SIX MILLION JEWS

[Symmetry]

For some reason i suspect you actually did want to get involved.

[Funkyterrance]

The OP hasn't said anything out of line so yeah it would be a little unjust to intervene with this thread in any way. Just sounds political so far.

I don't know ifs you're being serious, but anyway here' one example of the bigotry. It sort of adds up.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... k#p3739791

Yeah I just meant in this thread so far. If he says anything actually racist it will destroy any credibility so until then, to be fair, I'm just viewing it as a thought exercise and nothing more.

[PLAYER57832]

I really & honestly have no idea, how you made these connections. Did I say somewhere, that somebody ("the Jews", Israel, I don´t know) had the right to harm someone else ?

In the given context, you are probably meaning the foundation of Israel as an unjustified harm to the Palestinian people again. Yet again: I am not aware to have spoken of that in my earlier posts.

I didn´t say, it was "sick" to debate these issues either. I was saying, that the thought, that Jewish people should have "learned" something from the Holocaust is sick. What do you learn from being killed ? Maybe you should read the lengthy quote in my last post. David Hirsh expressed this very well, in my opinion.

In the context of your saying that so much of Jewish history is about, essentially "being abused", (true, by-the-way), you have to ask if the proper lesson is really to be entirely defensive to the point of becoming an attacker or if, instead a more tolerant view is better.

We learn from everything.. good and bad. Learning from something doesn't make it a good thing, it means we go on. Often people who have endured terrible things go on to do great things... but sometimes they also turn around and wind up being as bad or worse than those who harmed them.

When it comes to Israel, the discussion tends to get labeled as "anti semitic", becuase there are a large number of Israelie Jews, particularly some in power right now who truly do think that the holocaust and the Bible each give them the right to forcibly oust Palestiniens.. and that any Palestinien anger and hatred is entirely unjustified because God is "no on their side".

That is definitely not how "all Jews" or even all Israelis think, but there are enough people thinking that or close that any hope of a real Palestinien state, peace in the Middle East is quickly disappearing.. and its not becuase 20 years ago some kids threw rocks at soldiers.

I did not say, the state of Israel is justified to do whatever it wants, or that its human rights violation are somehow justified by the history of the Holocaust. Putting words in my mouth again.

Yet again, in this very quote of yours, I find the Holocaust reference somewhat inappropriate: Is Israels policy fueled by racial hatred ?

Yes

Or are we talking about a country in a war-like state for centuries, that on several occasions chose options & hardline policies, that we don´t agree with or even abhor ? Do we really need to compare those policies to the Holocaust and Israel to Nazi Germany, or can we criticise them for their impact on human rights & living conditions of the Palestinians without doing so ?

We are talking about a nation largely created by refugees of the holocaust and who were essentially allowed to do so without much question because it was seen as an easy way to deal with the "Jewish problem" of the day.... and because at the time, those "Arabs" really did not matter at all.

So yes, racism and the holocaust are very much tied to Israel.

[saxitoxin]

When reading your post, I for one noted, how you tend to mix up the terms "Jews", "the Jews" and "Israel".

I don't think Player said anything she intended to be offensive. This is a casual message board and people speak casually and we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, generally speaking, you have a salient point. As someone who has called for Israel to be disestablished, I am careful to always refer to the "Zionist problem" and never the "Jewish problem" because Jews are not the problem and are as much victims of Zionism as anyone. To avoid making that mistake, it is best if civilized peoples simply ignore Israel. It can't even be given the courtesy of discussion. British MP George Galloway set a good example at Oxford two weeks ago:

[Ray Rider]

When reading your post, I for one noted, how you tend to mix up the terms "Jews", "the Jews" and "Israel".

I don't think Player said anything she intended to be offensive. This is a casual message board and people speak casually and we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, generally speaking, you have a salient point. As someone who has called for Israel to be disestablished, I am careful to always refer to the "Zionist problem" and never the "Jewish problem" because Jews are not the problem and are every bit as much victims of Zionism as anyone. To avoid making that mistake, it is best if civilized peoples simply ignore Israel. It can't even be given the courtesy of discussion. British MP George Galloway set a good example at Oxford two weeks ago:

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

And as a side note, kudos to ahunda for staying civil even when your words were completely misconstrued.

[saxitoxin]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

And as a side note, kudos to ahunda for staying civil even when your words were completely misconstrued.

