Ethnic Cleansing Lovers Butthurt: Israel Approves 2,500 New Settlements

[MJB12741]

How dare a Jew live next door!

Israel plans 2,500 settler homes in post-Trump expansion

Why do the Pali supporters stay here in the Great Satan USA when they are free to go live in Gaza to help the noble life loving, peace loving Palestinians?

Funny how no Palestinians are allowed to immigrate to any Arab nation.

Are you supporting forced population transfers?

No. I oppose use of force under any pretext. However I do believe Israel should help those Palestinians who hate Israel to leave by working with the surrounding Arab countries to offer some incentive to them to allow those Palestinians to live elsewhere where they will be dealt with by their own Arab brothers.

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

How many more opportunities should Israel allow them to do that?

 

[Claudette]

Is it legally, technically their land (as opposed to simply claiming it is theirs?) I know Palestine CLAIMS it's theirs and wants it back.

(This also goes back to 2 old adages - "Don't start a war you can't win' and 'To the victor goes the spoils'.)

The Palestinians can't get it back because they never had it.

The land Israel sits on was called Judea in the time of Christ and has been Jewish since then.


Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How dare a Jew live next door!

Israel plans 2,500 settler homes in post-Trump expansion

Why do the Pali supporters stay here in the Great Satan USA when they are free to go live in Gaza to help the noble life loving, peace loving Palestinians?

Funny how no Palestinians are allowed to immigrate to any Arab nation.

Are you supporting forced population transfers?

No. I oppose use of force under any pretext. However I do believe Israel should help those Palestinians who hate Israel to leave by working with the surrounding Arab countries to offer some incentive to them to allow those Palestinians to live elsewhere where they will be dealt with by their own Arab brothers.

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

On what land? Israel gained the West Bank when the Islamos lost their war of aggression.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Is it legally, technically their land (as opposed to simply claiming it is theirs?) I know Palestine CLAIMS it's theirs and wants it back.

(This also goes back to 2 old adages - "Don't start a war you can't win' and 'To the victor goes the spoils'.)

The borders were fixed at the end of the 6 Days War in 1967. The far right and especially the Likud party in Israel are doing the same as Russia in Crimea and Ukraine. The war hawks are in charge in Israel now and are proving their duplicity with their expansionist paradigm.

wrong again------no "borders" were fixed either before or after 1967. In 1967---CEASE FIRE lines were created-----not borders. DA ARABS DID NOT RECOGNIZE BORDERS

In that case, you should inform all the map makers to stop drawing those borders on the maps they produce!

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan and that BORDER between the West bank and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. Israel has NO SOVEREIGN CLAIM to the West Bank. The West Bank was part of the former Palestine until 1949 then it was occupied by Jordan before the conclusion of the 1949 conflict and eventually ceded to the Palestinian Authority and at the close of the 6 Days War resumed its status as the BORDER as original established by the UN in 1949.

The fact that Israel never made a formal declaration of THEIR borders since gaining recognition in 1948 is being used by Israel now and in the past for their expansionism. Because Israel wants to employ the sophistry of no borders does not mean other nations and sovereign entities must accept that irrational horseshit, NOR that some on a message board should be pushing that failed and foolish proposition in this era!

border -
noun
1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
the definition of border

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan

When did Jordan cede land to the Palestinians? Link?

It's history you lazy dumb ****! Ask someone to help you use Google if your are that ******* ignorant! Do your own damn work, dummy!

 

[Shusha]

Is ethnic cleansing right? At any point by anyone?

Ethnic cleansing is never right. The problem is that sometimes it is effective. Especially in social groups which have irrational ideas about other groups, it can be effective in reducing tension and conflict. It can be effective in protecting people. And that might, just might, make it genuinely justifiable in some cases.

The ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the ME, for example, had a protective effect -- it protected the Jewish people and all their descendants from harm that might have come to them in the ME countries that would likely still be on-going today. The ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people from Yemen had a protective effect. The separation of India and Pakistan had a protective effect (fighting is largely contained to border areas if I understand correctly).

