated barrage of rockets will be needed which would warrant retaliation. If the problem persists, and the costs of rocket interceptors grows too high I would imagine laser based systems would be developed (without the restraints of placing them into aircraft which is what most talk of laser interceptors has been of, that I read).
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Huh? Anyone who voted against Obama did officially reject him as President.
What's absurd is this ridiculous semantic argument you're trying to make over a figure of speech. Stop the stupid already.
You mean that's what the Arab League decided was acceptable after they finally figured out, after repeated attempts, that they weren't going to be able to defeat Israel on the battelfield? That's not to mention that their Declaration of Independence fails to explicitly and officially recognize Israel; and your comments also fail to recognize that the Palestinians haven't exactly subscribed to the contents of their own document.
Like I started out with in this thread, it takes two to tango. I realize that Israel has to make concessions. However, so do the Palestinians. Unfortunately people like you argue one side and one side only, making apologies for the Palestinians all along the way and trying to portray them as poor, helpless victims against the vicious Zionists. Cut the bullshit, because anyone who has the least bit of attachment to reality understands that both sides are at fault here and both are going to have to give in order to get.
*blockades the 'autonomous' area of palestinian land*
*wall off occupied land*
*rains white phosphorous over schools that they knew had no militants*
*is israel*
BUT THEY SHOT BOTTLE ROCKETS AT US!
*wall off occupied land*
*rains white phosphorous over schools that they knew had no militants*
*is israel*
BUT THEY SHOT BOTTLE ROCKETS AT US!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter