Israel, Crusading by Proxy.

[Deleted]

This ideology is not being supported by zionism, and you really don't understand the concept of zionism. The Zionist Ideology is about building a national home for the Hebrew people in Israel. Herztel was one of the biggest icons for zionism during the late 19th century, who at first didn't even support Palestine as being the right choice at all. Also, never did any israeli provoke any war due to aggression for the means of conquering any piece of land. Throughout history, Israel has defended or prevented attacks during wars to prevent being annihilated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

All in all, the ideology you just claim to be zionist is actually an extreme rightist religious opinion, which does not reflect any of Israel's motives or interest. It is true, that due to the ongoing struggle between the jews and palestinians, they grew hatred for each other, which is why they would rather they would not exist it all , given the opportunity. But that's how enemies react. Israel could live peacefully alongside Palestine if both sides really wanted so.

I don't claim i present an argument based on the studies that has been made in Israel about their education system. Palestinians can also live peacefully with Israeli and from my personal experience and both Palestinians and Israelis i have met wants peace but with the Israeli Occupation that will not happen. So it is not a matter of what we want, its about occupation and oppression that needs to stop.

You really should study more on the subject. The settlers are independent. Israel mainly expanded regions around cities and towns that already existed near non occupied territories. Their motive is to first the foremost is expansion existing cities or towns around them on fertile lands , to create a time bomb for claiming the rights to own these regions, and an historical connection based on religion. I never supported it, and I think a Palestinian country is inevitable. However, the Israeli government does not think Palestine will ever exist due to them being a national threat on the state of israel. They will not allow Palestine to exist until they're fully aware that they will not use the new lands to continue threatening Israeli citizens.
The time bomb I said earlier is based on that, it's to create pressure on Palestinian citizens to control their leaders into surrendering to Israel's demands. However, Israel always sucked in explaining what their motives are to anyone but themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

Settlements are built inside occupied land. Only threat to Israeli civilians is HAMAS and not the entire Palestinian population and the Israeli occupation is a threat to the entire Palestinian civilians. Settlements also violates Fourth Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2...t_in_Palestine

I don't see anything relevant to those cases as those were riots before the start of the occupation in 1967. But here is the ideology i pointed at explained by Nurit Peled-Elahan about her book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKPRC-_oSg

Still uninformed my friend. The wall was constructed around the west bank, not gaza strip. The suicide bombers came from the west bank, while missiles are being fired from gaza strip.

It doesn't matter where it is built. Hamas is concentrated inside Gaza now and not West Bank. Gaza is under a blockade and its cut of from the West Bank so they can't sneak by for suicide bombing therefore they use more rockets. The Wall got rid of suicide attacks in West Bank but led to an increased of rockets from Gaza.

Taking away people's right to security also creates violence. Which explains why since Rabin's assassination there was no left wing leader in Israel.

Violence is not created by lack of "security", Israel security has not been taking away and it should exist inside Israel and not inside the Occupied Land, in this case violence is created by the occupation and oppression against the Palestinians. Many Israeli soldiers even testified that they are not in the West Bank for "security" but to occupy and protect the settlers even though they harass the Palestinians to force them to leave so the settlements can expand.

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

Find another word. Terror is all about using violence against citizens to control their leaders into obedience. Exactly what Hamas and jihad extremists have done since the dawn of the conflict.

HAMAS was created in 1987 and not the dawn of the conflict. HAMAS was a result of the occupation as they were created 20 years after 1967. "Terror is all about using violence against citizens to control their leaders into obedience". Zionists did use violence against civilians to put pressure on HAMAS and other Palestinian political parties. The main one would be the occupation and more land confiscation and yet they are not considered terrorists. So the definitions of Terrorism in this case is limited to one side and not considering the other therefore i treat it as a control definition to label unwanted groups with certain policies so control can be expanded on those groups.

More about conflict and labeling theories for different approach of what is happening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

[Anyael]

Hello.

I am not an antisemite by any means, but I am extremely sceptical towards Israel due to them constantly breaking international laws, and using methods towards the Palestinians which no civillized country should do, so I suppose you would call me anti-Israel even though I have nothing against most that live there.

I am not from a muslim country, nor am I a muslim.

I am the proof that your blanket statement, which had no basis in reality whatsoever, is wrong.