I don't believe it is morally correct to restrict Jewish settlements or remove Jewish settlements based on ethnicity. No matter how you color that one it remains nothing more than the argument "there can be no Jews in 'Palestine'" and that is a morally unacceptable position to take. Especially when it has yet to be determined where this 'Palestine' will be.

However, for Israel to say to its own people -- you can not build there, it is for your own safety. THAT might be justifiable.

This is a situation that Israel also faces. In the minds of many in Israel, including those in the government, it is getting harder and harder to justify the continued danger of having a hostile population live among them. (If the point of terrorism is to induce fear -- the Arab Muslim Palestinians have done a mighty fine job of it. Its just not having the intended results. Instead of causing the Israelis to capitulate, it is strengthening their resolve to ensure "Never Again" means just that.)

Then question then, for those who care to indulge me, is whether or not it might be justified, for the safety of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinians, to separate them physically.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is it legally, technically their land (as opposed to simply claiming it is theirs?) I know Palestine CLAIMS it's theirs and wants it back.

(This also goes back to 2 old adages - "Don't start a war you can't win' and 'To the victor goes the spoils'.)

The borders were fixed at the end of the 6 Days War in 1967. The far right and especially the Likud party in Israel are doing the same as Russia in Crimea and Ukraine. The war hawks are in charge in Israel now and are proving their duplicity with their expansionist paradigm.

wrong again------no "borders" were fixed either before or after 1967. In 1967---CEASE FIRE lines were created-----not borders. DA ARABS DID NOT RECOGNIZE BORDERS

In that case, you should inform all the map makers to stop drawing those borders on the maps they produce!

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan and that BORDER between the West bank and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. Israel has NO SOVEREIGN CLAIM to the West Bank. The West Bank was part of the former Palestine until 1949 then it was occupied by Jordan before the conclusion of the 1949 conflict and eventually ceded to the Palestinian Authority and at the close of the 6 Days War resumed its status as the BORDER as original established by the UN in 1949.

The fact that Israel never made a formal declaration of THEIR borders since gaining recognition in 1948 is being used by Israel now and in the past for their expansionism. Because Israel wants to employ the sophistry of no borders does not mean other nations and sovereign entities must accept that irrational horseshit, NOR that some on a message board should be pushing that failed and foolish proposition in this era!

border -
noun
1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
the definition of border

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan

When did Jordan cede land to the Palestinians? Link?

It's history you lazy dumb ****! Ask someone to help you use Google if your are that ******* ignorant! Do your own damn work, dummy!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

 

[Shusha]

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

If the Palestinians were (temporarily) placed under the sovereignty and tutelage of other Arab Muslim states, they would still be able to establish their own state. It would just change the dynamics of who they achieved independence from.

 

[Coyote]

Is ethnic cleansing right? At any point by anyone?

Ethnic cleansing is never right. The problem is that sometimes it is effective. Especially in social groups which have irrational ideas about other groups, it can be effective in reducing tension and conflict. It can be effective in protecting people. And that might, just might, make it genuinely justifiable in some cases.

The ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the ME, for example, had a protective effect -- it protected the Jewish people and all their descendants from harm that might have come to them in the ME countries that would likely still be on-going today. The ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people from Yemen had a protective effect. The separation of India and Pakistan had a protective effect (fighting is largely contained to border areas if I understand correctly).

I don't believe it is morally correct to restrict Jewish settlements or remove Jewish settlements based on ethnicity. No matter how you color that one it remains nothing more than the argument "there can be no Jews in 'Palestine'" and that is a morally unacceptable position to take. Especially when it has yet to be determined where this 'Palestine' will be.

However, for Israel to say to its own people -- you can not build there, it is for your own safety. THAT might be justifiable.

This is a situation that Israel also faces. In the minds of many in Israel, including those in the government, it is getting harder and harder to justify the continued danger of having a hostile population live among them. (If the point of terrorism is to induce fear -- the Arab Muslim Palestinians have done a mighty fine job of it. Its just not having the intended results. Instead of causing the Israelis to capitulate, it is strengthening their resolve to ensure "Never Again" means just that.)

