'Instead of Gaza' | How should we name the new city?

[ESay]

They don't add up, which is why I'm asking, what do you want,
in general and specifically from this discussion,
do you actually believe they're helpful?

Because if you prefer secularism,
opposing Jewish resettlement
is to prevent the only people
who can implement the very
secular ideals in that place.

They are not helpful in any way, because you will go down by your own road. But what else are we supposed to do on a political forum?

 

[Shusha]

Your equality can be called 'Hell is full of good intentions'. Your sentence about Jews and Arab lands is too simplified and distorted. Too bad I wrote everything in vain.

Yes, I know it is simplified and distorted, but it wasn't ME that started using language like "Arab lands". That was you.

I've already stated that I remain ever optimistic about a future where Jews and Arabs play on the same playground. I think that is the path to peace. It may be that we can't get there from here, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

 

[Shusha]

Okay, if you want a simple answer on these questions 'in vacuum', then obviously that statements that begin with 'Only..' is extremist.

But as I said above, your questions are manipulative and lead to wrong conclusions.

I'm sorry if you feel manipulated, it was not my intent. Way, way back in the conversation you said (paraphrased, I didn't look it up): religious extremism on both sides. My questions are meant to uncover and clarify what you mean by that. Not for any nefarious purpose, but because I genuinely want to know what you mean by that. It was relatively easy to find agreement on Arab extremism.

But we've run into a roadblock on agreeing about Jewish extremism. From my side, it is because the two examples you have suggested, don't seem to be any form of extremism, let alone religious extremism.

This appears, to me, to be a double standard where Arab extremism, as we've agreed on, truly is extremism, whereas Jewish "extremism" is just Jewish people wanting to be present in their homeland and their Holy places. I would argue that to suggest to Jews "you can't be here" IS extremism -- ARAB extremism. (Keeping in mind that we have not yet touched on statehood, sovereignty, or self-determination and I am not including these things in my statements so far.)

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yes, I know it is simplified and distorted, but it wasn't ME that started using language like "Arab lands". That was you.

I've already stated that I remain ever optimistic about a future where Jews and Arabs play on the same playground. I think that is the path to peace. It may be that we can't get there from here, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Arab and Jewish playing together is not the path to peace, it is the result of peace. After 100 years of failure, it is clear there is no diplomatic path to peace. The path to peace is trade. Before the war, nearly 500,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and the settlements and acts of terrorism were very rare because those workers earned several times what they could have earned under the PA or Hamas: they simply had too much to lose to go to war. Allow free trade between Israelis and Palestinians and pretty soon everyone will have too much to lose to go to war.

 

[Shusha]

Arab and Jewish playing together is not the path to peace, it is the result of peace. After 100 years of failure, it is clear there is no diplomatic path to peace. The path to peace is trade. Before the war, nearly 500,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and the settlements and acts of terrorism were very rare because those workers earned several times what they could have earned under the PA or Hamas: they simply had too much to lose to go to war. Allow free trade between Israelis and Palestinians and pretty soon everyone will have too much to lose to go to war.

Sure. I agree with this in principle. The Arabs need something to fight FOR, nor something to fight AGAINST. Playing and working together is the way to get it done.

 

[rylah]

Arab and Jewish playing together is not the path to peace, it is the result of peace. After 100 years of failure, it is clear there is no diplomatic path to peace. The path to peace is trade. Before the war, nearly 500,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and the settlements and acts of terrorism were very rare because those workers earned several times what they could have earned under the PA or Hamas: they simply had too much to lose to go to war. Allow free trade between Israelis and Palestinians and pretty soon everyone will have too much to lose to go to war.

How can this be serious?

As you've mentioned, Israel had trade relations with Gaza up until the war.
Israel bought their produce and and they bought mostly from Israeli Arabs.
And the same people who supposedly made a fortune working with Israelis,
spied on them, Jews and Arabs alike to be slaughtered on live facebook feeds.

