Trump's Jewish mediator condemns Palestinian violence

[Coyote]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

My parallel is in condemning bad behavior on both sides. So far - they have condemned nothing on the Israeli side. That is why I'm curious as to whether they will or whether it will be entirely one sided. Regardless of how you feel about settlements they are are one of many issues in conflict.

 

[montelatici]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

 

[montelatici]

They are descendants of colonists. There is nothing mindless about facts. The Zionists that invaded Palestine came from elsewhere and colonized the land expelling a large number of the native people. That's just a fact. The native people of Palestine are, apparently, far more resilient demographically than the Native Americans. They now equal or outnumber the Jews that rule over them. That dynamic can't last for the long term.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

So, people born in colonies are no colonists?

Uhhh, OK.

 

[rylah]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

So, people born in colonies are no colonists?

Uhhh, OK.

hhhh You instantly got my point.
It doesn't matter how much time You live in the land, if You have nothing except mere prolonged presence and subjugation of indigenous people, it doesn't give You any rights or privileges over the indigenous people. Especially if Your main demand is for the indigenous people to have no determination.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

So, people born in colonies are no colonists?

Uhhh, OK.

hhhh You instantly got my point.
It doesn't matter how much time You live in the land, if You have nothing except mere prolonged presence and subjugation of indigenous people, it doesn't give You any rights or privileges over the indigenous people. Especially if Your main demand is for the indigenous people to have no determination.

Indigenous is such a nebulous term. You could go all the way back to the cave man and even they might be from someplace else. Inhabitants is an often used word that more closely follows reality. I often use the term the people of the place. Race, religion, color, national origin, etc. are irrelevant. What is important is that these people live together in a functioning society with few problems. Palestine was like this for hundreds of years before WWI.

The British/Zionist colonial project upset that apple cart. They did not go to Palestine to join and become a part of that society. They went to replace that society with their own.

They turned a place of peace into a place of war.

 

[rylah]

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

So, people born in colonies are no colonists?

Uhhh, OK.

hhhh You instantly got my point.
It doesn't matter how much time You live in the land, if You have nothing except mere prolonged presence and subjugation of indigenous people, it doesn't give You any rights or privileges over the indigenous people. Especially if Your main demand is for the indigenous people to have no determination.

Indigenous is such a nebulous term. You could go all the way back to the cave man and even they might be from someplace else. Inhabitants is an often used word that more closely follows reality. I often use the term the people of the place. Race, religion, color, national origin, etc. are irrelevant. What is important is that these people live together in a functioning society with few problems. Palestine was like this for hundreds of years before WWI.

The British/Zionist colonial project upset that apple cart. They did not go to Palestine to join and become a part of that society. They went to replace that society with their own.

They turned a place of peace into a place of war.

Well if You 'don't get' what indigenous means, it's only because it serves Your agenda of support for the continuation of the colonialism You pretend to fight.

If You want to understand what 'indigenous' means simply look at Yazidis, Kurds, Druze and other people with a unique identity, culture and heritage in the ME that is not Arabian. People who have developed unique cultures OF THE PLACE, not the colonial cultures of their invaders, people who have their own language, not only the language of foreign invaders. People who originated in a specific land and it's the source of their identity, those who keep that identity while invaders come and go.

The goal of a the Arab Muslim colonizer, to weed out the indigenous population and blur their identity. But surprise surprise - the ME still has a variety of unique indigenous people who have retained their their original culture, heritage and presence . They're the people of the place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for the perceived 'peace' propaganda - this is just a fairytale. One can just look at the 100 years prior to the first Zionist immigration, and realize that the society was (and still) fragmented, sectarian. Internal wars, blood libels against Jews and forced conversions.
No matter who revolted Jews were targeted.

I prefer Israel with its' problems and the way it treats minorities than another 'functioning peace' like Syria.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

He should condemn Palestinian violence.

Now lets see if he condemns the settlements.

Interesting that you draw a parallel between the presence of Jews and murdering Jews as if there was a moral equivalence there. Should we be condemning Arab presence in Israel as well?

The Jews were living elsewhere, invaded Palestine, colonized the place and evicted a large portion of the native population from their homes. How can you possibly condemn the presence of any remaining native people. What needs to be condemned is the continued presence of the colonists.

Most people living in Israel were born there and have parents or grandparents who were born there. A couple of generations have gone by, and you shouldn't refer to them as "colonists" any longer, in this day and age. You are living in the past. And despite your mindless mantras, you've never proven that the Arabs are the native people of the place. Israel/Palestine is 5,000 years old, yet you think that the population has remained the same since Canaanite times. America is only 500 years old, yet out of 350 million people, less than 5 million are Natives.

So, people born in colonies are no colonists?

Uhhh, OK.

So the descendants from the Mayflower in America are still called colonists today?

 

[Hollie]

They are descendants of colonists. There is nothing mindless about facts. The Zionists that invaded Palestine came from elsewhere and colonized the land expelling a large number of the native people. That's just a fact. The native people of Palestine are, apparently, far more resilient demographically than the Native Americans. They now equal or outnumber the Jews that rule over them. That dynamic can't last for the long term.

