Jump to content

Because, Israel


BansheeOne

Recommended Posts

On 11/7/2023 at 1:12 PM, R011 said:

I've got to agree here.  One can make all sorts of arguments about what should have happened last century.  The fact is Israel exists now.  Israelis have the right to exist in poeace.  Palestinians exist.  They also have the right to live in peace.  Both sides, though, have the responsibility not to attack the other and the right to proportionate self defence.

Israel keeps illegal settlements in Palestinian territory which they really should dismantle.  A proportionate response from Palestinians is peaceful protest and litigation.  terror rockets and terror raids that kill hundreds is not proportionate.  Israel has tried to judge proportionate response, but so far anything less than full scale invasion and the elimination of Hamas has failed to work.  Proportionate now means all out war.

Again I will note, the peace control lies with the Pallys. They stop conducting terror raids, stop mortaring Israel, build their towns and cities, bury the hatchet and they can have a patchwork of lands around and among jewish areas the same way that parts of Europe are a patchwork of isolated pockets inside  another nation’s territory (ie Baarle-Hertog-Nassau). Then, with that credible peace they can negotiate for land back or trades based on good faith. 

But, they don’t want that. They want ALL of Israel. They say this, ‘from the River to the Sea.’  They want No Israel. They want a return to the Ottoman era but with no Ottomans and no Jews. 
 

So stop making logical arguments based on a complete fallacy that the Pallys don’t want and will not accept at this point. Its an argument predicated on a false set of assumptions, at best. Its arguably deliberate dishonestly. 
 

If the Netherlands and Belgium were still fighting over Flemish and Walloon territory, do you think there’d be a porous border in Baarle-Hertog-Nassau? Let alone freedom of travel between Flemish areas of Belgium? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, R011 said:

Israel is a modern, Western country that recognizes the rights of women, LGBT+ people, religious and ethnic minorities etc.  It abides by the rule of law, has an independent judiciary, allows peaceful public protest and so on.  The PA and Hamas are repressive, reactionary, fascist organizations.

All of which explains the animus from the left towards Jews in general and Israel in particular. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/from-the-river-to-the-sea-arab-citizens-of-israel-say-no-thanks-to-liberation/

Quote

 

Palestinians and their allies have justified and even celebrated Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre in Israel as a blow against Jewish oppression. But the 2 million Arab citizens of Israel have overwhelmingly responded by drawing closer to the Jewish state.

Among Arab Israelis, prominent media personalities have helped lead an unprecedented surge in support for their country and opposition to their self-proclaimed liberator Hamas. Pro-Israel arguments that were previously almost unspeakable in the Arab mainstream have in recent weeks gotten a respectful hearing.

 

.

Quote

"We literally felt that Hamas could have conquered the south and then the center and also the north of Israel, where the majority of Arab Israelis are staying, and we had a very bad feeling about it," said Haddad, who has more than 1.5 million followers across social media. "Immediately my friends and colleagues here said, ‘That’s the last thing that we want. We don’t want to live under a terrorist organization. We want to live in a democracy, and that’s what the state of Israel is.’"

This illustrates why the left hates Israel and Israelis. Its very difficult to sell authoritarian socialism to people who have experienced western civilization.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Venezuela it was sold to the enough people who have for most part only saw ugly side of the western civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bojan said:

In Venezuela it was sold to the enough people who have for most part only saw ugly side of the western civilization.

And when they wanted to go back, an Arizona-like electoral system prevented them to do so.

Talking about ratchets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sunday said:

Lots of Democrats support the state of Israel, and are supported by AIPAC, I think.

Example.

24 out of 212 Democrats in the House. Your exceptions prove my rule. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/intellectual-dishonesty-caused-the-experts-to-misread-the-gaza-military-situation/

Quote

While good analysis of any major news story should not accept on face value any claims by the participants, it most certainly must not accept the claims of a source known to lie. And yet, the mainstream press and the experts it has relied on have accepted and continue to accept what Hamas tells them, with no skepticism, to the point that several media sources (Reuters, CNN, AP, and the New York Times) allowed themselves to be used by Hamas as propaganda outlets. Their blind passion to get the story combined with their willingness to repeatedly accept the words of an organization not only known to repeatedly lie but to rape, torture, and slaughter women, children, and babies caused them to misread the situation badly.

Others might not be so kind, and will instead say this poor analysis was because many of these news organizations and the experts they relied on have taken sides. They see Hamas as the good guy and victim, and Israel as the bad guy and oppressor. Thus, their analysis is warped because they assume Israel is lying and Hamas is telling them the truth.