There are mansions and villas all over Judea
and what used to be western-Gaza,
bigger than Israel's PM house.

These people are backed by oil-oligarchs,
while running the biggest aid scheme.
According to estimates there're no
more than a million actually living
in Gaza beside UNRWA registry.

So money was never lacking,
they still stripped their kids
in suicide bombs.

Now in Israel,
the new term for these brutally
disproven concepts is "the Harvards".
As in forget about it in the Middle East.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm sorry if you feel manipulated, it was not my intent. Way, way back in the conversation you said (paraphrased, I didn't look it up): religious extremism on both sides. My questions are meant to uncover and clarify what you mean by that. Not for any nefarious purpose, but because I genuinely want to know what you mean by that. It was relatively easy to find agreement on Arab extremism.

But we've run into a roadblock on agreeing about Jewish extremism. From my side, it is because the two examples you have suggested, don't seem to be any form of extremism, let alone religious extremism.

This appears, to me, to be a double standard where Arab extremism, as we've agreed on, truly is extremism, whereas Jewish "extremism" is just Jewish people wanting to be present in their homeland and their Holy places. I would argue that to suggest to Jews "you can't be here" IS extremism -- ARAB extremism. (Keeping in mind that we have not yet touched on statehood, sovereignty, or self-determination and I am not including these things in my statements so far.)

Sharia in the Sahara

Everybody is influenced to ignore what Americans did to solve a similar situation. Put the Paleonasties on reservations far away from any Israeli targets.

 

[ESay]

I'm sorry if you feel manipulated, it was not my intent. Way, way back in the conversation you said (paraphrased, I didn't look it up): religious extremism on both sides. My questions are meant to uncover and clarify what you mean by that. Not for any nefarious purpose, but because I genuinely want to know what you mean by that. It was relatively easy to find agreement on Arab extremism.

But we've run into a roadblock on agreeing about Jewish extremism. From my side, it is because the two examples you have suggested, don't seem to be any form of extremism, let alone religious extremism.

This appears, to me, to be a double standard where Arab extremism, as we've agreed on, truly is extremism, whereas Jewish "extremism" is just Jewish people wanting to be present in their homeland and their Holy places. I would argue that to suggest to Jews "you can't be here" IS extremism -- ARAB extremism. (Keeping in mind that we have not yet touched on statehood, sovereignty, or self-determination and I am not including these things in my statements so far.)

Yeah, maybe I should admit that the word 'religious' wasn't included properly there. Maybe had I said 'Arab and Jewish' extremism' that wouldn't have caused such misunderstanding. Or maybe not. What is Jewish extremism in my understanding I already tried to explain.

 

[Shusha]

Yeah, maybe I should admit that the word 'religious' wasn't included properly there. Maybe had I said 'Arab and Jewish' extremism' that wouldn't have caused such misunderstanding. Or maybe not. What is Jewish extremism in my understanding I already tried to explain.

I'm reading your take on Jewish "extremism" is the desire for the Jewish people to exist in certain spaces, like their homeland and their holy places. That doesn't strike me as "extremism". Perhaps I misunderstand.

 

[toomuchtime_]

How can this be serious?

As you've mentioned, Israel had trade relations with Gaza up until the war.
Israel bought their produce and and they bought mostly from Israeli Arabs.
And the same people who supposedly made a fortune working with Israelis,
spied on them, Jews and Arabs alike to be slaughtered on live facebook feeds.

There are mansions and villas all over Judea
and what used to be western-Gaza,
bigger than Israel's PM house.

These people are backed by oil-oligarchs,
while running the biggest aid scheme.
According to estimates there're no
more than a million actually living
in Gaza beside UNRWA registry.

So money was never lacking,
they still stripped their kids
in suicide bombs.

Now in Israel,
the new term for these brutally
disproven concepts is "the Harvards".
As in forget about it in the Middle East.

