All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Sixties Fan]

[ Let us not blame Israel....let us blame the usual ones....the Jews]

Egyptian TV: The Jews are responsible for Egypt's population crisis ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Dear Gideon Levy,

After the Ish-Ran family was seriously wounded, after the baby had to be delivered prematurely and later died, after the baby’s parents had to miss the funeral because they were in the hospital recovering from their wounds, you wrote that you have no sympathy for the settlers, that their tragedy is not yours. Then you added that “the settlers’ lust for revenge is never satisfied. How is it possible to identify with the grief of people who behave like that?”

Don’t tell the Lemkus family about their lust for revenge. Dahlia Lemkus was stabbed to death in Gush Etzion when she was 26. Dahlia volunteered at Yad Sarah and was working with children with disabilities. Her parents dedicated a social room in the Sukkat David Synagogue (named after another terror victim whose family had a lust for revenge).

Don’t tell the Ariels about their lust for revenge. Hallel Ariel was 13 when she was murdered in her own room. Her parents decided to develop their winery and make a wine in their daughter’s name. They also made a book for bat mitzvah girls.

(full article online)

To Gideon Levy: You are spreading lies about me

 

[Coyote]

I doubt they put much thought of Sharia, replacement theology or much of the rest of that as they are throwing stones.

On the contrary, I believe that is exactly why they are throwing stones (and let's not forget the bullets, bombs and knives). That is their mother's milk. None of their arguments make sense without that foundation.

Balony. If they feel that the settlers are stealing their land, a feeling that is justifiable, then it absolutely makes sense. You justifying and perpetrating double standard that is hugely damaging to minors incarcerated in its system and likely helps perpetrate the violence.

 

[Coyote]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

 

[Sixties Fan]

UNIFIL: Hezbollah tunnels penetrated Israel

 

[Sixties Fan]

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/12/17/settlement-enterprise-crucial-to-israels-security/

 

[Sixties Fan]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Link

 

[Sixties Fan]

NY Cleric Ibn Muneer: Islam without Jihad Is Like Honey without the Sweetness

 

[Shusha]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

 

[Shusha]

Balony. If they feel that the settlers are stealing their land, a feeling that is justifiable, then it absolutely makes sense.

No, it is not in ANY WAY justifiable to "feel" like the Jewish people, by returning to their homeland and creating sovereignty there is "stealing Arab land". The only way to justify that is to negate the Jewish people, their history, their belongingness, their right to a homeland, you know, IN their homeland. The only way to justify that is to claim that the mere presence of Jews in "Arab lands" is an offense. That is the very foundation of the Arab replacement theology. It colors everything in this conflict.

You justifying and perpetrating double standard

I'm justifying the legitimate and real security concerns of Israel and of the Jewish people. That is the point of military law and its use against an enemy one is in conflict with. I'm not saying it is either right or just, nor the proper solution. Its a temporary and necessary hierarchy of needs where the need for Jewish life and security demands

... that is hugely damaging to minors incarcerated in its system

Compared to what?

... and likely helps perpetrate the violence.

No. That is just shifting the responsibility. its saying we are permitted to continue to use violence and have no responsibility to stop but that the consequences of war fall on those against whom we are committing violence and only if THEY change their behaviour will the violence stop.

 

[Coyote]

Balony. If they feel that the settlers are stealing their land, a feeling that is justifiable, then it absolutely makes sense.

No, it is not in ANY WAY justifiable to "feel" like the Jewish people, by returning to their homeland and creating sovereignty there is "stealing Arab land". The only way to justify that is to negate the Jewish people, their history, their belongingness, their right to a homeland, you know, IN their homeland. The only way to justify that is to claim that the mere presence of Jews in "Arab lands" is an offense. That is the very foundation of the Arab replacement theology. It colors everything in this conflict.

You justifying and perpetrating double standard

I'm justifying the legitimate and real security concerns of Israel and of the Jewish people. That is the point of military law and its use against an enemy one is in conflict with. I'm not saying it is either right or just, nor the proper solution. Its a temporary and necessary hierarchy of needs where the need for Jewish life and security demands

... that is hugely damaging to minors incarcerated in its system

Compared to what?