I think he was speaking to Player, not me.

[ahunda]

For some reason i suspect you actually did want to get involved.

For some reason I suspect, I understand how you could get this impression.

Truth is, I am browsing this forum sometimes, when being bored. Often coming close to entering a discussion, but usually having enough self-control not to. Exactly because I know myself, and where it tends to lead to.

My last post in this thread:

In the context of your saying that so much of Jewish history is about, essentially "being abused", (true, by-the-way), you have to ask if the proper lesson is really to be entirely defensive to the point of becoming an attacker or if, instead a more tolerant view is better.

We learn from everything.. good and bad. Learning from something doesn't make it a good thing, it means we go on. Often people who have endured terrible things go on to do great things... but sometimes they also turn around and wind up being as bad or worse than those who harmed them.

I don´t really see the Jewish refugees coming to Palestine as an "attacker", bound for conquest, motivated by racist hatred, or anything of the sort. I also don´t see the Israeli state as an "attacker" in a one-sided conflict, though I certainly don´t agree with all its policies past & present.

Simple fact: Hamas & Hezbollah are not Amnesty International. Their public statements again & again make it clear, that their ultimate goal is not merely to establish a Palestinian state & improve the living conditions of the Palestinian people, but in fact the destruction of the state of Israel.

Now whilst I don´t agree with the hardline approach, that the Israeli government has taken towards the conflict in the last years, I have to ask: What would be the proper lesson of centuries of persecution & abuse for this situation, in your opinion ? Israel dissolving peacefully, the millions of Jewish people born there in the last decades packing up & asking for asylum in Europe ?

If that´s not your suggestion, then you will need to recognise, that there is a problem on the Palestinian/Arab side too. Because the circle of violence is fed from two sides.

When it comes to Israel, the discussion tends to get labeled as "anti semitic", becuase there are a large number of Israelie Jews, particularly some in power right now who truly do think that the holocaust and the Bible each give them the right to forcibly oust Palestiniens.. and that any Palestinien anger and hatred is entirely unjustified because God is "no on their side".

Disagree. The debate over Israel is, as a matter of fact, heavily loaded with anti-semitic connotations, sometimes people doing it unintentionally, but often also really straight-forward. If you want to close your eyes towards that dimension of the conflict & the surrounding debate, you are free to do so, but you will never really reach an understanding of the counter-arguments then.

Have you actually ever read, seen, studied propaganda material & public statements of groups such as Hamas & Hezbollah ? I am just asking, because you accuse Israel of justifying its policies with the will of God. And that strikes me as kind of odd, because actually it´s the fundamentalist groups on the other side, that are officially labeling their fight a "holy war" and use rhetoric like that all the time. Seems to me like you are applying some kind of double-standard here.

I did not say, the state of Israel is justified to do whatever it wants, or that its human rights violation are somehow justified by the history of the Holocaust. Putting words in my mouth again.

Yet again, in this very quote of yours, I find the Holocaust reference somewhat inappropriate: Is Israels policy fueled by racial hatred ?

Yes

Wow. I won´t dignify this with a response, but simply agree to disagree.

We are talking about a nation largely created by refugees of the holocaust and who were essentially allowed to do so without much question because it was seen as an easy way to deal with the "Jewish problem" of the day.... and because at the time, those "Arabs" really did not matter at all.

Now you might have studied different history books than me, but according to mine the international community had tried to negotiate a compromise and a two-state-solution for the region, that was rejected by the Arab population.

And the world pretty much stood by impartially, when the surrounding Arab states invaded Israel in 1948, directly after the state of Israel had been officially declared. It was the Jewish people themselves & pretty much alone, who fought and won this war.

I am still not sure, if you are actually supporting the hardcore Arab factions, that see the state of Israel as a foreign entity and an occupying force on Arab soil, and who openly announce, that they will continue to fight until Israel is destroyed. Plenty of hatred & very little tolerance going round in those circles.

As I stated in my last post, questioning the right of Israel to exist in the year 2013, seems not a way forward to a peaceful solution to me. And with that, I am taking my leave from this debate.

[muy_thaiguy]

The OP hasn't said anything out of line so yeah it would be a little unjust to intervene with this thread in any way. Just sounds political so far.

I don't know ifs you're being serious, but anyway here' one example of the bigotry. It sort of adds up.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... k#p3739791

Yeah I just meant in this thread so far. If he says anything actually racist it will destroy any credibility so until then, to be fair, I'm just viewing it as a thought exercise and nothing more.