It's comical how you whine about the "Jew colonists", but you're totally oblivious to the history of the area which includes Mongol, Arab, Turk and European Christian colonists.

Your silly "native people"' whining is simply a reflection of your insensate Joooo hatreds and completely ignores any understanding on your part that the "native people" meme you babble about has little relevance.

 

[rylah]

Stop speaking for the Jewish people.

Why? Why should I stop speaking for the Jewish people? And what gives you the right to demand that of me?

If the Jewish people who frequent this board want me to stop posting because my comments do not represent their position or because my comments have no value THEY can ask me to stop. And I will respect their request.

You pretend to speak for the Jewish people but you are self-appointed. I suspect you fairly do represent the opinions of Zionists but not all Jews think as you do and they are citizens of the European Union, loyal to the liberal and democratic values of our democracies.

I suspect You feel really liberal and democratic trying to silence Shusha.
You are the one who claimed Hebrew scrolls should be 'protected' by Arab Muslims enemies of Jews, under the guise of 'neutrality'.

Jews in Europe support liberalism exactly because they're different.

 

[Eloy]

Stop speaking for the Jewish people.

Why? Why should I stop speaking for the Jewish people? And what gives you the right to demand that of me?

If the Jewish people who frequent this board want me to stop posting because my comments do not represent their position or because my comments have no value THEY can ask me to stop. And I will respect their request.

You pretend to speak for the Jewish people but you are self-appointed. I suspect you fairly do represent the opinions of Zionists but not all Jews think as you do and they are citizens of the European Union, loyal to the liberal and democratic values of our democracies.

I suspect You feel really liberal and democratic trying to silence Shusha.
You are the one who claimed Hebrew scrolls should be 'protected' by Arab Muslims enemies of Jews, under the guise of 'neutrality'.

Jews in Europe support liberalism exactly because they're different.

It is both inaccurate and dangerous to espouse that Jews are different from their fellow citizens in the European Union where their passports are not stamped with a red letter J.

 

[Lipush]

Since when condemning terrorism is a bad thing?

 

[Correll]

The problem has been addressed countless times.


By Addressed, I assume you mean, given everything they want?

The Palestinians want all of Palestine.

Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Because they are not the only ones with a claim to that land.

The Palestinians are the citizens of Palestine. This status gives them the standard list of rights for the people of the place. Nobody has the right to violate those rights.

The Israelis have been living on part of that land for generations. THat makes them natives and gives them rights too.


YOU are the one that wants to pick and choose who's rights are respected.

THat makes them natives and gives them rights too.

The operative word here is too. The Zionists did not want to live there too. They wanted to pig the place for themselves. This was the start of the violation of Palestinian rights and international law, and of course the beginning of the conflict that has been brewing for the last hundred years.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

"citing what some zionist said in 1939 does not define government policy today, or for the last several decades.

THe fact remains, you are the one that wants to deprive others of rights.

 

[rylah]

Stop speaking for the Jewish people.

Why? Why should I stop speaking for the Jewish people? And what gives you the right to demand that of me?

If the Jewish people who frequent this board want me to stop posting because my comments do not represent their position or because my comments have no value THEY can ask me to stop. And I will respect their request.

You pretend to speak for the Jewish people but you are self-appointed. I suspect you fairly do represent the opinions of Zionists but not all Jews think as you do and they are citizens of the European Union, loyal to the liberal and democratic values of our democracies.

I suspect You feel really liberal and democratic trying to silence Shusha.
You are the one who claimed Hebrew scrolls should be 'protected' by Arab Muslims enemies of Jews, under the guise of 'neutrality'.

Jews in Europe support liberalism exactly because they're different.

It is both inaccurate and dangerous to espouse that Jews are different from their fellow citizens in the European Union where their passports are not stamped with a red letter J.

I see it completely in opposite.
Claiming that all people are the same without distinction and identity, other than that of the political entity they're ruled by is way more dangerous.
You can be different and support democracy, this is what democracy allows - discuss our differences and give them the proper expression in the public arena.

What You say actually sounds Orwellian, like a demand for all to 'align to a ruler', and not dare express anything different than the party line.

This is neither liberalism nor democracy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians want all of Palestine.

Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Because they are not the only ones with a claim to that land.

The Palestinians are the citizens of Palestine. This status gives them the standard list of rights for the people of the place. Nobody has the right to violate those rights.

The Israelis have been living on part of that land for generations. THat makes them natives and gives them rights too.


YOU are the one that wants to pick and choose who's rights are respected.

THat makes them natives and gives them rights too.

The operative word here is too. The Zionists did not want to live there too. They wanted to pig the place for themselves. This was the start of the violation of Palestinian rights and international law, and of course the beginning of the conflict that has been brewing for the last hundred years.

Leila Farsakh: Mandatory Palestine prior to 1939 - Opposition to British policy and Zionist project

"citing what some zionist said in 1939 does not define government policy today, or for the last several decades.

