Reshaping US aid to the Palestinians

[Coyote]

I'd also like to point out, because I think its relevant, that in other conflicts of this nature (where two or more ethnic groups are competing for self-determination) what typically happened was a population exchange where each new State ended up with a relatively homogeneous population. Perhaps, had that happened when Palestine was split the first time (Israel and Jordan) we would have a very different conflict, or no conflict at all.

I dont know...most forced population transfers have not ended well for those transferred. They have often ended up in reduced circumstances from where they were before and they hsve lost their communitees and connections to place.

Nice sound byte. Convince me. Name some States which were divided along ethnic lines and new countries formed where the population is worse off AFTER the division than before or during.

thete is a diffetence between dividing along ethnic lines and forced population transfers.

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

 

[Coyote]

]

Actually They did name landmarks and streets after mass murdering terrorists.

words have meanings, Coyote. A terrorist is a person who kills random civilians for a political purpose.

Guerilla war, on the other hand, involves the targeting of strategic military sites and centers of power .

Which Israeli streets are named after terrorists?

Bombing mass transit and open market places are not strategic military sites. Irgun was responsible for an escalation in terrorist activities under commander Menachen Begin including market place bombings. Many things are named for him as well as other Irgun fighters. Now all that more than 60 years ago. It is part of history now.

 

[Shusha]

I'd also like to point out, because I think its relevant, that in other conflicts of this nature (where two or more ethnic groups are competing for self-determination) what typically happened was a population exchange where each new State ended up with a relatively homogeneous population. Perhaps, had that happened when Palestine was split the first time (Israel and Jordan) we would have a very different conflict, or no conflict at all.

I dont know...most forced population transfers have not ended well for those transferred. They have often ended up in reduced circumstances from where they were before and they hsve lost their communitees and connections to place.

Nice sound byte. Convince me. Name some States which were divided along ethnic lines and new countries formed where the population is worse off AFTER the division than before or during.

thete is a diffetence between dividing along ethnic lines and forced population transfers.

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

 

[Coyote]

I dont know...most forced population transfers have not ended well for those transferred. They have often ended up in reduced circumstances from where they were before and they hsve lost their communitees and connections to place.

Nice sound byte. Convince me. Name some States which were divided along ethnic lines and new countries formed where the population is worse off AFTER the division than before or during.

thete is a diffetence between dividing along ethnic lines and forced population transfers.

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

Well...are you talking about a strictly voluntary separation?

 

[Shusha]

]

Actually They did name landmarks and streets after mass murdering terrorists.

words have meanings, Coyote. A terrorist is a person who kills random civilians for a political purpose.

Guerilla war, on the other hand, involves the targeting of strategic military sites and centers of power .

Which Israeli streets are named after terrorists?

Bombing mass transit and open market places are not strategic military sites. Irgun was responsible for an escalation in terrorist activities under commander Menachen Begin including market place bombings. Many things are named for him as well as other Irgun fighters. Now all that more than 60 years ago. It is part of history now.

False equivalency. Begin is not memorialized AS A TERRORIST.

 

[sparky]

Unfuzz me here

we sell arms to Isreal, then give aid to Palestine

aren't we catering to the debuachery vs. mitigating it?

~S~

 

[Shusha]

Nice sound byte. Convince me. Name some States which were divided along ethnic lines and new countries formed where the population is worse off AFTER the division than before or during.

thete is a diffetence between dividing along ethnic lines and forced population transfers.

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

Well...are you talking about a strictly voluntary separation?

Collectively, yes. Individually, no.

 

[Coyote]

]

Actually They did name landmarks and streets after mass murdering terrorists.

words have meanings, Coyote. A terrorist is a person who kills random civilians for a political purpose.

Guerilla war, on the other hand, involves the targeting of strategic military sites and centers of power .

Which Israeli streets are named after terrorists?

Bombing mass transit and open market places are not strategic military sites. Irgun was responsible for an escalation in terrorist activities under commander Menachen Begin including market place bombings. Many things are named for him as well as other Irgun fighters. Now all that more than 60 years ago. It is part of history now.

False equivalency. Begin is not memorialized AS A TERRORIST.

But he was one and that is ignored. Other Irgun members are memorialized as well and unlike Begin the did not go on to greater things.

 

[Coyote]

thete is a diffetence between dividing along ethnic lines and forced population transfers.

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

Well...are you talking about a strictly voluntary separation?

Collectively, yes. Individually, no.

What does that mean exactly?

