Settlers

[Phoenall]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I would put him in the same league as Hitler, Mandella and arafat

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

The Chivalry, personal qualities (honesty, integrity, discretion, judgement, etc) and the high moral attributes can never justify the intentional engagement specifically against non-combatants. Since before the time of the Holy War Army and the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinian Arab Irregulars with leaders that were associated with WWII Germany), straight through to the Munich Olympic Massacre (involving the unnecessary killing civilians) the scope and nature of the Hostile Arab Palestinians has long been well established. Even right up to the present, the Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt every single day to justify attacks on civilians, the Indiscriminate Rocket Fire, Terrorism and Political Violence and the continuation of conflict --- and the past history of kidnapping and murder, suicide attacks, bombing, infiltration and ambushes, hijackings, and piracy.

In the century since the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, both sides (Jewish and Arab) have had uncapitalized opportunities for peace and events of less then honorable consequences as outcomes. There are probably few, if any, 100 year conflicts which have not had corrupted moments. This conflict is no different.

How many Palestinians do you know?
How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

Extremist Palestinians are no different, it's just that folks like you will never criticize those settlers. Instead, you justify the violence.

(COMMENT)

Extremism is seen, in measure, on both sides of the issue. And there are only those very rare instances when extremist action is beneficial.

Most Respectfully,
R

Exactly.

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

There is a fine line between terrorist and defence groups, and yes the Jewish defence groups did go too far at times. But they were set up to provide protection from arab muslim attacks and terrorism. The Jews were paying protection to Islamic groups under the dhimmi laws and Jizya tax only to have a new group start attacking them. This left them destitute and unable to pay the protection tax, so they were slowly being forced from their lands. The immigrant Jews being less weak formed defence forces armed with WW1 weapons and travelled to any place the arab muslims were attacking Jews minding their own business, the arab muslims did not like this and complained to the British who where the mandatory power. ( a recurring theme in Palestine history from 1923, when things go against the arab muslims they complain long and loud to whoever will listen, not realising that complaining to the UNSC that the separation barrier stopped them from suicide bombing in Jerusalem showed that they just wanted to mass murder the Jews )

Those groups were looked at very closely after 1949 when Israel was the winners of the little skedaddle and some were disbanded and their leaders had their fangs pulled. The rest became the modern day IDF and they have proven their worth thousands of times since 1949 when they have repulsed the arab muslim hordes intent on the mass murder of Jews.


So why do we still see Palestinian terrorist groups when they gained their state in 1988, or are the Palestinians protected by laws that protect no one else ?

 

[Phoenall]

While you refuse to answer my question, I'll answer yours anyway.

I've known several Arab Muslims of the mandated area. All claimed Jordanian citizenship although they do mention the term palestinian. We've had some rousing conversations. The one that I'm closest to lately is, friends with some friends and has over the years turned out to be a horrible person.

Left her husband of many years and ran off with a married man who'd just become a father. She's combative, argumentative, arrogant and has few friends.

The other one I know best in in Jail for illegal arms possession. Apparently when he couldn't acquire a weapon legally in this country he did so illegally and then was dumb enough to go to the same firing range as the local cops use.

I'm not hip to the entire story but I guess when he walked up to sign in for a range someone at the counter ( yes it was profiling ) noticed his Arabic looks and it was downhill from there.

Not sure when he's getting out.

I also had a dear friend in grad school I defended tooth and nail when 9/11 happened

He was one of the good ones.

I also dated a muslim just last summer during my summer stay in Yellowstone. Not my first middle eastern girl friend either. Hopefully no tmy last

So you were saying

How many Settlers do you know ?

I know two, but it's been many years. They were scientists involved collaborative research with my mother, and we hosted them many times along with other Israeli scientists from Tel Aviv including a couple (Dr. and Dr.) who had survived concentration camp. They were all nice people and I enjoyed their company. I also know a number of Palestinians - who immigrated here. One, came over as a child, the others as adults pursuing professions they couldn't in the Palestinian territories. They are also scientists.