Somewhere earlier back you agreed with what my actual point was. I don't mind criticizing Israel, but keep it relative, and understand that no small nation will give back less than it takes in (in hostilities). It is not antisemitic to say something bad about Israel, it is antisemitic to ignore all of the good things Israel does to focus on the negatives while also ignoring the negatives of the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab countries. It comes off as far more than disingenuous, appearing either ill-informed or purposely irrational. That is where my claim of antisemitism comes from.

Edit:

Did you know that HAMAS.... is the civilians of Palestine? This is the problem with a terror war, no matter what Israel does we are making more Palestinian civilians hate us because they think their sons are freedom fighters. When they get obliterated by the competent Israeli military, they get blamed for killing civilians. Terrorists are civilians. Giving the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt after they initiated hostilities on their own terms 2 distinct times, and having elected a terrorist government as soon as Israel was not in control, is ludicrous and idealistic.

[Barendon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

I don't claim i present an argument based on the studies that has been made in Israel about their education system.

Let's call it a claim then.

Palestinians can also live peacefully with Israeli and from my personal experience and both Palestinians and Israelis i have met wants peace but with the Israeli Occupation that will not happen. So it is not a matter of what we want, its about occupation and oppression that needs to stop.

What is the basis of the israeli occupation? Why do you think Israel occupied these lands? out of oppression? Please provide evidence in which the Israelis has conquered lands based on aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement


Settlements are built inside occupied land. Only threat to Israeli civilians is HAMAS and not the entire Palestinian population and the Israeli occupation is a threat to the entire Palestinian civilians. Settlements also violates Fourth Geneva Convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

Wrong. Settlements by which you mention are illegal even to the israeli state. What's debatable is why isn't Israel doing anything to prevent it (while they did a few years ago). The rest of what I mentioned is built around the occupied lands are not considered settlements, those are expansions of existing cities or towns around cities. Also wrong, the first and second intifadas in israel all came from the west bank, those riots were the most dangerous and deadly blow to the citizens of Israel, Hamas never hurt Israel as much as these two intifadas did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada
Which is why the west bank is controlled, while set Gaza strip is completely extracted.

I don't see anything relevant to those cases as those were riots before the start of the occupation in 1967. But here is the ideology i pointed at explained by Nurit Peled-Elahan about her book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKPRC-_oSg

I gave you those links to refute your claim: "The Palestinian bias is not in ideology or education but it is something that is created by the Israeli occupation and oppression that created opportunities for groups like HAMAS to be created."

It doesn't matter where it is built. Hamas is concentrated inside Gaza now and not West Bank. Gaza is under a blockade and its cut of from the West Bank so they can't sneak by for suicide bombing therefore they use more rockets. The Wall got rid of suicide attacks in West Bank but led to an increased of rockets from Gaza.

The west bank does not fire rockets, the gaza strips does. Israel blocks incomes to the gaza strip to prevent missiles shipments from ships or underground tunnels provided by syria,russia and iran. The wall didn't lead to anything, it even solved one problem for the israelis. Gaza was never a safe haven.

Violence is not created by lack of "security", Israel security has not been taking away and it should exist inside Israel and not inside the Occupied Land, in this case violence is created by the occupation and oppression against the Palestinians. Many Israeli soldiers even testified that they are not in the West Bank for "security" but to occupy and protect the settlers even though they harass the Palestinians to force them to leave so the settlements can expand.

Palestinians do not have a country, Israel has a right to defend itself. Palestinians seek to harm civillians, Israel defends against it. It was a whole lot different if the palestinians were as peaceful as the tibetans, they are not.

HAMAS was created in 1987 and not the dawn of the conflict.

Don't tell me you didn't understand my meaning, do I have to watch every slip of your grammar as a counter argument? sigh.

"Terror is all about using violence against citizens to control their leaders into obedience". Zionists did use violence against civilians to put pressure on HAMAS and other Palestinian political parties.
The main one would be the occupation and more land confiscation and yet they are not considered terrorists. So the definitions of Terrorism in this case is limited to one side and not considering the other therefore i treat it as a control definition to label unwanted groups with certain policies so control can be expanded on those groups.

The occupation came as a result of Palestinian aggression. It is not used as terror, it's used as defense. sigh.

