Israel rejects UN call for Gaza war crimes inquiry.

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: QuantumPion


I think the problem with your post is that you have this misconception that the Palestinians are interested in peace or land.

Your misconception is that they aren't.

They are not! That is a fact! They have had numerous opportunities in the past to pursue peace and iether have not or have rejected peace!

The same could be said of Israel.

Then they go ahead and elect Hamas......hmmm

Are the governments elected by Israel any better?

As long as their is war there will be civilian casualties......

What happened at the beginning of the year can not and should not be defined as war.

So whats the big issue again?

None, except that you persist in attempting to discredit any criticism of Israel, irrespective of the source (BBC, US President, UN, etc). I am quite happy to criticise Hamas; however, you and certain other posters seem to have a problem with the fact that in many instances, Israel is no better. That's the issue.

replies in bold.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Israel could be caught on camera intentionally bombing civilians, joking about it, and then doing a puppet show with the bodies of children, and people like QuantumPion and rest of the Internet IDF would line up to defend them.

Palestinians HAVE been caught on camera intentionally bombing civilians, joking about it, and then doing a puppet show with the bodies of children (for the gullible media cameras). And you DO line up to defend them.

Did you hear that sound? That was the sound of your brain exploding due to the sudden realization that you are an *******.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Israel could be caught on camera intentionally bombing civilians, joking about it, and then doing a puppet show with the bodies of children, and people like QuantumPion and rest of the Internet IDF would line up to defend them.

Palestinians HAVE been caught on camera intentionally bombing civilians, joking about it, and then doing a puppet show with the bodies of children (for the gullible media cameras). And you DO line up to defend them.

Did you hear that sound? That was the sound of your brain exploding due to the sudden realization that you are an *******.

I can't speak for CitizenKain, but I will never attempt to defend terrorist actions commited by Palestinians. That said, when the UN sees evidence of war crimes in Israel's actions, when Israel ignores the petitions of the international community to stop building on land it does not own and when Israel proves itself to be gripped by the same fanaticism and hatred that it assigns to its enemy, I will not defend Israel.

Clearly the people who drew up the report found enough evidence to request an enquiry. Is it simply the case that all these criticisms are voiced by people who are anti-semites with no real understanding of Israel's holy crusade to rid the world of vile terrorists? Please, enough with the "Cowboys versus the Indians" routine.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be able to say some truth about the Israeli government sometimes doing evil things.

Answer this:

How many UN resolutions censure the Israelis?

How many censure the Palestinians?

Truth is truth for all. So why do so many only expect "truth" for one side of the equation?

The point you ignore is the validity of the many resolutions against Israel. As for the double standard, the Palestewnians don't even have a state, and they've not done the same type of things to Israel; they've used violence to resist occupation.

You could say 'both sides were wrong in the slavery situation. Whites were accused of violating the rights of blacks, and slaves sometimes used violent against owners.'

You get to an apples and oranges problem trying to 'compare' the sides.

One is a powerful state doing certain types of wrongs, and the the other is an occupied, relatively weak, group of people who have done another type of wrongs.

Your 'bias' accusation against the UN that tries to say comparing the number of resolutions against Israel and Palestenians is nonsensical IMO.

It doesn't prove there is or isn't bias, since they aren't necessarily equally subject to the resolutions.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be able to say some truth about the Israeli government sometimes doing evil things.

Answer this:

How many UN resolutions censure the Israelis?

How many censure the Palestinians?

Truth is truth for all. So why do so many only expect "truth" for one side of the equation?

The point you ignore is the validity of the many resolutions against Israel. As for the double standard, the Palestewnians don't even have a state, and they've not done the same type of things to Israel; they've used violence to resist occupation.

You could say 'both sides were wrong in the slavery situation. Whites were accused of violating the rights of blacks, and slaves sometimes used violent against owners.'

You get to an apples and oranges problem trying to 'compare' the sides.

One is a powerful state doing certain types of wrongs, and the the other is an occupied, relatively weak, group of people who have done another type of wrongs.

Your 'bias' accusation against the UN that tries to say comparing the number of resolutions against Israel and Palestenians is nonsensical IMO.

It doesn't prove there is or isn't bias, since they aren't necessarily equally subject to the resolutions.

So basically you say that no matter who is responsible for the violence, everything is Israel's fault because they are more powerful.

Except in 1948 I guess, when they weren't, but won anyway. That time it was their fault because they were Jews.

 

[Lemon law]

I think QuantumPion misses the point, Israel did win and the Arabs were wrong for attacking Israel in 1948.

But once that happened and the initial Israel government started to govern, it was at a fork in the road, it could either meet the ideal situation where it treated the Jews and non Jews in the indigenous population equally, or it could systematically steal Palestinian land and throw them into concentration camps.