Oh. And all of them - the Israeli's and the Palestinians are some of the "good ones".

They weren't arrogant, dogmatic, intolerant - but funny, charming, intelligent and fascinating.

Until you are no longer there, and then they show their true colours. Just like Abu Mazen has done many times over the past few years and been caught on camera doing it.

 

[Phoenall]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

So why does the USA have gangs of thugs bombing in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Or are you once again singling out Israel to be treated differently to the rest of the world, and being held up to laws that don't apply to anyone else. As I said in reply the gangs were formed as the Israeli Defence Forces to combat islamonazi terrorist forces attacking unarmed Jewish villages and farmsteads. They are no different to Citizen patrols that protect areas in American towns and cities from drug gangs and organised crime cartels.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

 

[Coyote]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

You seem to be far more interested in talking about me than talking about the topic and far more interested and accusing others of jew hate and antisemitism for not other reason than that they support the Palestinian's cause and feel both sides share in the blame for the current situation. I suppose that is easier than actually discussing the topic isn't it?

Do they celebrate mass murderers by naming streets after the murderer? Why yes, they do. Streets, squares and buildings were named after Irgun mass murderers (after they were reclassified and whitewashed as "freedom fighters" presumably). In relation to settlers - look at their support for the Cave of Patriarchs Massacre and their ongoing reference of Baruch Goldstein who's became a pilgramage point for them to pay homage and had to be dismantled by the Israeli authorities.

There are good settlers and good Palestinians. There are violent intolerant extremists among them both. You would pretend otherwise or justify their actions.

 

[Coyote]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I know Ghandi wasn't perfect - no REAL person ever lives up to the hype, Mandella wasn't either and MLK wasn't. They were human and subject to human failings. I still consider them heros. Is there such a thing as a real hero?

 

[Coyote]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

If the "overwelming majority" of Palestinians were violent extremists, the WB would be a nonstop bloodbath.

 

[Phoenall]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

You seem to be far more interested in talking about me than talking about the topic and far more interested and accusing others of jew hate and antisemitism for not other reason than that they support the Palestinian's cause and feel both sides share in the blame for the current situation. I suppose that is easier than actually discussing the topic isn't it?

Do they celebrate mass murderers by naming streets after the murderer? Why yes, they do. Streets, squares and buildings were named after Irgun mass murderers (after they were reclassified and whitewashed as "freedom fighters" presumably). In relation to settlers - look at their support for the Cave of Patriarchs Massacre and their ongoing reference of Baruch Goldstein who's became a pilgramage point for them to pay homage and had to be dismantled by the Israeli authorities.

There are good settlers and good Palestinians. There are violent intolerant extremists among them both. You would pretend otherwise or justify their actions.

The problem being in the demographics of the populations. With say 5% of the Israeli Jewish population being extremist ( including the true Torah Jews ) compared to 5% of the Palestinian population being bad. Once that seeps in you start to ask why the disparity between the two peoples who supposedly have the same origins, then when you delve further you see it is down to indoctrination and brainwashing of the populations over many hundreds of years.

 

[Coyote]

... The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists?

Wait, what? So you are saying the only difference between terrorism and law enforcement is that the "winners" get to pretend to be the good guys?

You are saying that Israel is currently engaging in terrorism?

I think to some degree that is true. Not "the only difference" - but valid. Look how many thug governments there are out there?

The winners get to call the shots and they get to define what is acceptable and not acceptable. Israel is better than many.

Israel is not currently engaging in terrorism because it's a government and by definition - it's actions aren't terrorist right?

But yet consider this. Stone throwers can now be shot for their crime. Both Palestinians and Jews engage in it. Who ends up shot? Settlers can stone palestinian children and often don't even face arrest. When a Palestinian commits a violent crime against a Jew - there is a mass round up of Palestinians. When a Jew commits a violent crime against a Palestinian is there a mass round up? Would this not constitute a form of terrorism?