[Deleted]

"

I claim your opinion is biased due to you searching for information befitting your opinion, rather than literal facts given from both sides. You choose side, instead of wanting to know what really happened or what really happens. That's enough reason for me to claim your opinion is biased. I have not ready their books, and I haven't read many other books in the world. I am yet to be convinced why I should, as you have given me no statements, just your opinions.

I choose my sources depending on the arguments and how they are presented by the author. A well presented argument with a well implemented research design is a trusted source of knowledge. But unlike you not bothering checking sources by their scientific meaning and yet you claim i choose sources to benefit my own "opinion" in an attempt to manipulate and use my own words against me instead of discussing. I support Israelis as much as Palestinians so i stand by those two people. But you don't bother reading books to check for different narratives of the conflict which means you've already chosen a side and don't want to discuss the other.

Of course they can expand, prove they cannot.

http://auphr.org/images/stories/maps...muralfinal.pdf
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/in...15/059/1999/en

Can you find that list on any offical israeli site? If those are laws then you should be able to read about it outside a Palestinian organization.
if you do, I may be able to counter the idea you seek in such laws.

I am not going do your work for you. If you don't bother checking sources yourself then that's your problem.

Objection your honor, it does show an interesting side to your interest in human rights.

Overruled!

Conflict in Syria does not have any impacts on the Palestinian-Israel conflict nor with this thread.

Oh this'll be fun.
let's take your quote "Israel should be Erased from the Map"
1.The letters of Israel should be rubbed or scraped out from the map
2. Israel should be eliminated completely from the map.
3.The recorded material, that is Israel should be obliterated from the disk or tape that is map
4. To erase the computer data of Israel off the computer that is map.
Very logical sir, I applaud thee.

This does not mean anything and only a failed attempt to show an extreme image. Those sentences in dictionary does not necessary represent or reflect the meaning of what is being said.

You have an ill idea of how an intelligent discussion should be made. The truth is based on facts. The meaning of arguments are obsolete if they are a stretched truth.

My definition of an intelligent discussion in this context is about presenting arguments based on scientific studies that are well performed in both design and discussion using different sources of knowledge that are considered as such. But here you provided none and you criticize me instead of what i write. You randomly linked few links without even reading them and discussing their meaning to what i wrote.

[Zecora]

Yirrah, I actually referred to "Belgian" guy and his fantastic stuff about Ethiopian Jews.

I know, but as you seemed to believe that everyone who is against the politics of Israel are muslims or from a muslim country, I felt compelled to correct your mistaken assumption.

It'd be nice if you could write or refer me to a former post regarding your views on Israel, perhaps we could reach common grounds?

Quite possibly. To sum it up:

Israel has repeatedly broken international law, they continue to build illegal settlements, they continue to build walls that frequently makes life impossible for Palestinian farmers who are separated from their livelyhoods, they continue to seize property from Palestinians, and they continue to restrict important shipments of food, medicines and building materials to Gaza. In addition, they have tried to block Palestinian membership of the UN despite it being supported by over 132 countries, and when the Palestinians got observer status, they started new illegal settlements as what can only be seen as petty revenge. They also who very little will to actually reach a solution to the conflict, whereas the Palistinians (who used to show very little interest in a solution) now seem solution-oriented.

The Palestinians on the other hand have a weak and ineffective government that has been unable to stop the attacks on Israel by extremist factions, which is very regrettable. The rhetoric they use is no better than what the Israeli government is using either.

The losers in the conflict is without doubt the civillians who wish for peace, on both sides.

[Barendon]

I choose my sources depending on the arguments and how they are presented by the author. A well presented argument with a well implemented research design is a trusted source of knowledge. But unlike you not bothering checking sources by their scientific meaning and yet you claim i choose sources to benefit my own "opinion" in an attempt to manipulate and use my own words against me instead of discussing. I support Israelis as much as Palestinians so i stand by those two people. But you don't bother reading books to check for different narratives of the conflict which means you've already chosen a side and don't want to discuss the other.