He reminds me of Norse, in that he is racist, but more subtle about it than what you would normally suspect, but racist nonetheless.

[Ray Rider]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

And as a side note, kudos to ahunda for staying civil even when *his words were completely misconstrued.

I think he was speaking to Player, not me.

Agreed, my apologies for lack of clarity.

[saxitoxin]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

Chas Freeman, the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia under George H.W. Bush, explained this cunning Israeli manipulation recently:

... it seeks to promote selective listening. The purpose is to constrict the demand for information, not its flow. Although hasbara includes efforts to impede access to information through a wide variety of techniques adapted to new information technologies, it focuses on limiting the receptivity of audiences to information. In this context, hasbara recognizes the control of narrative as a potent weapon. Narrative is an element of rhetoric. It defines context. When successfully imposed, it provides a cognitive filter. Narratives offer a comprehensive framework for connecting and interpreting events. They substantiate “group think,” establishing baselines for conformity and hence for ostracism.

http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary ... t-strategy

[Ray Rider]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement in red so shortly after using the blue word above it without seeing the inherent contradiction...ya know Uncle Saxi, I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but on the issues of Israel and the Falklands our views are almost diametrically opposed.

[saxitoxin]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement in red so shortly after using the blue word above it without seeing the inherent contradiction...ya know Uncle Saxi, I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but on the issues of Israel and the Falklands our views are almost diametrically opposed.

YAARRRRRRR!!!

[Gillipig]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

So you'd want to give Israel back to the palestinians? Or do you have some other suggestion? A tiny itty bitty part of me thinks that the palestinians wouldn't treat the Jews in Israel very well if they all of a sudden got control of the country.

[Lil_SlimShady]

Why can't the sacred land of Israel just be moved to Australia? There is plenty of room, warm weather, and the Aussies are chill. Plus, the Jews will be able to do so much less damage to the world if they are surrounded by a body of water. If Britain granted them rights to Palestinian land in the 40's then why cant they just change their mind?

[daddy1gringo]

I agree. Having the last post on a page sucks.

[saxitoxin]

Actually it's idiotic to refuse to debate with anyone from an entire nation.

Inviting a member of the Zetas cartel to a debate on drug policy legitimizes the cartel.

Some people would say the same about the Palestinians, so if we followed that philosophy, neither side would talk with the other. But is avoiding discourse helpful in any way to resolving the situation?

That's a reasonable question.

However, the only satisfactory resolution is the end of Israel. Israel doesn't seem to be interested in participating in a discussion on how to end its existence. And, entertaining a discussion that's not focused on the only satisfactory resolution becomes a tactic that aids Israel by buying it time. So Israel should be ignored like MP Galloway did since any discussion - regardless of one's position - ends up aiding Israel.

So you'd want to give Israel back to the palestinians? Or do you have some other suggestion? A tiny itty bitty part of me thinks that the palestinians wouldn't treat the Jews in Israel very well if they all of a sudden got control of the country.

Yes.

No.

It may be the Palestinians, once in control, seize the homes of the Israeli Jews and move them into tents, conduct random searches of Israeli Jews while traveling about, prohibit Israeli Jews from holding certain jobs, wall-in Israeli Jewish zones, put a Muslim or Christian religious authority in charge of food regulation and replace the Star of David on the flag with the Hawk of Quraish. In other words, the Palestinians will treat the Israeli Jews exactly like the Palestinians themselves have been treated and we've been told is acceptable. So, the way the Israeli Jews will be treated will be acceptable by their own standards.

• * with exception to the above, I think the status and property of the Old Yishuv Jewish community should be guaranteed

[daddy1gringo]

Why can't the sacred land of Israel just be moved to Australia? There is plenty of room, warm weather, and the Aussies are chill. Plus, the Jews will be able to do so much less damage to the world if they are surrounded by a body of water. If Britain granted them rights to Palestinian land in the 40's then why cant they just change their mind?

Well that's an interesting concept, but I'll improve on it.

Who took the land from whom just depends on how far back in history you choose to go so you can't base anything on that. Australia is awfully far away; all parties want a homeland in that area. The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.


So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

[saxitoxin]

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -



- and give someone this -



and say "there, we're even!"

[Ray Rider]

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi. Just don't forget:

[saxitoxin]

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi.

