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

[Shusha]

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...."

I think it is key to understand that it was and is the idea of Jewish presence and Jewish self-determination which were the conditions which drove the war from the Arab side. (Not just the Palestinians, but all the Arabs.)

 

[Coyote]

If you don't call it occupied - what is it? It was taken in war, it's inhabitents consider it occupied, and Israel hasn't annexed it. None of it is truly Palestinian self-governed.

See, this is where I think you fall into using "soundbytes" from Team Palestine that aren't especially useful. In part I am trying to point out that deciding what it "IS" isn't necessarily a good way of approaching the problem of determining what it will or should be.

But let's talk about what IS, for a moment. Who held sovereignty of Areas A, B and C (the Westbank) in 1966? (We'd have to talk about 1988 and 1993 as well, but let's start there). There are several choices, some arguments are legally stronger than others:

1. Jordan. 2. State of Israel. 3. State of Palestine. 4. Terra nullius (belonging to no sovereign) 5. disputed territory in an internal civil conflict which has yet to reach its conclusion.

Which do you think it is? It makes a difference. See the "rule" that nations can't win territory in war applies when one nation encroaches on another nation's sovereignty -- when one nation uses military force to remove territory from the sovereignty of another nation and take over that sovereignty for itself. It doesn't apply in examples #4 and #5, above. Which leaves you with only the three remaining options.


But going back to the "meat" of the problem, what we have is two peoples in a dispute about who should have sovereignty over a particular historical territory which they both have important ties to. You and I agree that both peoples deserve to have their rights recognized and defended.

Is ethnic cleansing required in order to make peace between these two peoples, do you think?

I'll stick to the meat of it - my feeling is NO. But you need the right people in leadership positions to make it happen.

And I think you need more. There is too much seperation. You need more programs where different people work together to build a shared future. Mixed communities. Jobs. Equal infrastructure.

 

[Coyote]

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...."

I think it is key to understand that it was and is the idea of Jewish presence and Jewish self-determination which were the conditions which drove the war from the Arab side. (Not just the Palestinians, but all the Arabs.)

I think that was PART of it, for sure. But I think it was also driven by the Pan-Arab nationalism that was going at at the same time as the Jewish nationalism, and fears of massacres, and the feeling that it should be under Muslim control, not ceded to Jewish control.

 

[Coyote]

“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

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.

And Obama is a democrat. And, throughout his administration - he has given Israel a considerable amount of aid, more so then a number of other presidents. He vetoed the Palestinian's attempt to declare a state through the UN. People saying he is anti-semitic/anti-Israel is bullcrap. Sometimes Israel is WRONG, and someone needs to stand up to them when that happens - not unconditionally support every single thing.

 

[Shusha]

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

I respect this. I think there is an ethical solution. But it requires both actors to act ethically. And frankly, I don't think we are there yet.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

“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

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.

I don't think it was a "surprise" that Netanyahu accepted such a fantastic deal.

 

[Coyote]

The antisemites in this forum (and there must be several dozen at a minimum) don't bat an eye at the fact that Arabs clensed 99.3% of all Jews from Arab lands.

For a Jew to build a house on land they demand should be Judenfrei, though? An Outrage!!!

Tu Quoque Fallacy

Is ethnic cleansing right? At any point by anyone?

My pointing out the utter hypocrisy of you anti-Semites is not a tu Quoque fallacy.

Examples of actual tu Quoque fallacies are when you and those like you defend Islamic atrocities by making dishonest and inane comparisons to Christianity -- much as you did after the Orlando Massacre.

Tu Quoque: but they do it too!

Sound familiar? Review your post.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.

The answer is simple. They can leave or die.

 

[Coyote]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.

The answer is simple. They can leave or die.

Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.

Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!

 

[Weatherman2020]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.

The answer is simple. They can leave or die.

Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.

Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!

For those that understand evil the answer is simple.

 

[Coyote]

If you are talking about maintaining a hostile population within it's state - I think that is tricky because the hostile population was already there when the state was formed.

So what is ethical here?

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.

The answer is simple. They can leave or die.

Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.

Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!

For those that understand evil the answer is simple.

The Palestinians aren't evil. They are people - and as complex as any people anywhere. To broadbrush them as evil....is...well...evil don't you think?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yep. That's the question I want you to try to answer.

Honestly, I don't have an answer - not yet anyway.

Two positions:

1. People who lived there prior to the establishment of a state, and who did not agree with the establishment of that state and fought it and lost. They have not been able to move from fighting to governance.

2. People who established a state, won their fights, and have been able to move from fighting to governance to develop a peaceful and viable state.

In the middle of these two is a no-man's land and a citizenless people, and unequal rights. The no-man's land is the land that some called "occupied territory" (per international law) and "disputed territory" (per Israel).

The Palestinians regard that territory as their future state in a two-state solution.

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

But if the answer were "yes" - then what is the state to do maintain the peace and security of it's citizens? What examples of this have occurred in history?

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Perhaps Israel should annex the portion it intends to keep, provide citizenship opportunities to all the residents, and give them a choice of FULL citizenship, not residency - or they can move to what will eventually become Palestine.

Edited to add - I'm throwing ideas out because this is an ethical question I see no solution for.

Wrong yet again. Palestinians reject a two State solution and their Charter calls for the extermination of all Jews.

The answer is simple. They can leave or die.

Both the issues and the answers are not so simple.

Fortunately, Shusha recognizes this and is a delight to debate with - Shusha rocks in civility and content!