Don't tell someone to read a book in an argument, because if you can't make the statement in that book look relevant, then there's no point at all. You chose the authors based on their arguments, yet what books have you read on the other side of the scale? Please enlightmen me.

http://auphr.org/images/stories/maps...muralfinal.pdf

1946 image - complete lie, most of the green territories are ottoman here.
1947- Given that the negev was unoccupied by either parties and was a complete desolace while the israelis rarely gotten any real land, it sounds plasuible
1967- Israel conquered in response to palestinian agression, it also forgot Sinnai and Golan heights are appearing in every map.
2012- actually, it's the same as 1967 without the Sinai region. The green Palestinian west bank region from the 1967 image , is now international region. It's not israeli at all.
here's to you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawabi

I am not going do your work for you. If you don't bother checking sources yourself then that's your problem.

You let a Palestinian organization quote israeli laws rather then quoting the laws themselves? Hardly an argument.

Overruled!

Conflict in Syria does not have any impacts on the Palestinian-Israel conflict nor with this thread.

It does however shed the light on you as a debater.

This does not mean anything and only a failed attempt to show an extreme image. Those sentences in dictionary does not necessary represent or reflect the meaning of what is being said.

No, it means you're trying to elude the meaning of what the Iranian president said and meant, yes. He meant he wanted to obliterate Israel, in his language. Now, are we going to do this again only in persian?

My definition of an intelligent discussion in this context is about presenting arguments based on scientific studies that are well performed in both design and discussion using different sources of knowledge that are considered as such. But here you provided none and you criticize me instead of what i write. You randomly linked few links without even reading them and discussing their meaning to what i wrote.

True, I will not link you 1 hour videos or israeli "propgaenda" sites, I link you with socially acceptable "Objective" sources, and yes I do verify them before handing it here.

[Deleted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

What is the basis of the israeli occupation? Why do you think Israel occupied these lands? out of oppression? Please provide evidence in which the Israelis has conquered lands based on aggression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

There, the general's son himself. Same link again in case you didn't bother watching it. Also might be good to start reading books starting by that Israeli Jew.

Palestinians do not have a country, Israel has a right to defend itself. Palestinians seek to harm civillians, Israel defends against it. It was a whole lot different if the palestinians were as peaceful as the tibetans, they are not.

Self defense is not reserved to those who have a country. Palestinians have as much rights as Israelis for securities. Palestinians do not seek to harm civilians. If that was true then why are there Israelis and Jewish people from around the world that support the Palestinian rights and stand against Zionism? The word Palestinians is a comprehensive word and defines an entire people and not one or two groups. Can you provide proof that the Palestinians wants to harm civilians?

The occupation came as a result of Palestinian aggression. It is not used as terror, it's used as defense. sigh.

The occupation started right after the six days war. According to Palestinians and many other Israelis, like Ilan Pape, Miko Peled and Breaking the Silence group it is used to pressure the Palestinians to leave because Zionists want the entire land.

[Zecora]

Somewhere earlier back you agreed with what my actual point was. I don't mind criticizing Israel, but keep it relative, and understand that no small nation will give back less than it takes in (in hostilities). It is not antisemitic to say something bad about Israel, it is antisemitic to ignore all of the good things Israel does to focus on the negatives while also ignoring the negatives of the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab countries. It comes off as far more than disingenuous, appearing either ill-informed or purposely irrational. That is where my claim of antisemitism comes from.

No. It is not an antisemittic act or statement, unless it is hatred directed at jewish people for being jewish. My point has been all along that anyone can say anything they want about Israel, or ignore anything about Israel that they want, and it won't be antisemitism. Israel is a state, any state is a legitimate target for criticism for their politics, and no-one may call such statements racist or antisemitic, unless the statement is aimed at a specific ethnicity within the state.

Edit:

Did you know that HAMAS.... is the civilians of Palestine? This is the problem with a terror war, no matter what Israel does we are making more Palestinian civilians hate us because they think their sons are freedom fighters. When they get obliterated by the competent Israeli military, they get blamed for killing civilians. Terrorists are civilians. Giving the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt after they initiated hostilities on their own terms 2 distinct times, and having elected a terrorist government as soon as Israel was not in control, is ludicrous and idealistic.

Of course terrorists are found among the civillian population, if they wore uniforms, they would be soldiers, not terrorists or guerillas. And no, HAMAS is not "the civillians of Palestine", HAMAS consists of Palestinian civillians. The distinction is very important, as far from all Palestinians support HAMAS or similar groups. However, for every additional illegal settlement, for every Palestinian farmer cut off from his or her fields due to walls built by Israel, there are more HAMAS supporters.