... and likely helps perpetrate the violence.

No. That is just shifting the responsibility. its saying we are permitted to continue to use violence and have no responsibility to stop but that the consequences of war fall on those against whom we are committing violence and only if THEY change their behaviour will the violence stop.

To your first paragraph: Actually it is justifiable if you put yourself in their shoes. It is just as justifiable as the Jews feeling they have a right return there. Both feel strongly. One is seeing their rights eroded by more and more people moving in and possessing the land. The other is seeing their rights fulfilled. You just choose to see one side. While you are claiming the only way it is justifiable is by negating the Jewish people’s rights you are in that rationalization negating the Palestinian people’s rights.

To your second paragraph: for a temporary situation it has gone on far to long to be excused. It is clearly led to well documented abuse, particularly to minors, abuses which Jewish minors committing crimes are not subject to. Again, I call BS on excusing it away like that.

Compared to what? Compared to the standards afforded most children incarcerated in developed countries of which Israel is a part of. Compared to the treatment given Jewish children, committing the same or worse, in the same territory.

On your last paragraph, no. It is not shifting responsibility. Violence doesn’t spring out of nothing. There are always causes that drive and keep on feeding it and they are usually multiple. Settlement building is a huge flashpoint. That is well known. So Israel continues with it knowing it will provoke violence. It is ironic you don’t see that. It is like When Hamas lobs rockets into Israel, it is well known that they will provoke Israel into retaliating, justifiably. Yet they still do it.

Why do settlers stone Palestinian kids trying to go to school?

 

[Coyote]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

It absolutely claims their families are not civilians and have no rights to life. It labels the entire Palestinian people as the enemy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

Indeed, the Palestinians should have never gone to Europe to attack the Zionists.

Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

Are you saying that it is OK to send rockets into Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

It absolutely claims their families are not civilians and have no rights to life. It labels the entire Palestinian people as the enemy.

And that is what the facts on the ground. It doesn't matter to Israel who it kills. Men, women, old people, children, all seem to be "legitimate" targets.

Palestine has no army. They are all civilians. The only time a civilian can be classified as a militant is when he is actively engaged in armed conflict. The vast majority of Palestinians killed are unarmed.

 

[Mindful]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

Indeed, the Palestinians should have never gone to Europe to attack the Zionists.

Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

Are you saying that it is OK to send rockets into Israel?

Probably not.

But no doubt, you are.

Civillians here don't lob rockets over walls and fences.

What happened, btw, to all those nice greenhouses the Israelis left behind in Gaza?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

With any large culture or segment of people, there are subsets that one or more show definite separate and distinct attributes and characteristics. The Jewish "Settlers" of the West Bank fall into this category with malevolent and unkindly attributes and definite negative characteristics.

Why do settlers stone Palestinian kids trying to go to school?

(COMMENT)

I do not think that there is any question, that the vast majority for all Israelis (Jewish or otherwise) find the behavior of these Jewish "Settlers" of the West Bank to be abhorrent and unacceptable; → maybe even a bit ashamed by it. And this shame may be the reason that the Israelis don't talk about them. They want to disassociate themselves for this poorly disciplined aspect of their society.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.



rylah Is there a connotation to the Hebrew word for "snake" which may be not understood by English speakers?

This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

Indeed, the Palestinians should have never gone to Europe to attack the Zionists.

Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

Are you saying that it is OK to send rockets into Israel?

Indeed, the “Pal'istanians” should never have gone to Europe (Munich), to attack the Zionists.

 

[theliq]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

With any large culture or segment of people, there are subsets that one or more show definite separate and distinct attributes and characteristics. The Jewish "Settlers" of the West Bank fall into this category with malevolent and unkindly attributes and definite negative characteristics.

Why do settlers stone Palestinian kids trying to go to school?