 

[Shusha]

]

Actually They did name landmarks and streets after mass murdering terrorists.

words have meanings, Coyote. A terrorist is a person who kills random civilians for a political purpose.

Guerilla war, on the other hand, involves the targeting of strategic military sites and centers of power .

Which Israeli streets are named after terrorists?

Bombing mass transit and open market places are not strategic military sites. Irgun was responsible for an escalation in terrorist activities under commander Menachen Begin including market place bombings. Many things are named for him as well as other Irgun fighters. Now all that more than 60 years ago. It is part of history now.

False equivalency. Begin is not memorialized AS A TERRORIST.

But he was one and that is ignored. Other Irgun members are memorialized as well and unlike Begin the did not go on to greater things.

I'll take it as a case-by-case. But you are looking for a Jewish terrorist who is memorialized FOR being a terrorist. Start with Baruch Goldstein. You have a case there. Jews and Israelis near universally think what he did was abhorrent, but there is a VERY small segment which does not. He is the exception which, frankly, proves the rule.

 

[Shusha]

Sure. So give me some examples. Convince me.

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

Well...are you talking about a strictly voluntary separation?

Collectively, yes. Individually, no.

What does that mean exactly?

It means that there is collective agreement that the best way to proceed is to create two (or more) separate, relatively homogeneous cultures in separate territories, while not every individual will agree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

And comparing it against other possible outcomes.

India/Pakistan. Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia. Korea. Etc.

 

[Hollie]

Unfuzz me here

we sell arms to Isreal, then give aid to Palestine

aren't we catering to the debuachery vs. mitigating it?

~S~

I would say, yes. Without being able to offer an explanation as to why, we, (we here the US), ignored the fact that our humanitarian aid to Arabs-Moslems was instead used to further Islamic terrorism and to help Islamic terrorist franchises amass incredible wealth.

In connection with arms to Israel, we have many mutually beneficial relationships with the Jewish State.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. Forced population transfers. Are these people better off?

Typically when this happens people lose home, status, community and livelyhood that is never fully regained. This isnt even looking at the bloodshed and agony over loss of place and heritage.

A small scale example can be found in those communitees in India and other areas affected by rising sea levels and increased flooding. Rather than rebuilding governments are buying them out and or forceably moving them to inland towns and urban areas. But these are agricultural people who no have no land or livelyhood. They end up among the urban destitute worse off then they were before and many don't recover.

Another example is that of the Mizrahi Jews. Prior to being forceably expelled they one of the best integrated and successful Middle Eastern minorities, they had a degree of wealth and status all of which they lost upon expulsion. In Israel they face discrimination from other Jews, an erosion of their culture, and they make up a disproportionate number of Israeli Jews living in poverty. Are they better off then if they had never been expelled?

An ongoing example is the forced and horrifically violent expulsion of the Muslim Rohinga from Bhuddist majority Myanmar. They are typically small farmers, agriculturalists, small merchants. They have lost land, home, livestock and the means of livelihood. They are destitute refugees in a very poor country that shares a common religion. Are they better off? Is Bangladesh?

I think you missed the main point of my initial post. I'm not discussing changed weather patterns or brutal expulsions. But a population exchange in a mutual agreement to separate ethnic groups into two (or more) States through national liberation movements.

Well...are you talking about a strictly voluntary separation?

Collectively, yes. Individually, no.

What does that mean exactly?

It means that there is collective agreement that the best way to proceed is to create two (or more) separate, relatively homogeneous cultures in separate territories, while not every individual will agree. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

And comparing it against other possible outcomes.

India/Pakistan. Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia. Korea. Etc.

India/Pakistan is a horrific example and India, a country where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims still live together..so what did the bloody population transfer really achieve?. Korea did not involve what you are talking about, it was an involuntary seperation of one homogenous cultures due to war.

The mass expulsion of Bosnians and the genocide and conflicts in the Balkans led to huge numbers of displaced people. In fact the world is overflowing with more displaced people in refugee camps than ever before ...how is this good for anyone?

You are not talking about voluntary population transfers in any of thhose cases. There is only one voluntary pipulation transfer I am aware of and that is immigration.

 

[Coyote]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

Then explain why no one complains the atrocities in Lebanon vs Palestinians?

I 100% disagree with you. It’s all about Jew hate.

 

[Coyote]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

Then explain why no one complains the atrocities in Lebanon vs Palestinians?

I 100% disagree with you. It’s all about Jew hate.

1 100% disagree with you. It is perfectly possible to believe both Palestinians and Jews have a right to their identity, to self determination and to the land being squabbled over without hating either one.