It is not a war Israel can win.

[Barendon]

Quite possibly. To sum it up:

Israel has repeatedly broken international law: they continue to build illegal settlements,

Nope, What israel does it expanding eastern jerusalem and cities that resides along the green border. The settlements in the heart of the international law are largly illegal themselves. It is arguably Israel's fault for not removing them, yet they do not aid in their constructions. Most of those settlements are vans or tents.

they continue to build walls that frequently makes life impossible for Palestinian farmers who are separated from their livelyhoods

I am familiar with one wall they built, the seperation wall. It is unfortunate that most residents from for example sector A cannot leave and tend current unaffiliated ground in sector E, and I am completely against it. Yet I do not know how well can Israel defend itself without keeping strict watch on the west bank. Even Abbas has commented in the new york post (I believe) that he will allow NATO soldiers to keep the work the IDF is doing.

they continue to seize property from Palestinians

Most of those cases are actually officers or soldiers doing whatever they want. Some get punished, some don't. I don't recall any official command in withdrawing lands or houses unless there's suspicion of aid for terrorist groups.

and they continue to restrict important shipments of food, medicines and building materials to Gaza.

Actually, they never restricted anything. All Israel has said was that every shipment goes through israel to be checked before sailing to gaza, so there won't be any missiles or ammo in those shipments.

In addition, they have tried to block Palestinian membership of the UN despite it being supported by over 132 countries, and when the Palestinians got observer status, they started new illegal settlements as what can only be seen as petty revenge. They also who very little will to actually reach a solution to the conflict, whereas the Palistinians (who used to show very little interest in a solution) now seem solution-oriented.

The truth is, there won't be peace if the Palestinians tries to undermine peace talks and get accepted with israel being out of the picture. If there's gonna be peace, it's going to be through negotiations. Not overlapping to the UN.

The Palestinians on the other hand have a weak and ineffective government that has been unable to stop the attacks on Israel by extremist factions, which is very regrettable. The rhetoric they use is no better than what the Israeli government is using either.

Their weak and ineffective government comes first and foremost from their scattered ideas. Hamas controls the gaza strip and Abbas is controlling the west bank, they are not unified. And abbas is a weak leader to the west bank as well, he doesn't have his people's support.

The losers in the conflict is without doubt the civillians who wish for peace, on both sides.

Amen for peace

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

There, the general's son himself. Same link again in case you didn't bother watching it. Also might be good to start reading books starting by that Israeli Jew.

“Israel has been on a mission to destroy the Palestinian people for over six decades .Why would anyone not give solidarity to the Palestinian people?every single Israeli city is a settlement .expressing solidarity with Palestinians is the most important thing people can do.”
These are quotes miko peled have said, and thus concludes why I am not going to bother watch his videos or read his book. Same reason why I will not read a book or watch a video of someone saying the solution is to transfer all the Arabs outside of israel. Both are irrational and pose an extreme agenda and both are not worth my time.

Self defense is not reserved to those who have a country. Palestinians have as much rights as Israelis for securities. Palestinians do not seek to harm civilians. If that was true then why are there Israelis and Jewish people from around the world that support the Palestinian rights and stand against Zionism? The word Palestinians is a comprehensive word and defines an entire people and not one or two groups. Can you provide proof that the Palestinians wants to harm civilians?

And how do the Palestinians defend their civilians? By shooting from populated areas? give me a break.

The occupation started right after the six days war. According to Palestinians and many other Israelis, like Ilan Pape, Miko Peled and Breaking the Silence group it is used to pressure the Palestinians to leave because Zionists want the entire land.

The occupation as you state it is, was with Israel giving the palestinians full citizenship , they didn't have a wall, nor heavy military supervision either.

[Anyael]

No. It is not an antisemittic act or statement, unless it is hatred directed at jewish people for being jewish. My point has been all along that anyone can say anything they want about Israel, or ignore anything about Israel that they want, and it won't be antisemitism. Israel is a state, any state is a legitimate target for criticism for their politics, and no-one may call such statements racist or antisemitic, unless the statement is aimed at a specific ethnicity within the state.