We all know Israel choose the latter course, and will never know peace as a result. It can prop itself by force for the foreseeable future, but when all the surrounding countries hate Israeli behavior, its hard to predict the long term survival of Israel.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think QuantumPion misses the point, Israel did win and the Arabs were wrong for attacking Israel in 1948.

But once that happened and the initial Israel government started to govern, it was at a fork in the road, it could either meet the ideal situation where it treated the Jews and non Jews in the indigenous population equally, or it could systematically steal Palestinian land and throw them into concentration camps.

We all know Israel choose the latter course, and will never know peace as a result. It can prop itself by force for the foreseeable future, but when all the surrounding countries hate Israeli behavior, its hard to predict the long term survival of Israel.

Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel.

If your objection is that Jews bought land and moved to Palestine to begin with, then your argument should be with the wealthy arabs whom owned and sold that land to them.

Suggesting arab terrorism against Jewish civilians as an acceptable course of action against Jews legally buying land to escape European prosecution is absolute lunacy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be able to say some truth about the Israeli government sometimes doing evil things.

Answer this:

How many UN resolutions censure the Israelis?

How many censure the Palestinians?

Truth is truth for all. So why do so many only expect "truth" for one side of the equation?

The point you ignore is the validity of the many resolutions against Israel. As for the double standard, the Palestewnians don't even have a state, and they've not done the same type of things to Israel; they've used violence to resist occupation.

You could say 'both sides were wrong in the slavery situation. Whites were accused of violating the rights of blacks, and slaves sometimes used violent against owners.'

You get to an apples and oranges problem trying to 'compare' the sides.

One is a powerful state doing certain types of wrongs, and the the other is an occupied, relatively weak, group of people who have done another type of wrongs.

Your 'bias' accusation against the UN that tries to say comparing the number of resolutions against Israel and Palestenians is nonsensical IMO.

It doesn't prove there is or isn't bias, since they aren't necessarily equally subject to the resolutions.

So basically you say that no matter who is responsible for the violence, everything is Israel's fault because they are more powerful.

Except in 1948 I guess, when they weren't, but won anyway. That time it was their fault because they were Jews.

No, that's not what I said at all. Sorry we didn't communicate.

To address one point, let me try a less than great analogy.

'The UN has various resolutions condeming policies of the United States, but not any resolutions condemnng Al Queda. This proves the UN is biased.'

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234
We need to be able to say some truth about the Israeli government sometimes doing evil things.

Answer this:

How many UN resolutions censure the Israelis?

How many censure the Palestinians?

Truth is truth for all. So why do so many only expect "truth" for one side of the equation?

The point you ignore is the validity of the many resolutions against Israel. As for the double standard, the Palestewnians don't even have a state, and they've not done the same type of things to Israel; they've used violence to resist occupation.

You could say 'both sides were wrong in the slavery situation. Whites were accused of violating the rights of blacks, and slaves sometimes used violent against owners.'

You get to an apples and oranges problem trying to 'compare' the sides.

One is a powerful state doing certain types of wrongs, and the the other is an occupied, relatively weak, group of people who have done another type of wrongs.

Your 'bias' accusation against the UN that tries to say comparing the number of resolutions against Israel and Palestenians is nonsensical IMO.

It doesn't prove there is or isn't bias, since they aren't necessarily equally subject to the resolutions.

So basically you say that no matter who is responsible for the violence, everything is Israel's fault because they are more powerful.

Except in 1948 I guess, when they weren't, but won anyway. That time it was their fault because they were Jews.

No, that's not what I said at all. Sorry we didn't communicate.

To address one point, let me try a less than great analogy.

'The UN has various resolutions condeming policies of the United States, but not any resolutions condemnng Al Queda. This proves the UN is biased.'

Did you know that the UN Human Rights Committee passed a resolution in 2002 affirming Palestinians to use any and all means at their disposal, including violence, to achieve an independent state? Recall if you will, that it was less than a decade earlier when Arafat walked out of the Oslo Accords where Israel offered Palestine a contiguous independent state.

So you claim that it makes sense for the UN to not sanction Palestine, because they are not an official state. Yet the UN did pass a resolution regarding Palestine, which in fact encouraged them to use violence against Israel.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Did you know that the UN Human Rights Committee passed a resolution in 2002 affirming Palestinians to use any and all means at their disposal, including violence, to achieve an independent state? Recall if you will, that it was less than a decade earlier when Arafat walked out of the Oslo Accords where Israel offered Palestine a contiguous independent state.

So you claim that it makes sense for the UN to not sanction Palestine, because they are not an official state. Yet the UN did pass a resolution regarding Palestine, which in fact encouraged them to use violence against Israel.

You're moving in the right direction but still pretty far from what I said.

I haven't got into a detailed discussion examining every bit of the issue here.