Then question then, for those who care to indulge me, is whether or not it might be justified, for the safety of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinians, to separate them physically.

Ethnic cleansing might have had a good effect for some eventually, but it's a bit like the ends justifies the means. For many it was a horrible tragic uprooting from ancient communities, families and ties.

The issue I have with the settlements is that it directly effects the possibility of there ever being a multi-state solution and that is what I'm thinking is the purpose. I don't think Netanyahu has any desire for a multi-state solution. The Palestinians no longer believe it's possible.


Your question is a very difficult one for me to answer. I find forced population transfers of any kind abhorant - so many have been tragic, whether it's what Stalin did in the USSR, Arab expulsions of Jews, expulsions of Palestinians, the Turkish expulsion (and genocide) of the Armenians, the many expulsions of native American peoples. So often those that end up being expelled do not land on their feet, they end up in permanently reduced circumstances in marginal areas and alien cultures.

It would be hard for me to accept unvoluntary transfers as a solution.

 

[Coyote]

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

If the Palestinians were (temporarily) placed under the sovereignty and tutelage of other Arab Muslim states, they would still be able to establish their own state. It would just change the dynamics of who they achieved independence from.

You've mentioned this before and actually I think it's a one of the better more sane ideas but I don't see it being promoted in any official capacity.

What DOES Netanyahu want?

 

[Coyote]

Why do the Pali supporters stay here in the Great Satan USA when they are free to go live in Gaza to help the noble life loving, peace loving Palestinians?

Funny how no Palestinians are allowed to immigrate to any Arab nation.

Are you supporting forced population transfers?

No. I oppose use of force under any pretext. However I do believe Israel should help those Palestinians who hate Israel to leave by working with the surrounding Arab countries to offer some incentive to them to allow those Palestinians to live elsewhere where they will be dealt with by their own Arab brothers.

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

On what land? Israel gained the West Bank when the Islamos lost their war of aggression.

So...what exactly are you advocating be done? All Palestinians living there who wish to remain become full Israeli citizens if they wish?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The borders were fixed at the end of the 6 Days War in 1967. The far right and especially the Likud party in Israel are doing the same as Russia in Crimea and Ukraine. The war hawks are in charge in Israel now and are proving their duplicity with their expansionist paradigm.

wrong again------no "borders" were fixed either before or after 1967. In 1967---CEASE FIRE lines were created-----not borders. DA ARABS DID NOT RECOGNIZE BORDERS

In that case, you should inform all the map makers to stop drawing those borders on the maps they produce!

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan and that BORDER between the West bank and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. Israel has NO SOVEREIGN CLAIM to the West Bank. The West Bank was part of the former Palestine until 1949 then it was occupied by Jordan before the conclusion of the 1949 conflict and eventually ceded to the Palestinian Authority and at the close of the 6 Days War resumed its status as the BORDER as original established by the UN in 1949.

The fact that Israel never made a formal declaration of THEIR borders since gaining recognition in 1948 is being used by Israel now and in the past for their expansionism. Because Israel wants to employ the sophistry of no borders does not mean other nations and sovereign entities must accept that irrational horseshit, NOR that some on a message board should be pushing that failed and foolish proposition in this era!

border -
noun
1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
the definition of border

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan

When did Jordan cede land to the Palestinians? Link?

It's history you lazy dumb ****! Ask someone to help you use Google if your are that ******* ignorant! Do your own damn work, dummy!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history, of which you are ignorant and unwilling to look up and find for yourself. If you were at all knowledgeable of the intifada in 1988 and King Hussein's actions of the time you wouldn't be appearing so bloody STUPID and IGNORANT!

 

[Shusha]

The issue I have with the settlements is that it directly effects the possibility of there ever being a multi-state solution and that is what I'm thinking is the purpose. I don't think Netanyahu has any desire for a multi-state solution. The Palestinians no longer believe it's possible.

No, no. It doesn't.