 

[Phoenall]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I know Ghandi wasn't perfect - no REAL person ever lives up to the hype, Mandella wasn't either and MLK wasn't. They were human and subject to human failings. I still consider them heros. Is there such a thing as a real hero?

So you see convicted mass murdering terrorists as your hero's do you. You do know that Mandela refused to denounce terrorism and violence and accepted that he was guilty of being a murdering terrorist. Would you add Stalin. Pol Pot, Mao and Hitler to your list of hero's as well

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Do they celebrate mass murderers by naming streets after the murderer? Why yes, they do. .

Thus their appeal.

It is rather difficult for you to argue that you are not an antisemite when you consider these your heroes. .

 

[Phoenall]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

If the "overwelming majority" of Palestinians were violent extremists, the WB would be a nonstop bloodbath.

Do you sleep 23 hours a day, it is very close to being that. It is only the vigilance of the IDF and Jews that stop even more attacks. But it shows that the measures taken by the Jews stop the west bank from being a bloodbath and the Palestinians from being wiped out

 

[Coyote]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

How many do you know in reality

Probably more than you.

Ask that of the Palestinians who did it for many years before the tit for tat responses became headline news. Strange that wasn't it while the Palestinians were stoning children going to school it was not a topic of interest, as soon as Jews started to reply with stones of their own it became a war crime.

How do you know the Palestinians were stoning children going to school - you have a source for that?

By the way did you know that the IRA stoned children on their way to school and then whinged when the stones came back ten fold.

And? I'm no fan of the IRA.

 

[Phoenall]

... The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists?

Wait, what? So you are saying the only difference between terrorism and law enforcement is that the "winners" get to pretend to be the good guys?

You are saying that Israel is currently engaging in terrorism?

I think to some degree that is true. Not "the only difference" - but valid. Look how many thug governments there are out there?

The winners get to call the shots and they get to define what is acceptable and not acceptable. Israel is better than many.

Israel is not currently engaging in terrorism because it's a government and by definition - it's actions aren't terrorist right?

But yet consider this. Stone throwers can now be shot for their crime. Both Palestinians and Jews engage in it. Who ends up shot? Settlers can stone palestinian children and often don't even face arrest. When a Palestinian commits a violent crime against a Jew - there is a mass round up of Palestinians. When a Jew commits a violent crime against a Palestinian is there a mass round up? Would this not constitute a form of terrorism?

Define terrorism and see if it applies to Israel, when it doesn't then you need to apologise for saying it does.

See your last sentence shows that you don't know what terrorism is, and you seem to see war and defence as terrorism but only when the Jews are wining. What Ideology politics religion is Israel trying to enforce on the Palestinians then, as that is the first aspect of terrorism.

By the way we have done this to death and still you cant accept that under the Geneva conventions Israel can only act along Jordanian jurisprudence lines when dealing with stone throwers. Jewish law does not exist for the palestiians as they are not Israeli citizens.

 

[Coyote]

Do they celebrate mass murderers by naming streets after the murderer? Why yes, they do. .

Thus their appeal.

It is rather difficult for you to argue that you are not an antisemite when you consider these your heroes. .

I don't consider the Irgun or any terrorists to be my heros.

The people I consider heros are people like MLK, Ghandi, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Izzeldin Abulaish, members of Doctors Without Borders and journalists who report about events in defiance of violence and threats.

 

[Coyote]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I would put him in the same league as Hitler, Mandella and arafat

To put any of those people in the same league as Hitler is beyond ignorant.

 

[Coyote]

Many of the "settlers" are intolerant and violent extremists - there is nothing brave or wonderful about them. .

In other words, this minority of Jews are almost as bad as the absolutely overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

With this being so, why, then why is your singular mission in life to promote the interests of this group of people in question? You know they celebrate mass murder by naming streets after the murderer. You know their children's television encourages the murder of Jews. You know they elected leadership that promises genocide of Jews.


Is your hatred of Jews SO severe that you dedicate the bulk of your internet efforts to promoting the interests of a group with these objectives?