But Israel and the Palestinians have a different status, as just one point, and counting the UN resolutions is meaningless for trying to prove bias.

The UN can pass a resolution about the Palestinians on one issue, and have a lot of other incidents involving Israel's behavior as a state. The whole approach is nonsensical.

And as such it's not worth the bother going into a lot of details IMO.

I will look at the resolution you mentio as separately of interest - if you have a link great.

You greatly oversimplify the Oslo offer by Israel. Again that would be a very detailed discussion with arguments against both sides, that's been done before here.

The verion you list - 'Israel offered them a homeland they said no' - is nothing but using the issue for Israeli propaganda. There's more to it.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The verion you list - 'Israel offered them a homeland they said no' - is nothing but using the issue for Israeli propaganda. There's more to it.

Is the "more to it than that" that you refer to that Israel would not accept right of return, or give 100% control of Jerusalem to Palestine? These were poison-pill demands which would never be accepted under any circumstances because they are ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that not only did Arafat turn down his Palestinian state, but instead of making some kind of earnest effort to continue peace talks, decided to turn around and start the intifada. "Oh, so the Jews won't give us 110% of all of our demands? KILL THEM ALL!"

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When I said you should brush up on your history, that did not mean going back to hamas.com for your info. Your understanding of the events is laughable. There is no debate here.

 

[Lemon law]

Sorry hamas.com was not even in real existence in 1967. As for your feeble attempt to deny a well known truth, I am not buying your crap.

Maybe you will believe Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...tinian_right_of_return

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sorry hamas.com was not even in real existence in 1967. As for your feeble attempt to deny a well known truth, I am not buying your crap.

Maybe you will believe Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...tinian_right_of_return

hahaha...you still harping about the so called right of return???
What you don`t understand about wiki is that it is hardly unbiased.
The people who contribute all have there own agenda......hell wiki isn`t even allowed in most upper level colleges as far as facts are concerned when submitting a paper.

 

[Stas]

Why argue? Israel is screwed. Check the Bible.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When you side with the enemy & losing team, would you honestly be expected to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population.

It may be a catch 22; but Israeli civilians have been on the targeted end of Palestinian terrorism, both in Israel and abroad.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When you side with the enemy & losing team, would you honestly be expected to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population.

It may be a catch 22; but Israeli civilians have been on the targeted end of Palestinian terrorism, both in Israel and abroad.

Fair enough, but seriously, what would the situation be for Palestinians if they did absolutely zero violence to Israeli civilians?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When you side with the enemy & losing team, would you honestly be expected to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population.

It may be a catch 22; but Israeli civilians have been on the targeted end of Palestinian terrorism, both in Israel and abroad.

Fair enough, but seriously, what would the situation be for Palestinians if they did absolutely zero violence to Israeli civilians?

Circa 1948? If the seven muslim nations didn't try to eradicate Israel from the beginning? They would have a country called Palestine larger then Israel is:
1947

Circa 1993? they would have had contiguous country with part of Jerusalem, free from any Jewish settlements or influence:
1993

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When you side with the enemy & losing team, would you honestly be expected to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population.

It may be a catch 22; but Israeli civilians have been on the targeted end of Palestinian terrorism, both in Israel and abroad.

Fair enough, but seriously, what would the situation be for Palestinians if they did absolutely zero violence to Israeli civilians?

1) We will never know - at this point so much bad blood and history has been created that the extremists on both sides seem unwilling to work toward a compromise.
Preconditions before talking prevent any real accomplishment and sets up finger pointing.

However, operating on your hypothesis from the beginning

2) Given that there were some Arabs that stayed behind in '48 and have prospered, the issue of right to return would not be a sticking point. Palestinians would still be on their own land and deciding what they wanted to do with it. Improve it, farm it, sell it, develop it, etc.

3) With less exiled Palestinians, the "refugee camps" would be much less, with less breeding of terror and reducing the tension in the area.

4) Arab nations would not be able to deflect their problems off to the Palestinian issue.

5) Israel would not be requiring as much munitions and able to direct more toward growth

Based on the real world:
The West bank has prospered much more than Gaza. Could this be a result of the leadership in Gaza for the past 40+ years and the deliberate attempt by the leadership to sacrifice the population in order to prick Israel?

 

[Lemon law]

While there is some truth in the common Courtesy assertion of, "And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population."

There is still a hollow sound when you tap on the exterior. Because right away me suddenly buy into a us and them, and an Israeli must be a Jew and non Israelis must be Palestinian. When the the hope in 1948 was that the new state of Israel would fairly and equally govern all the native populations of what was formerly the British mandate.

Then we must buy into yet another bogus assertion, and that is because a few Palestinians use terrorism, all Palestinians should be blamed. If anything, Israelis on average, are far more violent, and the worse scourge during the British mandate came from Jewish terrorism. And collective punishment is against the UN Charter, yet Israel still uses it on a daily basis.