Of course terrorists are found among the civillian population, if they wore uniforms, they would be soldiers, not terrorists or guerillas. And no, HAMAS is not "the civillians of Palestine", HAMAS consists of Palestinian civillians. The distinction is very important, as far from all Palestinians support HAMAS or similar groups. However, for every additional illegal settlement, for every Palestinian farmer cut off from his or her fields due to walls built by Israel, there are more HAMAS supporters.

It is not a war Israel can win.

The criticism itself isn't what is antisemitic. You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. Criticize Israel for its policies, by all means, but regarding them in a vacuum is willfully bending reality to fit your purposes.

And a majority of Palestinians seem to support terrorist organizations enough to vote them into power.

[Goldeneagle]

Again, your initial statement was a blanket one - EACH country occupied by Germany GLADLY gave up it's Jews. This is very offensive to people who risked their lives and the lives of their families to help Jews. I have no idea why you insist there. Yes, there were many people that collaborated, there were also many people that did not, or did that only under a direct threat to their own lives. You are drawing all of them in one color.



To that phrase there - You are being very aggressive because I highlighted some of your mistakes. If you feel you need to attack me personally because of that, be my guest.

*To those that do not understand the Hebrew quotation he gave, he's trying to say that my views will bring the end of Israel.
It is usually used as a rhetoric against extremists of both sides of the Israeli political map (most commonly against left wing extremists).
In simple words it means 'traitor', as in - how dare you, as an Israeli citizen say something against it (I hardly think I did, but whatever ). At least, with it's day-to-day usage.*

Mazor.

Dear Mazor.
"This is very offensive to people who risked their lives and the lives of their families to help Jews."
On the contrary that is what made their actions so GREAT the risk that someone close to them would rat them out was so great and even then they helped the jew's, Even thou you are Israeli you cannot even start to understand the danger those people went throught to hide the Jew's,
And yes, to some resort you are a traitor, you live here, you really know what is going on here, yet you hate the people here so much that you feel you have to join the "Attack Israel festival".
And I do believe you did not have to translate what I told you in Hebrew because in a previous post I translated it to English which you even wrote the translation is accurate, so pleas do not try to victimse yourself by me not giving another translation to the same phrase...

[Zecora]

Nope, What israel does it expanding eastern jerusalem and cities that resides along the green border. The settlements in the heart of the international law are largly illegal themselves. It is arguably Israel's fault for not removing them, yet they do not aid in their constructions. Most of those settlements are vans or tents.

A country does not have to build illegal settlements with official means and funds to support the act. Israel supports the building by ignoring international law on the subject...or are you arguing that Israel is such a weakened state that they can no longer enforce the law?

I am familiar with one wall they built, the seperation wall. It is unfortunate that most residents from for example sector A cannot leave and tend current unaffiliated ground in sector E, and I am completely against it. Yet I do not know how well can Israel defend itself without keeping strict watch on the west bank. Even Abbas has commented in the new york post (I believe) that he will allow NATO soldiers to keep the work the IDF is doing.

There are several walls, as seen on this: map.

Most of those cases are actually officers or soldiers doing whatever they want. Some get punished, some don't. I don't recall any official command in withdrawing lands or houses unless there's suspicion of aid for terrorist groups.

Once again, if Israel isn't incapable of enforcing the law, they are basically endorsing the seizure of Palestinian property. Silent approval is better than outright orders, since it gives plausible deniability.

Actually, they never restricted anything. All Israel has said was that every shipment goes through israel to be checked before sailing to gaza, so there won't be any missiles or ammo in those shipments.

Israel has repeatedly stopped shipments and impounded cargo despite no evidence of missiles or ammunition.

The truth is, there won't be peace if the Palestinians tries to undermine peace talks and get accepted with israel being out of the picture. If there's gonna be peace, it's going to be through negotiations. Not overlapping to the UN.

Don't be ridiculous, it is any nation's right to be part of the United Nations, to block a membership application against the will of hundreds of nations is nothing short of shameful and spiteful. If you want to talk about undermining negotiations, talk about Israeli refusals to dismantle (or even halt the construction of) illegal settlements.

Their weak and ineffective government comes first and foremost from their scattered ideas. Hamas controls the gaza strip and Abbas is controlling the west bank, they are not unified. And abbas is a weak leader to the west bank as well, he doesn't have his people's support.