(COMMENT)

I do not think that there is any question, that the vast majority for all Israelis (Jewish or otherwise) find the behavior of these Jewish "Settlers" of the West Bank to be abhorrent and unacceptable; → maybe even a bit ashamed by it. And this shame may be the reason that the Israelis don't talk about them. They want to disassociate themselves for this poorly disciplined aspect of their society.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is a lot of SCUM that has invaded Palestine,All of Whom have NO RIGHT and NO PAST WITH THIS LAND...but the ZIONISTS COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS,

CLAIMING SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND AS THEIR OWN...it has become a nation of Filth has begat Filth...Thankfully some Real Jews exist.just and the Palestinians of course...Zionists are a Terrorist Organization and Racist with it...Can anyone explain to me what is in the head of a Zionist other than self Loathing and Hate ????? theliq but they believe somehow their Cult is respectable...And I agree everyone should Hate Zionism it is a Cult of Terror.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ theliq, et al,

Well, actually, I was not talking about "Zionists."

There is a lot of SCUM that has invaded Palestine,All of Whom have NO RIGHT and NO PAST WITH THIS LAND...but the ZIONISTS COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS,

(COMMENT)

❖ Not all Israelis are Jews.
❖ Not all Jews are Zionists.
❖ Not all Zionists are Settlers.​

Each nation, state and territorial government has its own immigration laws and its own understanding as to what it means to be an "illegal alien."

There is no question about the following facts.

❖ The Allied Powers assumed the Title and Rights to the territory that was formerly under the Mandate.
❖ The Allied Powers agree that under the Ttile and Rights the assumed by Treaty Law, they would establish a Jewish national Home in the territory.
❖ The Allied Powers assume that under the Ttile and Rights the assumed by Treaty Law, to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage immigration to "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home."​

Where is the "illegal immigration" criteria?

Zionists are a Terrorist Organization and Racist

(COMMENT)

What lawful entity actually stipulates that?

​

Zionism is the political movement for national liberation. This movement includes the belief that:

◈ The Jewish people have the right to self-determination.
◈ The Jewish people have the right to realize their self-determination.
◈ The Jewish people have a right to become a nation like any other nation.​

These are not "terrorist view" but the views held currently under international law and expressed by the Arab Palestinian People.

IF it is the case that the "Zionists are a Terrorist Organization" → THEN it must be the case the Arab Palestinian are equally guilty.

On the matter of "racism," the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) derive this belief from A/RES/3379 (XXX) 10 November 1975 which Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. What the HoAP most often forget to disclose (intentionally) is that in A/RES/46/86 16 December 1991 the UN specifically corrected the error and decided to "revoke the determination contained in its resolution 3379 (XXX) of 10 November 1975." The HoAP do this to perpetuate the myths.

with it...Can anyone explain to me what is in the head of a Zionist other than self Loathing and Hate ????? , but they believe somehow their Cult is respectable...And I agree everyone should Hate Zionism it is a Cult of Terror.

(COMMENT)

A "cult," by definition, is dealing with a religious belief directed towards a very specific idea. Zionism is NOT a religious belief structure; but a national liberation movement.

​

As you will note, Article 2, Section 1, The Constitution of the WZO updated November 2017, specifically speaks to the aims of Zionism secured under public law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

This deserves a better reply then what I gave, if an excuse is possible - I go for brevity when I use a phone and I get snarky. But discussion here is increasingly one side and impossible.

Maybe they are throwing stones for the same reasons Jewish settlers throw stones.

No they are not. Entirely my point.

Gee...I wonder why settlers stone Palestinian children on their way to school...target practice for vermin control?

"They are all enemy combatants, and their
shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

Why don't you post the entire quote, for context, rather than attempting to make equivalent things which are not equivalent. It looks an awful lot like projection to me.

I agree. Quotes deserve context and a link to entirety. Context matters A LOT. Chalk it up to complete frustration with this forum. And maybe try to apply the same standard to yourself when you claim Abbas wants a Judenfree Palestine. The quote typically used (the only one I am aware of) is in reference to maintaining an Israeli citizenry and military presence to guard them. I have no idea what the context or original quotes are relating to the (and I agree horrific) talk of "ripping the hearts out" of Jews other than it's oft repeated and applied to the ENTIRE Palestinian (and presumably Arab Israeli citizenry?) people. Your constant claim of non-equivalence is, imo, just a way of excusing the behavior of settlers towards the Palestinians in their area. Are some things not equivalent? Sure. Nakba is not equivalent to the Holocaust. Though that doesn't make it any less a tragedy. Gaza is absolutely not equivalent to a concentration camp. Israel is not equivalent to Apartheid South Africa. I think we can ALL agree on those false equivalencies being false. But that does not mean ALL equivalencies are false and frankly the constant claim that they are strikes me as a way to excuse bad behavior, abuses and injustice. Is it?