THe fact remains, you are the one that wants to deprive others of rights.

I don't recall ever saying that.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is an opportunity for making NEW proposals. Ones that are NOT mired in old stalemates. These folks know how to make deals attractive. By adding in stuff that it is too difficult to refuse.

But as always -- there is no UNIFIED Palestine to negotiate with. And negotiating with folks who don't HAVE the backing of the Palis is pretty useless. There is no more functional Pali leadership to negotiate with. As witnessed by the Gaza deal. Which had some very enticing FUTURE attached to it. And it became an item for the Palis to go to war WITH EACH OTHER over. And it wrecked that "negotiation".

You don't negotiate with insurrections. If there is to be a Palestine -- it better QUICKLY agree on a negotiating team...

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is an opportunity for making NEW proposals. Ones that are NOT mired in old stalemates. These folks know how to make deals attractive. By adding in stuff that it is too difficult to refuse.

But as always -- there is no UNIFIED Palestine to negotiate with. And negotiating with folks who don't HAVE the backing of the Palis is pretty useless. There is no more functional Pali leadership to negotiate with. As witnessed by the Gaza deal. Which had some very enticing FUTURE attached to it. And it became an item for the Palis to go to war WITH EACH OTHER over. And it wrecked that "negotiation".

You don't negotiate with insurrections. If there is to be a Palestine -- it better QUICKLY agree on a negotiating team...

Palestine needs new elections, but we have that government so trashed that elections can't happen.

 

[Eloy]

Stop speaking for the Jewish people.

Why? Why should I stop speaking for the Jewish people? And what gives you the right to demand that of me?

If the Jewish people who frequent this board want me to stop posting because my comments do not represent their position or because my comments have no value THEY can ask me to stop. And I will respect their request.

You pretend to speak for the Jewish people but you are self-appointed. I suspect you fairly do represent the opinions of Zionists but not all Jews think as you do and they are citizens of the European Union, loyal to the liberal and democratic values of our democracies.

I suspect You feel really liberal and democratic trying to silence Shusha.
You are the one who claimed Hebrew scrolls should be 'protected' by Arab Muslims enemies of Jews, under the guise of 'neutrality'.

Jews in Europe support liberalism exactly because they're different.

It is both inaccurate and dangerous to espouse that Jews are different from their fellow citizens in the European Union where their passports are not stamped with a red letter J.

I see it completely in opposite.
Claiming that all people are the same without distinction and identity, other than that of the political entity they're ruled by is way more dangerous.
You can be different and support democracy, this is what democracy allows - discuss our differences and give them the proper expression in the public arena.

What You say actually sounds Orwellian, like a demand for all to 'align to a ruler', and not dare express anything different than the party line.

This is neither liberalism nor democracy.

Being a citizen does not depend on which is the governing political party. The only identity that matters is that which unites all the people. If Muslims or Jews want to have a different culture, language, and identity to that of the common people then it is best that they relocate to Syria or Israel rather than have people who reject and refuse to accept the democratic and cultural values which bind the people of the European Union countries.

 

[rylah]

Why? Why should I stop speaking for the Jewish people? And what gives you the right to demand that of me?

If the Jewish people who frequent this board want me to stop posting because my comments do not represent their position or because my comments have no value THEY can ask me to stop. And I will respect their request.

You pretend to speak for the Jewish people but you are self-appointed. I suspect you fairly do represent the opinions of Zionists but not all Jews think as you do and they are citizens of the European Union, loyal to the liberal and democratic values of our democracies.

I suspect You feel really liberal and democratic trying to silence Shusha.
You are the one who claimed Hebrew scrolls should be 'protected' by Arab Muslims enemies of Jews, under the guise of 'neutrality'.

Jews in Europe support liberalism exactly because they're different.

It is both inaccurate and dangerous to espouse that Jews are different from their fellow citizens in the European Union where their passports are not stamped with a red letter J.

I see it completely in opposite.
Claiming that all people are the same without distinction and identity, other than that of the political entity they're ruled by is way more dangerous.
You can be different and support democracy, this is what democracy allows - discuss our differences and give them the proper expression in the public arena.

What You say actually sounds Orwellian, like a demand for all to 'align to a ruler', and not dare express anything different than the party line.

This is neither liberalism nor democracy.

Being a citizen does not depend on which is the governing political party. The only identity that matters is that which unites all the people. If Muslims or Jews want to have a different culture, language, and identity to that of the common people then it is best that they relocate to Syria or Israel rather than have people who reject and refuse to accept the democratic and cultural values which bind the people of the European Union countries.

Are You really comparing recent Syrian refugees to communities of Jews in Europe who retained and identified with their Jewish heritage, while at the same time were an influential contributor to that society?

Having an identity other than that allowed by the ruling class does not negate democracy, the other way around. What You describe is Totalitarianism:

" A distinctive feature of totalitarian governments is an "elaborate ideology, a set of ideas that gives meaning and direction to the whole society".[2]