I am reminded of the early days of OIF, during which the newsies kept using the term "quagmire" to describe the fastest-moving combined arms assault in history.

The mainstream press are advocates for a position, rather then investigators of the truth. I'm guessing the majority of MSM newsies are feeling quite nauseous that Israel is using direct action on the threat.  

Then there's the "quotable expert" discussed in the above article, but that's a rant for another time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/11/08/shock-one-in-five-democrats-side-with-hamas-ii-tipp-poll/

Quote

 

But a shockingly high 20% of Democrats say they support Hamas in the current conflict, despite reports of blood-curdling barbarism committed against innocent Israeli men, women, and children. Just over half of Democrats say they support Israel.

Amid the backdrop of the Oct. 7 attacks against Israel by the terrorist group Hamas, I&I/TIPP asked Americans this question: “Generally speaking, in the Israel-Hamas conflict, do you side more with Israel or Hamas?” The national online poll of 1,400 adults was taken from Nov. 1-3, with a margin-of-error of +/-2.7 percentage points.

 

All sides have 'splainin' to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://swprs.org/why-israel-created-hamas/

The whys

Quote

Why Israel helped create Hamas


Since the founding of Hamas in 1987, Israeli, American and Palestinian officials have repeatedly acknowledged that Israel did indeed help create and fund the Islamist group.

The point made by many of these officials is not that Israel “allowed” the rise of Hamas or that Hamas emerged in response to Israeli “occupation” of Palestine. Rather, their point was and is that Israel’s intelligence agencies actively helped create and finance the Hamas group.

As the officials cited below make clear, the overall goal of supporting Hamas has been to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and avert the implementation of a two-state solution to the Palestine question. From Israel’s perspective, a two-state solution would reduce Israel’s territory to the internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, prohibit any future territorial expansion, and prevent the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

More specifically, supporting the Islamist Hamas group has served several Israeli objectives at once: first, it undermined Yasser Arafat’s secular nationalist PLO; second, it helped prevent the implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords; third, it undermined the Palestinian National Authority and isolated Gaza from the Westbank; fourth, it impeded Western support for the Palestinian cause; and fifth, it justified Israeli (counter-)attacks on Palestinian territory.

In other words, by secretly supporting a group that does not recognize the existence of the state of Israel and does not accept a two-state solution, Israel does not have to accept the existence of a Palestinian state and does not have to support a two-state solution, either.

(...)

Lots of whats and hows in the article.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

Just a panning of videos and news photos shows young, white females -- they don't have the maturity to be women -- seem to be the "firstest with the mostest" in regards to woke protests. 

Par for the course since your temperance movement in 19th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick said:

Good point, did not think of that. How is the U.S. Temperance movement viewed to you?

 

Mostly good meaning, in a Puritan/Calvinist sort of way, but they went too far, and provided an example of unintended consequences.

Samland had some severe drinking problems in the 19th century, so I could not judge it very negatively. Here the problems were less because of cheap, good-enough wine, and few high-proof liquor. Plus the tradition of considering wine and beer foodstuffs that we started drinking in small doses as kids, like in weekends. The concept of getting drunk just because getting drunk was not usual 30 years ago, moreover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Actual ethnic cleaning in the Middle East;

 

F_OYrxIXwAAgSaL.jpg

So, it looks like there were no animosities before 1948.

Then there is the willing emigration to Israel. I do not see French Morocco nor Spanish Morocco doing progroms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sunday said:

So, it looks like there were no animosities before 1948.

Then there is the willing emigration to Israel. I do not see French Morocco nor Spanish Morocco doing progroms.

Tens to hundreds of thousands of people flee a nation because of no animosities? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Tens to hundreds of thousands of people flee a nation because of no animosities? 

That could be after 1948, and part of those "refugees" could have gone willingly to Israel.

Like those Ethiopian Jews that were rescued from a country rife with famine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sunday said:

That could be after 1948, and part of those "refugees" could have gone willingly to Israel.

Like those Ethiopian Jews that were rescued from a country rife with famine.

It's almost as if there are 900,000 Jews who birthed millions of Jews and Israelis whom you could ask whether the forced expulsion was nice or not so nice.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rmgill said:

And the rest of the Arab world? The mass migration was not characterized by leave or else? 

I do not know. Do you?

Circling back to Morocco, that is a country allied with USA. Are you allying with genodicidal Antisemites now?

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...