Here's the whole quote:

"The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

While the use of the term "snakes" is abhorrent here, the concept that a war between peoples can only be conducted with the support of those peoples is a valid one. Who is "they" in your quote? The ACTORS who contribute to the war through means other than physical weapons: the imams who incite, the educators who teach, the mothers who raise martyrs, the populace who shelter and celebrate, the government which pays.

I see your point. Question is, does your explanation then apply to the Palestinian actions towards Israeli's as justifiable in the name of war because that is suspicially what it sounds like is being justified. "We at war with the entire Palestinian people". The view point from THEIR side is that THEIR land is being taken, and they are at war with the entire Israeli people. And, for the record because I know this will get jumped on and distorted - I DO NOT AGREE with the view and I DO NOT AGREE with targeting civilians who EVER. But if you justify (and excuse it) on the Israeli side, you can hardly apply a different standard to the Palestinians. Like it or not - they are seeing an erosion of their hoped for state, they are seeing themselves increasingly walled in to tiny pockets of discontinuous lands where it can take hours to reach portions of their own farms to work it. They are seeing laws passed that and bills proposed that make it increasingly difficult to regain property in the courts and fight for their rights in the courts.

From the second link (the article provides the context):

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has been blunt about her goal of erasing the Green Line, so that Judea and Samaria receive the same legal treatment as sovereign Israel.

“The Knesset today took a big step toward the normalization of life in Judea and Samaria,” Shaked said after the vote. “The rights of Judea and Samaria residents are no less important than the rights of other citizens. The move will also reduce the heavy burden imposed on the HCJ,” she said.​

But not the rights of the Palestinian people living there it would seem as attempting to regain their land or fight for their rights will become more protracted and expensive. And, frankly, if "the rights of Judea and Samaria residents" are indeed no more or less important....a portion of them would not see their children incarcerated in the military penal system.

And you don't see how these kind of things FEED an ongoing anger and hatred of Israel on the Palestinian side? You really can't see it?

That is a reality. And it's a reality that doesn't get acknowledged and that continues to get in the way of peace. And please, don't go on about the Palestinian's leadership etc - I fully agree that they are part of the problem but you persistently and regularly disregard other factors coming from the Israeli side, that fuel these hates and violence.

This is in NO WAY a call for "vermin control" or genocide. Nor does it reject the status of "civilian". Nor does it claim that people have no right to life. It is the recognition that there is more to war than those who hold the stones in slings or load bullets into guns and that the responsibility lies with ALL the actors. It says (eloquently until the "snakes" part) that the responsibility rests with those who bring war and that the SOLUTION to war is not to stop the guns, its to stop the support.

I see her point and yes, it is eloquent...until the snakes. On the other hand, how does it translate into settler's actions towards Palestinian civilians? (I am referring to settlers because as a subgroup of Israeli's, they tend to be more extreme, more problematic, less tolerant and that is not just my opinion).

Stoning kids going to school? And getting away with it? These are KIDS. And the stone throwers? They are ADULTS. Are the kids vermin? Well, they certainly aren't human enough to treat like humans.

Palestinian kids’ long trek to school – past the settler with the handgun
This one has been going on for 14 years. And they haven't been able to STOP it? Really? Reverse it. If the same group of Palestinians had been stoning Israeli schoolkids, would it have been allowed to go on for that long? Or are you seriously going to claim this is just another false equivalency and excuse it?

There are many examples of settlers attacking Palestinians, just as their are of Palestinians attacking settlers. Frankly neither should be excused or marginalized, and I will concede that the Palestinian terrorists have committed more outright murder but that should not excuse what is real violence coming from the settlers including murder of innocent people - unless you want to attribute that to "the entire Palestinian People" being at war. And what does that then justify? Targeting civilians.