For those that understand evil the answer is simple.

The Palestinians aren't evil. They are people - and as complex as any people anywhere. To broadbrush them as evil....is...well...evil don't you think?

That's why you think it's complicated. You don't know what evil is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...."

I think it is key to understand that it was and is the idea of Jewish presence and Jewish self-determination which were the conditions which drove the war from the Arab side. (Not just the Palestinians, but all the Arabs.)

I think that was PART of it, for sure. But I think it was also driven by the Pan-Arab nationalism that was going at at the same time as the Jewish nationalism, and fears of massacres, and the feeling that it should be under Muslim control, not ceded to Jewish control.

There is a false narrative about this conflict. One would believe that a piece of land was to be divided and the Muslims did not want the Jews to get their cut. That the Muslims hated the Jews and did not want them to have anything. The Muslims wanted it all for themselves.

That is so far from the truth.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.

And Obama is a democrat. And, throughout his administration - he has given Israel a considerable amount of aid, more so then a number of other presidents. He vetoed the Palestinian's attempt to declare a state through the UN. People saying he is anti-semitic/anti-Israel is bullcrap. Sometimes Israel is WRONG, and someone needs to stand up to them when that happens - not unconditionally support every single thing.

More bullshit. Obama has been anti Israel from his first day in office and it was the strong bipartisan support Israel has in Congress that held him in check. Obama stood up for nothing but his own ego.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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

Obama gave Israel only what Congress forced him to give and even objected to the US guaranteeing Israel would have a qualitative edge over it enemies in the region.

Congress had nothing to do with it - Congress was left out of the deal he signed with Bibi. Obama has been very pro-Israel without being unreasonable.

No, the increase in aid to Israel was demanded by Democrats in Congress as a condition of supporting his Iran deal and Congress, including Democrats was pushing to have Obama increase the amount when Netanyahu surprisingly accepted it.

I don't think it was a "surprise" that Netanyahu accepted such a fantastic deal.

Actually, it was a surprise. Netanyahu had wanted much more and there was strong bipartisan support in Congress to give Israel more so it is unclear why Netanyahu suddenly decided to accept Obama's offer which came with some difficult conditions. Israel would not be able to spend as much of the aid in Israel, a blow to Israel's defense industries, and would not lobby Congress for more money. Of course, this is just a memorandum of understanding and it can be renegotiated with the new US government.

 

[Shusha]

There is a false narrative about this conflict. One would believe that a piece of land was to be divided and the Muslims did not want the Jews to get their cut. That the Muslims hated the Jews and did not want them to have anything. The Muslims wanted it all for themselves.

That is so far from the truth.

Prove it. Show me. Demonstrate this. In particular, show evidence of the Arab Muslim Palestinians wanting the Jews to get their cut.

 

[Shusha]

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is a false narrative about this conflict. One would believe that a piece of land was to be divided and the Muslims did not want the Jews to get their cut. That the Muslims hated the Jews and did not want them to have anything. The Muslims wanted it all for themselves.

That is so far from the truth.

Prove it. Show me. Demonstrate this. In particular, show evidence of the Arab Muslim Palestinians wanting the Jews to get their cut.

You are back to that false narrative. You make it sound like there is a piece of land over there someplace that was to be divided and some "given" to the Arabs and some "given" to the Jews.

That was not what was happening.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The question is - is a nation required to maintain a hostile population.

If the answer were to be "no" - wouldn't that then justify the Palestinians driving Jews out of what they consider their state occupied by a hostile population?

And wouldn't it also justify the Israelis justifying driving out the Arab Palestinians? Works both ways.

The problem is human lives are involved in both choices. And in increasing settlement building, Israel is forcing what will eventually be a choice - abandon the settlements or annex the territory.

Yes. Israel is testing whether or not Palestinians can tolerate living next to Jews. So far, not so much. The failure is not with the Jews, but with the Arab Muslim Palestinians.

It is the Jews who cannot tolerate living with the Arabs.

BTW, the Palestinians are not all Arab and they are not all Muslims. Why do you keep using the term Arab Muslims? That is incorrect.

 

[Hollie]

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre ...."

I think it is key to understand that it was and is the idea of Jewish presence and Jewish self-determination which were the conditions which drove the war from the Arab side. (Not just the Palestinians, but all the Arabs.)

I think that was PART of it, for sure. But I think it was also driven by the Pan-Arab nationalism that was going at at the same time as the Jewish nationalism, and fears of massacres, and the feeling that it should be under Muslim control, not ceded to Jewish control.

There is a false narrative about this conflict. One would believe that a piece of land was to be divided and the Muslims did not want the Jews to get their cut. That the Muslims hated the Jews and did not want them to have anything. The Muslims wanted it all for themselves.

That is so far from the truth.

Yours are more of the apologetics we read from many of the islamo-fascist hate groups. It's important to understand that we are living in a time when some islamists are embarrassed to acknowledge the precepts of their politico-religious ideology or acknowledge the verses and ahadith on jihad in front of the infidel. They're hoping not to be held accountable for the hate engendered for the non-Islamist. They hope not to be held accountable for the rulings on the jizyah, slavery and killing prisoners of war; actions we see taking place today. Revulsion for competing religions that is a core element of Islamist ideology. They wish that they could erase these verses and ahadith from the koran and Sunnah so that they would not be held accountable for the actions of its adherents. If they cannot erase them then they try to misinterpret them and distort their meanings.