As to why they dont care about what happens elsewhere.. Well you tell me. The same can be said about Team Israel. Why do they focus on what the Arabs are doing to Jews but have nothing to say about what the Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga in Myannar?

I DO think the IP conflict gives hardcore antisemites a "legitimate" platform for their hate...they can pretend it isnt about Jews but Zionists. Which falls apart when they application apply different standards to For Jews than for others.

I think the same applies to some who seem to support Israel because they hate Muslims. There too, different standards are applied.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

Then explain why no one complains the atrocities in Lebanon vs Palestinians?

I 100% disagree with you. It’s all about Jew hate.

1 100% disagree with you. It is perfectly possible to believe both Palestinians and Jews have a right to their identity, to self determination and to the land being squabbled over without hating either one.

As to why they dont care about what happens elsewhere.. Well you tell me. The same can be said about Team Israel. Why do they focus on what the Arabs are doing to Jews but have nothing to say about what the Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga in Myannar?

I DO think the IP conflict gives hardcore antisemites a "legitimate" platform for their hate...they can pretend it isnt about Jews but Zionists. Which falls apart when they application apply different standards to For Jews than for others.

I think the same applies to some who seem to support Israel because they hate Muslims. There too, different standards are applied.

You just answered my questions with a question again. Why doesn’t anyone talk about how Lebanon treats the same Palestinians? Israel is a tiny only Jewish nation. They of course worry about themselves. 99% of Jews are Zionists. Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

 

[Coyote]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

Then explain why no one complains the atrocities in Lebanon vs Palestinians?

I 100% disagree with you. It’s all about Jew hate.

1 100% disagree with you. It is perfectly possible to believe both Palestinians and Jews have a right to their identity, to self determination and to the land being squabbled over without hating either one.

As to why they dont care about what happens elsewhere.. Well you tell me. The same can be said about Team Israel. Why do they focus on what the Arabs are doing to Jews but have nothing to say about what the Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga in Myannar?

I DO think the IP conflict gives hardcore antisemites a "legitimate" platform for their hate...they can pretend it isnt about Jews but Zionists. Which falls apart when they application apply different standards to For Jews than for others.

I think the same applies to some who seem to support Israel because they hate Muslims. There too, different standards are applied.

You just answered my questions with a question again. Why doesn’t anyone talk about how Lebanon treats the same Palestinians? Israel is a tiny only Jewish nation. They of course worry about themselves. 99% of Jews are Zionists. Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

Ok. Here is your answer. I dont know.

But here is a fact. The conflict is between Israel and Palestinians and any future autonomy will be there not in Lebenon. That is why we have the IP forum not the Lebenon Palestine Forum. Most of the members on both sides only post here.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If the Kurds were in Gaza and Palestinians were in Turkey people would scream that Israel is oppressing the Kurds. No one would give a F*CK about Palestinians (see Lebanon). Its because Israel has Jews that people care. Their Jew hate is so damn obvious.

Supporting the Palestinian' right to identity and self determination isn't Jew hating.

Then explain why no one complains the atrocities in Lebanon vs Palestinians?

I 100% disagree with you. It’s all about Jew hate.

1 100% disagree with you. It is perfectly possible to believe both Palestinians and Jews have a right to their identity, to self determination and to the land being squabbled over without hating either one.

As to why they dont care about what happens elsewhere.. Well you tell me. The same can be said about Team Israel. Why do they focus on what the Arabs are doing to Jews but have nothing to say about what the Buddhists are doing to the Rohinga in Myannar?

I DO think the IP conflict gives hardcore antisemites a "legitimate" platform for their hate...they can pretend it isnt about Jews but Zionists. Which falls apart when they application apply different standards to For Jews than for others.

I think the same applies to some who seem to support Israel because they hate Muslims. There too, different standards are applied.

You just answered my questions with a question again. Why doesn’t anyone talk about how Lebanon treats the same Palestinians? Israel is a tiny only Jewish nation. They of course worry about themselves. 99% of Jews are Zionists. Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism. Anyone who says differently is a liar.

Ok. Here is your answer. I dont know.

But here is a fact. The conflict is between Israel and Palestinians and any future autonomy will be there not in Lebenon. That is why we have the IP forum not the Lebenon Palestine Forum. Most of the members on both sides only post here.

The reason is Jew hate. If it were Turks in Israel no one would care about the Palestinians. But the dirty Jews!? Well they are oppressors. It is right in front of you ma’am. Please open your eyes.