UNLESS you subscribe to the idea that the eventual Palestine must be free of Jews. I think it is really important for you to understand this. The fact that Arab Muslims (and Christians) live in Israel in no way makes the State of Israel not viable. The reverse is also true. This is a hang up which is understandable in those who have irrational fears of Jews. I do not count you among this group. So I hope I might be able to convince you that I am correct here.

If you assume that both Israel and the eventual Palestine will have a mixed population a two-state solution is still entirely viable.

 

[Shusha]

It would be hard for me to accept unvoluntary transfers as a solution.

We agree. It is hard to accept. But will the outcome actually be better in the long run? What about incentives as MJB suggested?

(And I'm not necessarily suggesting it be done so much as exploring the idea for the sake of having an interesting discussion. This isn't one of my "practical solutions" threads.)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

wrong again------no "borders" were fixed either before or after 1967. In 1967---CEASE FIRE lines were created-----not borders. DA ARABS DID NOT RECOGNIZE BORDERS

In that case, you should inform all the map makers to stop drawing those borders on the maps they produce!

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan and that BORDER between the West bank and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. Israel has NO SOVEREIGN CLAIM to the West Bank. The West Bank was part of the former Palestine until 1949 then it was occupied by Jordan before the conclusion of the 1949 conflict and eventually ceded to the Palestinian Authority and at the close of the 6 Days War resumed its status as the BORDER as original established by the UN in 1949.

The fact that Israel never made a formal declaration of THEIR borders since gaining recognition in 1948 is being used by Israel now and in the past for their expansionism. Because Israel wants to employ the sophistry of no borders does not mean other nations and sovereign entities must accept that irrational horseshit, NOR that some on a message board should be pushing that failed and foolish proposition in this era!

border -
noun
1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
the definition of border

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan

When did Jordan cede land to the Palestinians? Link?

It's history you lazy dumb ****! Ask someone to help you use Google if your are that ******* ignorant! Do your own damn work, dummy!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history, of which you are ignorant and unwilling to look up and find for yourself. If you were at all knowledgeable of the intifada in 1988 and King Hussein's actions of the time you wouldn't be appearing so bloody STUPID and IGNORANT!

There were no borders created. Palestine needs to go back to Jordan.

 

[Shusha]

I'll add one thing to my post #20 above. IF you believe that the Palestinians are incapable (due to their irrational fears of Jews) of safely and equally incorporating Jews into their population -- then I would agree that a multi-state solution is not possible. But then I would have to question the wisdom of permitting such a xenophobic nation to come into being.

 

[Coyote]

The issue I have with the settlements is that it directly effects the possibility of there ever being a multi-state solution and that is what I'm thinking is the purpose. I don't think Netanyahu has any desire for a multi-state solution. The Palestinians no longer believe it's possible.

No, no. It doesn't.

UNLESS you subscribe to the idea that the eventual Palestine must be free of Jews. I think it is really important for you to understand this. The fact that Arab Muslims (and Christians) live in Israel in no way makes the State of Israel not viable. The reverse is also true. This is a hang up which is understandable in those who have irrational fears of Jews. I do not count you among this group. So I hope I might be able to convince you that I am correct here.

If you assume that both Israel and the eventual Palestine will have a mixed population a two-state solution is still entirely viable.

I don't subscribe to that idea - in fact I think a mixed population is the better idea. The more populations are kept seperated, the easier it is to believe the lies and demonization of each other. When they live together...you can more easily see and judge them as individuals.

But here is the issue: do you honestly think Israel will cede any settlement blocks to a Palestinian state? Do you think the inhabitents of those settlements (which I think are homogeniously Jewish) would be willing to become members of a Palestinian state and accept Palestinians as part of their community? Do you think the Palestinians will accept settlements populated by Jews into their state?

What I see as more likely is land-swaps and forced transfers IF indeed there is going to be a Palestinian state

 

[Coyote]

It would be hard for me to accept unvoluntary transfers as a solution.

We agree. It is hard to accept. But will the outcome actually be better in the long run? What about incentives as MJB suggested?