Maybe it is just an age thing, but as a baby boomer, the memory of the Holocaust was a recent one in the society in which I was raised, and anybody talking like you and your merry little band of followers here would have been shunned by polite society.

If the "overwelming majority" of Palestinians were violent extremists, the WB would be a nonstop bloodbath.

Do you sleep 23 hours a day, it is very close to being that. It is only the vigilance of the IDF and Jews that stop even more attacks. But it shows that the measures taken by the Jews stop the west bank from being a bloodbath and the Palestinians from being wiped out

When you look at total numbers of people - both Jews and Palestinians - and you look at total numbers of attacks, you will see that horrific as they are - they are far from common.

 

[Phoenall]

How many Settlers do you know ? Because I've met more than a few. They are as noble as noble gets. They feel an extremely strong sense of ethnic and cultural pride and simply will not be intimidated. I give them a lot of credit for sticking up for themselves.

Its the Arab Muslims that are the intolerant extremists. Let me ask you this. How many Jews are in Gaza or the Arab areas of the disputed territories ? VS how many Arabs Israel and Israeli areas ?

Its a no brainer as to who's being intolerant.

As for violence thats also a no brainer. Lets look at this latest wave of violence. 28 Arab Muslims out of a mob of hundreds were shot while attacking Israeli's today. TODAY alone.

And they are children. The Arab Muslims have taken to sending their own children forward with knives and rocks. I can't think of anything less noble.

No I'll take my settler friends over a raving hoard anyday.

How many Palestinians do you know?

How is stoning kids on the way to school as "noble as noble gets"?

How many do you know in reality

Probably more than you.

Ask that of the Palestinians who did it for many years before the tit for tat responses became headline news. Strange that wasn't it while the Palestinians were stoning children going to school it was not a topic of interest, as soon as Jews started to reply with stones of their own it became a war crime.

How do you know the Palestinians were stoning children going to school - you have a source for that?

By the way did you know that the IRA stoned children on their way to school and then whinged when the stones came back ten fold.

And? I'm no fan of the IRA.

Arabs Allegedly Throw Rocks at 20-Month-Old Israeli Baby’s Face

 

[Phoenall]

But here too is food for thought - when the hostile Arabs were conducting terrorist activities - so too were Jewish groups like Irgun, Lehigh, Sterns. Once they gained a state, there was no more need for it. They had what they had been striving for. That rather changes things doesn't it?

Its quite subtle, but this is justification for committing terrorism. Its supporting the idea that terrorism is somehow NECESSARY for the achievement of political goals and no longer necessary once those political goals have been achieved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not justification - what I'm pointing out is how the emphasis is always on the Arab violence, yet there was considerable Jewish gang activity as well. The thing that changes is that once you have a state, then you no longer need gangs and thugs to accomplish your goals - you have a state military, and the power of a state and what you do is legal. It's easy then, isn't it - to control the narrative and paint your own terrorists as heros and the other side's terrorists as terrorists? Aren't they all? Yet they acted the same - targeting and murdering civilians. It's so important for one side to paint itself as peaceful but it wasn't. Not at all. At least the Palestinians aren't pretending to be anything but what they are.

I'm feeling extremely cynical right now, so I'm going to ask this - has ANY state been won without any terrorism? That's not a justification - it's me wondering it it is ever possible to attain something peacefully? Mahatma Ghandi is one of my heros, but India's independence was hardly peaceful.

I'm not sure how much you know about Ghandi, but he was an asshole. Everyone who worked with him universally reported this. The man was a nightmare to work with.

His entire peacenik approach was staged.

He'd jump up and down and yell and scream at his staff. There's even reliable reports of him striking staff members.

You really might pick a different hero

Ghandi ranks right up there with MLK

Oh and neither were settlers ;--)

I would put him in the same league as Hitler, Mandella and arafat

To put any of those people in the same league as Hitler is beyond ignorant.

And yet your hero's put Hitler next to mo'mad and see him as a saint