 

[Pulsar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I think QuantumPion misses the point, Israel did win and the Arabs were wrong for attacking Israel in 1948.

But once that happened and the initial Israel government started to govern, it was at a fork in the road, it could either meet the ideal situation where it treated the Jews and non Jews in the indigenous population equally, or it could systematically steal Palestinian land and throw them into concentration camps.

We all know Israel choose the latter course, and will never know peace as a result. It can prop itself by force for the foreseeable future, but when all the surrounding countries hate Israeli behavior, its hard to predict the long term survival of Israel.

Your ability to rewrite history as you see fit is somewhat flawed by the fact that anyone can go out and read what actually happened.

Someone find me a cite that shows Israel attacking the Palestinians or Hamas militarily in the last 20 years without provocation of any kind. I'm interested.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While there is some truth in the common Courtesy assertion of, "And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population."

There is still a hollow sound when you tap on the exterior. Because right away me suddenly buy into a us and them, and an Israeli must be a Jew and non Israelis must be Palestinian. When the the hope in 1948 was that the new state of Israel would fairly and equally govern all the native populations of what was formerly the British mandate.

Then we must buy into yet another bogus assertion, and that is because a few Palestinians use terrorism, all Palestinians should be blamed. If anything, Israelis on average, are far more violent, and the worse scourge during the British mandate came from Jewish terrorism. And collective punishment is against the UN Charter, yet Israel still uses it on a daily basis.

There were supposed to be two nations, Israel and Palestine. The Jews expected to have Israel and it was expected the Arabs to have Palestine.

However, the neighbors of the new Israel did not want to accept that solution.

the bogus assertaion is that the Palestinian leaders from day 1 have advocated and still demonstrate a determination to not live side by side with Israel. They have armies that choose to attaack Israel and Jews. When the water gets to hot for them, they run to the UN crying for protection.

The Palestinian people have chosen to follow such leaders.

Not all Palestinians are bad; but they have chosen who they want to represent them and msut live with the results. They just make bad choices over and over again

 

[Lemon law]

While there is sometruth to the Common Courtesy assertion of "Not all Palestinians are bad; but they have chosen who they want to represent them and must live with the results. They just make bad choices over and over again. "

The myth is that the Palestinians have any real choices. Once Israel started confiscating their land, tossing them into concentrations camps, and making them into third class citizens in the land of their birth, what choices do they have? How can we expect them to be content with their lot?

Worse yet the surrounding Arab nations leadership use the Palestinians for propaganda value, but will not help them in any real way. At least the Gaza residents in electing Hamas get social services from the Hamas social wing, and do not have to worry about Israeli settlement in their dung hill ghetto. And West Bank Palestinians in electing the former terrorist party of Yassir Arifat and now tamed, get some social services from from Fatah, but always have to worry about violent Israeli settlers taking more and more land.

Missing in action is that viable Palestinian State that could give them hope for the future and something to build a future on.

Given that bleak out look, we have to wonder how long Fatah will last if they can't deliver a future for West bank residents. To some extent only Abbas holds Fatah together and the cracks are already appearing.

And I will leave it to Common Courtesy to explain to that new Born Palestinians, sorry, your parents and grandparents just were not violent enough to displace the Israelis who stole your hope and future.

Somewhere missing in action is any semblance of fairness and sharing between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While there is sometruth to the Common Courtesy assertion of "Not all Palestinians are bad; but they have chosen who they want to represent them and must live with the results. They just make bad choices over and over again. "

The myth is that the Palestinians have any real choices. Once Israel started confiscating their land, tossing them into concentrations camps, and making them into third class citizens in the land of their birth, what choices do they have? How can we expect them to be content with their lot?

Worse yet the surrounding Arab nations leadership use the Palestinians for propaganda value, but will not help them in any real way. At least the Gaza residents in electing Hamas get social services from the Hamas social wing, and do not have to worry about Israeli settlement in their dung hill ghetto. And West Bank Palestinians in electing the former terrorist party of Yassir Arifat and now tamed, get some social services from from Fatah, but always have to worry about violent Israeli settlers taking more and more land.

Missing in action is that viable Palestinian State that could give them hope for the future and something to build a future on.

Given that bleak out look, we have to wonder how long Fatah will last if they can't deliver a future for West bank residents. To some extent only Abbas holds Fatah together and the cracks are already appearing.

And I will leave it to Common Courtesy to explain to that new Born Palestinians, sorry, your parents and grandparents just were not violent enough to displace the Israelis who stole your hope and future.

Somewhere missing in action is any semblance of fairness and sharing between Israelis and Palestinians.

I like how you pretend to make a rational argument and then sneak your anti-semitic ravings in the middle. Clever.