(And I'm not necessarily suggesting it be done so much as exploring the idea for the sake of having an interesting discussion. This isn't one of my "practical solutions" threads.)

Incentives and VOLUNTARY movements are fine - people willing to uproot and move, not being forced to. Interestingly, as a side issue I'm in the process of reading two books which cover voluntary migrations - the movement of people from Appalachia to northern midwestern cities in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan...via the "hillbilly highway" and the movement of blacks in a huge migration to jobs up north. Both had a significant impact on demographics. In the case of Appalachia, the family-friendly hiring practices of the industries encouraged the hiring of family members from the same towns and entire communities uprooted and moved.

 

[BlindBoo]

and the US State Department said, " [nothing] ".

Yes sir! This is a great thing! **** you Obama!

Israel needs to build as much as they can as quick as they can right now. Build up along then border and have the security fence include these areas.

Again **** you Obama! **** you Frankenians!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

“Virtually every U.S. administration in the last 30 to 40 years has allowed a resolution critical of Israel, particularly of settlements, to pass through abstention,” Jeremy Pressman, a University of Connecticut professor who studies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said in an interview with The Daily Signal."

US Role in UN Rebuke of Israel Not New

Big *******. No President has been as hostile to Israel as Obama.

Trump will probably take a hands off approach and let Israel do what they want, but still veto resolutions at the UN!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No president has given them more. When did Obama threaten Israeli Aid?

BUSH URGES DELAY ON AID FOR ISRAEL; THREATENS A VETO

 

[Weatherman2020]

Funny how no Palestinians are allowed to immigrate to any Arab nation.

Are you supporting forced population transfers?

No. I oppose use of force under any pretext. However I do believe Israel should help those Palestinians who hate Israel to leave by working with the surrounding Arab countries to offer some incentive to them to allow those Palestinians to live elsewhere where they will be dealt with by their own Arab brothers.

And if they don't want to leave, but instead want to establish their own state?

On what land? Israel gained the West Bank when the Islamos lost their war of aggression.

So...what exactly are you advocating be done? All Palestinians living there who wish to remain become full Israeli citizens if they wish?

Any Palestinian wishing to take an oath to become an Israeli has always been welcome. 1/3 of Israeli citizens are arab.
Those that chose not to should be removed from Israeli land.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

In that case, you should inform all the map makers to stop drawing those borders on the maps they produce!

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan and that BORDER between the West bank and Israel is the 1949 armistice line. Israel has NO SOVEREIGN CLAIM to the West Bank. The West Bank was part of the former Palestine until 1949 then it was occupied by Jordan before the conclusion of the 1949 conflict and eventually ceded to the Palestinian Authority and at the close of the 6 Days War resumed its status as the BORDER as original established by the UN in 1949.

The fact that Israel never made a formal declaration of THEIR borders since gaining recognition in 1948 is being used by Israel now and in the past for their expansionism. Because Israel wants to employ the sophistry of no borders does not mean other nations and sovereign entities must accept that irrational horseshit, NOR that some on a message board should be pushing that failed and foolish proposition in this era!

border -
noun
1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
the definition of border

Samaria and Judea, where Israel is trying to subsume bits and pieces at a time through unlawful confiscation, are both in the West Bank area ceded to the Palestinians' by Jordan

When did Jordan cede land to the Palestinians? Link?

It's history you lazy dumb ****! Ask someone to help you use Google if your are that ******* ignorant! Do your own damn work, dummy!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history you lazy dumb ****!

History that you made up. DERP!

It's history, of which you are ignorant and unwilling to look up and find for yourself. If you were at all knowledgeable of the intifada in 1988 and King Hussein's actions of the time you wouldn't be appearing so bloody STUPID and IGNORANT!

There were no borders created. Palestine needs to go back to Jordan.

There were no borders created. Palestine needs to go back to Jordan.

You don't know what the **** you're talking about either! So many dummies create so many unnecessary responses!

Of which uncreated borders are you speaking to and what does that have to do with King Hussein of Jordan ceding the West Bank to the Palestinians, shit for brains?