Not at all. If you, in Canada, stop paying rent to your landlord, refuse to go to court and refuse to leave when asked, the landlord will show up with the RCMP. If, when the RCMP arrive, you start firing a howitzer at the patrol cars while your cousin flies overhead dropping napalm on the RCMP from a F-16, I can guarantee - in fairly short order - you, too, would be subject to incoming rocket fire or worse.

The Israelis have refused every opportunity to leave. A forcible eviction of the deadbeat debtors is, therefore, justified. Because the Israelis are armed-to-the-teeth, the Palestinians are justified to use more than pepper spray to execute these legal and just eviction proceedings.

an eviction -->

[Ray Rider]

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

Oh, so the 200 Jews who were killed, 1000 injured, along with hundreds of Jewish homes and business which were destroyed during the Farhud in Baghdad was probably just some sort of massive accident which somehow occurred only to Jews? You should've been around to tell the 100,000+ people who fled the country as a result that "there's no Jewish Exodus" and it's "ridiculous to flee." Oh and the Aleppo massacre in Syria, I suppose that never happened either? The emigration restrictions which you mentioned is but one indicator of the rigid restrictions placed on Jews in various Arab/Muslim nations which caused them to try ever harder to escape such racism.

...you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

You seem to have some pent-up hatred inside, Uncle Saxi.

Not at all. If you, in Canada, stop paying rent to your landlord, refuse to go to court and refuse to leave when asked, the landlord will show up with the RCMP. If, when the RCMP arrive, you start firing a howitzer at the patrol cars while your cousin flies overhead dropping napalm on the RCMP from a F-16, I can guarantee - in fairly short order - you, too, would be subject to incoming rocket fire or worse.

The Israelis have refused every opportunity to leave. A forcible eviction of the deadbeat debtors is, therefore, justified. Because the Israelis are armed-to-the-teeth, the Palestinians are justified to use more than pepper spray to execute these legal and just eviction proceedings.

an eviction -->

I think you mean, "a kidnapping," since, you know, Gilad's captors did demand a ransom in return for his release. Furthermore, he was held in conditions which the Red Cross objected to as being against international humanitarian law. Are you sure you want to side with his captors? This was the first time in 26 years an Israeli soldier was released alive. The 1027 prisoners released in return for Gilad's freedom indicates to me the value that Israelis place on human life, even a single one at that. I and much of the West can identify much more with that type of worldview (although I personally still disagree with releasing hundreds of convicted terrorists in exchange for a single person).

Additionally, even if I were to grant to you that somehow the kidnapping was justified (which I don't, but we'll continue for the sake of the argument), in what civilized nation do we march our POW's down the street in handcuffs at gunpoint as part of a parade?

[saxitoxin]

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

In other words, you can't take this -

- and give someone this -

and say "there, we're even!"

Oh, and what about the belongings of the 900,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from neighboring Arab/Muslim nations? Have you factored that in? Where's their compensation from their former homelands?

First, the idea of a so-called "Jewish exodus" is a silly narrative by the Zionist so they can have a "but what about ..." line to which to respond to the horror of the Palestinian Holocaust. The very idea of "Jews fleeing" is ridiculous when most Arab states actually prohibited Jewish emigration for several decades until the 1970s. That's a pretty slow "flight."

Second, in most cases no properties were seized even when the landlords voluntarily chose to become absentee landlords and move to the so-called "State of Israel." In Syria, for instance, Arabs who live in properties owned by Jews continue to pay rent to Jews who hold title to those properties even though their landlords have been absentee for 40 years. This is a principle of rule of law and property rights.

Oh, so the 200 Jews who were killed, 1000 injured, along with hundreds of Jewish homes and business which were destroyed during the Farhud in Baghdad was probably just some sort of massive accident which somehow occurred only to Jews? You should've been around to tell the 100,000+ people who fled the country as a result that "there's no Jewish Exodus" and it's "ridiculous to flee." Oh and the Aleppo massacre in Syria, I suppose that never happened either? The emigration restrictions which you mentioned is but one indicator of the rigid restrictions placed on Jews in various Arab/Muslim nations which caused them to try ever harder to escape such racism

Mobs act how they act. Arab and Persian governments, however, have cared for their Jewish minorities. In Syria, the Jewish community is being protected by the Ba'ath Party from the medieval Islamists the British and French have unleashed. (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/06/14/wh ... rias-jews/) In Iran, Jews are guaranteed seats in parliament. So, there is no official policy of Jewish persecution in Arab or Persian countries. There is, however, an official policy of Arab persecution in "Israel."