Their weak and inefficient government comes from Israeli sabotage of monetary transfers and the failed attempts of a viable two-state solution, as well as the internal split. The sensible thing would be to support Abbas and quicly dismantle the illegal settlements to strengthen him, which could give him the needed authroity to help create actual peace.

Amen for peace

Not likely given the current course.

- - - Updated - - -

The criticism itself isn't what is antisemitic. You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. Criticize Israel for its policies, by all means, but regarding them in a vacuum is willfully bending reality to fit your purposes.

You can certainly argue that it is "willfully bending reality" if you wish, but it is not antisemitism.

And a majority of Palestinians seem to support terrorist organizations enough to vote them into power.

I expect their definition of terrorists differs considerably from yours.

[Anyael]

You can certainly argue that it is "willfully bending reality" if you wish, but it is not antisemitism.



I expect their definition of terrorists differs considerably from yours.

People only willfully bend reality for ulterior purposes. That this purpose is antisemitism is just my deduction though Occam's razor, since any other reasons would assume too many things to be true while this only assumes one.

And for "terrorists": I would as well, given they don't speak English and so have no clue what the word even means to us. That doesn't make them not terrorists. They launch rocket attacks into Israel on a regular basis. If that's ok to you

[Zecora]

People only willfully bend reality for ulterior purposes. That this purpose is antisemitism is just my deduction though Occam's razor, since any other reasons would assume too many things to be true while this only assumes one.

...

Seriously?

THAT is your excuse for painting people as antisemites, your inabillity to go beyond the (according to you, and isn't THAT a twisted piece of logic?!) simplest explanation?!

For your information, here's MY reason: I don't like bullies, and Israel is acting like one.

And for "terrorists": I would as well, given they don't speak English and so have no clue what the word even means to us. That doesn't make them not terrorists. They launch rocket attacks into Israel on a regular basis. If that's ok to you

Bravo, tarring an entire people as terrorists, and uneducated ones at that. Want to know why there isn't peace? People using rhetoric like yours.

[Anyael]

...

Seriously?

THAT is your excuse for painting people as antisemites, your inabillity to go beyond the (according to you, and isn't THAT a twisted piece of logic?!) simplest explanation?!

For your information, here's MY reason: I don't like bullies, and Israel is acting like one.



Bravo, tarring an entire people as terrorists, and uneducated ones at that. Want to know why there isn't peace? People using rhetoric like yours.

It was either antisemitism or worldwide conspiracy to support nuclear holocaust.

Yeah, I didn't tar them as terrorists, the terrorists live among them and they do not stop them. They launch rockets from mosques and then complain when the IDF retaliates. To take anything they say at face value is to be willfully ignorant.


[Infracted]

[Deleted]

And how do the Palestinians defend their civilians? By shooting from populated areas? give me a break.

Palestinians have as much rights as Israelis for securities. That was my phrase and you changed into And how do the Palestinians defend their civilians? By shooting from populated areas? Its a bit misleading what you wrote because what i meant is not about defending or shooting it is about feeling secure, not oppressed, free and not occupied by military.

The occupation as you state it is, was with Israel giving the palestinians full citizenship , they didn't have a wall, nor heavy military supervision either.

Palestinians were never given a full citizenship, no wall existed but military control did. The land was divided between Jewish state and a Palestinian state therefore Israeli presence in the Palestinian area is occupation. Israel still occupies a part of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and still expanding the illegal settlements. Roads have been built to connect those settlements and those roads have even taken more land from Palestinians because those roads divide the West Bank into smaller parts. Military checkpoints inside the west bank also make it clear that occupation still exist. Those checkpoint should be inside Israeli area if they were there for security and not outside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...ed_territories
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...50591999en.pdf

EDIT: A testimony from one of the soldiers that was stationed in Hebron. There are a lot of testimonies but this is one example that explains how occupation works (06.53 min).
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il...s/videos/10678

[hakujinbakasama]

Well written, but in answer to your question, I don't think so. I think we just view ourselves as having created Israel and therefore responsible for protecting it.

I want to correct this even further with something I once heard someone else say.

It isn't that we feel that we created it thus we need are responsible for protecting it on the mindset of the USA. It's that we let all but 2 million of them get ANNIHILATED by the NAZIS and we feel guilty for acting like we didn't give a shit for a few years.