Not trade between Israel and the PA or with Hamas, but trade between Israelis and Palestinians. In Judea and Samaria, if an Arab owns a business that depends on Jewish customers, he will not want to go to war or his business will fail. If an Arab has a good paying job at a Jewish owned business, he will not want to go to war for fear of losing his income. When enough Palestinian families are enjoying the benefits of these kinds of transactions with Jews, the West Bank will become far less likely to support war with Israel. These kinds of mutually beneficial transactions between Israelis and Palestinians are even now laying the groundwork for peace between those Palestinians who do business with Israelis in the West Bank and the Israelis who come in contact with them.

 

[ESay]

I'm reading your take on Jewish "extremism" is the desire for the Jewish people to exist in certain spaces, like their homeland and their holy places. That doesn't strike me as "extremism". Perhaps I misunderstand.

They already have their homeland, and bigger one than was intended from the start. Jews can't live everywhere where they 'want'. Taking other people's property by force, using some historical, ethnic, religious justification is extremism.

 

[Shusha]

They already have their homeland, and bigger one than was intended from the start. Jews can't live everywhere where they 'want'. Taking other people's property by force, using some historical, ethnic, religious justification is extremism.

I believe you are conflating two very different things. We are not (yet) discussing self-determination, sovereignty, or statehood. We are only discussing Jews being present in spaces. You are excluding an entire collective of people (based on their ethnicity!) from just being in certain places in the world. How does that not reek of discrimination to you?

 

[DudleySmith]

After Israel finishes flattening it all, it can be renamed St. Pancake, in honor of nutjob terrorist fan Rachel Corry.

 

[ESay]

I believe you are conflating two very different things. We are not (yet) discussing self-determination, sovereignty, or statehood. We are only discussing Jews being present in spaces. You are excluding an entire collective of people (based on their ethnicity!) from just being in certain places in the world. How does that not reek of discrimination to you?

There is a state called Israel. There will be (maybe) a state called Palestine. Every state has its policy of citizenship and the rules of entering this state and buying property by foreigners. I don't see a reason why both of these states shouldn't have such rights. And I don't believe that I should explain somebody these things.

 

[DudleySmith]

If they want to repeat the silly 'two state solution' again they can take the new Arab Islamo-Nazi terrorist state out of the 85% of the Mandate Arabs were given out of the last 'two state solution'.

 

[Shusha]

There is a state called Israel. There will be (maybe) a state called Palestine. Every state has its policy of citizenship and the rules of entering this state and buying property by foreigners. I don't see a reason why both of these states shouldn't have such rights.

Of course. As I said, we hadn't started talking about that yet. Why is it "extremism" for Jews to live in, say the Gaza strip, under the Statehood in that territory of either the Palestinians or the Israelis?

 

[ESay]

Of course. As I said, we hadn't started talking about that yet. Why is it "extremism" for Jews to live in, say the Gaza strip, under the Statehood in that territory of either the Palestinians or the Israelis?

If that will be a mutually agreed decision, then why not? Extremism is taking other people's property, by force, using historical, ethnic, religious justification. How many times should I repeat that again?

 

[Shusha]

If that will be a mutually agreed decision, then why not? Extremism is taking other people's property, by force, using historical, ethnic, religious justification. How many times should I repeat that again?

Alright, then. We are back at trying to find examples of Jewish extremism.

 

[ESay]

Alright, then. We are back at trying to find examples of Jewish extremism.

Read some posts here. Making Gaza 'Jewish' is one of it. By that I mean expelling Arab population from there in any significant numbers.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If that will be a mutually agreed decision, then why not? Extremism is taking other people's property, by force, using historical, ethnic, religious justification. How many times should I repeat that again?

As many times as it takes for you to realize not a word of it is true. None of the "property" that makes up Israel was taken by force, and it is the Palestinians who are using Historical, ethnic and religious justifications for trying to eradicate the Jews.