Are you sure you want to side with his captors?

The arrest of Shilat was part of an ongoing, just eviction action. In the words of Gilad Shilat's own father: "I would fight Israel if I were Palestinian."

Israel needs to stop being deadbeats and either, (a) pay their $300 billion debt, or, (b) agree to a realistic payment plan, and then collections efforts could end (or at least scaled back from Grad missile volleys to annoying phone calls in the middle of dinner).

[PLAYER57832]

The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.

Yes, they did that, but also made quite sure that the Palestiniens could not do that.

This is why the comparison to the holocaust and Germany, or Japan are apt. WE also won the war, and while we might not have been personally attacked much here, Europe was certainly overrun.. by a nation that made no secret of truly wanting to control the world. Japan, too, had similar aspirations.

YET... they got aid, have long since been forgiven. Palestiniens, who's basic "crime" was not wanting their land taken from them, not wanting foreigners to come and destroy their way of life, generally without any real compensation.

Some payments were made to Palestiniens for land, but a LOT was just taken.. and the taking got worse, not better, when Israel was officially established. That Israel often used its court system and a state-supported police force or army to do its dirty work, rather than independent poorly armed individuals doesn't justify it.

AND..for all the talk of "they just want Israel to go away".. what about the way Israel has, for decades, even today, refused to even acknowledge that Palestiniens are a true people and not just "some Arabs" who happen to live in the land they want. (as if that were even a relevant piece of information).

So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

And you could just hand over the title to your house..

No? Why not.. you seem to support Israel? Why on Earth SHOULD anyone else give up their land for the Palestiniens? Why should the Palestiniens have to move. Becuase some Jews want to claim that the Bible tells them the land is theirs? If so, then they should have, at a minimum, bought the land, dealt honestly with the Palestiniens instead of systematically destroying any chance they have for not just a viable country, but a place where they could live in peace with their own culture and the right to decide their own rules.

[Lil_SlimShady]

Image

[daddy1gringo]

Why can't the sacred land of Israel just be moved to Australia? There is plenty of room, warm weather, and the Aussies are chill. Plus, the Jews will be able to do so much less damage to the world if they are surrounded by a body of water. If Britain granted them rights to Palestinian land in the 40's then why cant they just change their mind?

Well that's an interesting concept, but I'll improve on it.

Who took the land from whom just depends on how far back in history you choose to go so you can't base anything on that. Australia is awfully far away; all parties want a homeland in that area. The Isaelis built all the industry, modern housing, utilities, and other ingredients of a better quality of life there, so it would be unfair to send them out, and many of the supposed Palestinians in Israel are actually immigrants from Israel's neighbors, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who moved there to take advantage of the jobs and quality of life.


So since the Arab neighbors are so concerned that their Palestinian brothers have a homeland, they could give it to them. After all Jordan and Syria are so much bigger and have so much more land to spare. Shoot, they even border on one another, so they could put the land on the border, split the gift and be even more generous.

So the Palestinians have a homeland right where they are from, Israel's defensive borders aren't compromised, and everybody is happy. Problem solved.

That would be fine. Israel will just need to first pay the $300,000,000,000 they owe the Palestinians for buildings, bank accounts and other assets they seized.

But Israel will never be able to pay their debts since their entire annual government budget is only 1/10th of the amount they owe. So, the only solution is to treat the Israeli nation like every deadbeat debtor in the world is treated - posting an eviction notice on the front door. If they don't leave you take them to court, just like you do with every deadbeat. And if they refuse to show up to court, you forcibly move them out. And, if the deadbeat waves a gun around at you when you show up to throw them out onto the curb, you fire a Grad rocket in their face.

So to sum up, your reply is 2 parts:
1: Yes, that's a good solution except for 1 thing.
2: That 1 thing is the usual, "The side I like is the TRUE rightful inhabitants, and is all beneficent angels and persecuted women and children who just want a home, while those other guys are a bunch of torturers and murderers, bla, bla, dialectus fizz goop."

So if we leave out the dialectus fizz goop, we have agreement that it is a good plan. Thank you; I knew you'd see reason. I expect to hear soon the results of your campaign to convince the governments of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to provide a homeland for their homeless brothers.