What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy

[Phoenall]

Has it? Never noticed.

"What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy" Quit? When did it start?

Apparently that isn't relevant. One would think the OP should have been titled 'What if Israel Continued to be an Arsehole'?

Wouldn't that be another of your blood libels and anti Jew racist remarks ?

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting...and food for thought. Basheer Assad is certainly not concerned about HR and IHL. Yet, the US/allied attacks against ISIS are very careful to avoid civilian casualties to the point where the conflict is now entering it's 6th year. It certainly makes for horrific choices - for example, the choice that was made of using the atomic bomb on Japan and it's horrific aftermath alongside a quicker and decisive end to the conflict. There is no "good" choice. Yet Asymetric Activity has always been a part of warfare hasn't it? And it's the only way non-state actors (for example seperatists or "freedom fighters") can wage conflict against a state - it's the tactic used by the Jewish guerrellas in the founding of Israel and it was successful. It seems somehow hypocritical to condemn the Palestinians for doing to the Israeli's what the Israeli's did to the British for much the same reason - a desire for a state.

I think your final few premisses are incorrect. I can't see any evidence that the pali's actually want a state, they seem much much more interested in the destruction of Israel.

Also the difference is that the Irgun wasn't strapping bombs onto 14 year olds and sending them on over.

Its that whole false equivalency thing again

But I do agree there are some serious issues to be considered for finalizing the war asap. Thats why I suggested the Israeli's use aid as a carrot to bring as many innocents out of the terrorist enclaves as possible as fast as possible and get them to safety. Israel needs to continue winning the PR war.

The usual propaganda by Boston:

1. Palestinians don't want a state.

The Palestinians started demanding an independent state as articulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 since 1922.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

2. As far as teenage resistance fighters:

"During World War II, approximately 30,000 Jews fought back as partisans, armed resistance fighters. Many partisans were teens and they significantly impeded the German war efforts and saved thousands of lives."

http://www.nj.gov/education/holocaust/resources/partisans.pdf

Not quite right what they demanded was an Islamic caliphate with the power of life and death over all the inhabitants. Which the LoN refused to accept and so split the land into 2 seperate parts so that no one religion/race would have sole sovereignty and the arab muslims have tried to usurp this ever since. Read your own link as it says just this

 

[Roudy]

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

I don't understand why you post links that prove my point. Are you a masochist? From your link:

View attachment 62438

I don't understand why you're a stupid moron who doesn't post the entire image which actually proves that while sympathies with Israel have remained constant, American public's dislike for Palestinians has increased. Are you a paid propagandist? Who does this shit, cut and crop images to conform to their warped ideology? Only a mental case.

 

[Roudy]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting...and food for thought. Basheer Assad is certainly not concerned about HR and IHL. Yet, the US/allied attacks against ISIS are very careful to avoid civilian casualties to the point where the conflict is now entering it's 6th year. It certainly makes for horrific choices - for example, the choice that was made of using the atomic bomb on Japan and it's horrific aftermath alongside a quicker and decisive end to the conflict. There is no "good" choice. Yet Asymetric Activity has always been a part of warfare hasn't it? And it's the only way non-state actors (for example seperatists or "freedom fighters") can wage conflict against a state - it's the tactic used by the Jewish guerrellas in the founding of Israel and it was successful. It seems somehow hypocritical to condemn the Palestinians for doing to the Israeli's what the Israeli's did to the British for much the same reason - a desire for a state.

I think your final few premisses are incorrect. I can't see any evidence that the pali's actually want a state, they seem much much more interested in the destruction of Israel.

Also the difference is that the Irgun wasn't strapping bombs onto 14 year olds and sending them on over.

Its that whole false equivalency thing again

But I do agree there are some serious issues to be considered for finalizing the war asap. Thats why I suggested the Israeli's use aid as a carrot to bring as many innocents out of the terrorist enclaves as possible as fast as possible and get them to safety. Israel needs to continue winning the PR war.

The usual propaganda by Boston:

1. Palestinians don't want a state.

The Palestinians started demanding an independent state as articulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 since 1922.

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

2. As far as teenage resistance fighters:

"During World War II, approximately 30,000 Jews fought back as partisans, armed resistance fighters. Many partisans were teens and they significantly impeded the German war efforts and saved thousands of lives."

http://www.nj.gov/education/holocaust/resources/partisans.pdf

1922 Jordan was designated to Jordan. They refused. Tough shit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wrong

I'm exactly on target.

The Israeli's have a right to defend themselves

See
United Nations Charter
article 51

There is a condition of war as declared by the Arab League

see
Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948

Also see
Article 2 III Geneva Convention

The Israeli's have the right to detain prisoners of war

See
III Geneva Convention articles 3,4,5,6,10,23,28,33,60,65,66,67,72,73,75,109,110,118,119,122,132

Israeli has an obligation to segregate POWs from civilians and refugees.

See
Common article 3 of the geneva Conventions
Article 75 first protocol of the Geneva Conventions

Israel may repatriate POWs to neutral third parties.

See
Article 12 III Geneva Convention

Sorry but If you have any specific complaints about any of my suggestions that can be seen within the provisions on the conduct of war feel free. But so far you've offered not a shred of supporting arguments within law.

There is a condition of war as declared by the Arab League

see
Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948​

Was Palestine a member of the Arab League?

The Arab League invaded Palestine. They did not attack Israel.

Palestine was already under attack by foreign forces before the 1948 war and that attack continues. There were already over 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war.

Irrelevant as members of the arab league became Palestinians. And they did become members when the all Palestinian government ( Egypt and the arab league ) tried to declare independence on land already independent.

The arab league attacked the Jews in 1947, and then invaded the lands of Palestine illegally in May 1948. The words of the arab league leaders show that they were intent on the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

Then why didn't the UN make them refugees and set in place standard refugee policies, not set yo the UNWRA because the arab muslims did not have the two years residency required to be refugees. If the arab muslims had not left under their own free will they would not have been refugees, and the numbers you give happen to be the total population numbers for 1948 for the whole of Palestine. So how could arab muslims living in gaza and the west bank be refugees when they were on their home lands ?

And they did become members when the all Palestinian government ( Egypt and the arab league ) tried to declare independence on land already independent.​

Another big Israeli lie.

You have no proof of that.

 

[montelatici]

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

I don't understand why you post links that prove my point. Are you a masochist? From your link:

View attachment 62438

I don't understand why you're a stupid moron who doesn't post the entire image which actually proves that while sympathies with Israel have remained constant, Americans dislike for Palestinians has increased. Are you a paid propagandist? Who does this shit, cut and crop images to conform their warped ideology? Only a mental case.

Let's see. You specifically stated that Americans that are favorable to Israel was increasing. I posted the data from your own link that contradicts your assertion. You either don't read the information you provide, you have a reading comprehension problem, are confused, or purposely lie about the information you post as backing up your assertions.

 

[Roudy]

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

I don't understand why you post links that prove my point. Are you a masochist? From your link:

View attachment 62438

I don't understand why you're a stupid moron who doesn't post the entire image which actually proves that while sympathies with Israel have remained constant, Americans dislike for Palestinians has increased. Are you a paid propagandist? Who does this shit, cut and crop images to conform their warped ideology? Only a mental case.

Let's see. You specifically stated that Americans that are favorable to Israel was increasing. I posted the data from your own link that contradicts your assertion. You either don't read the information you provide, you have a reading comprehension problem, are confused, or purposely lie about the information you post as backing up your assertions.

No you cropped the image because the rest of it made you look like a fool. You assume that everybody is as stupid as you are, which kind of goes with the territory. Let me post the article again, so you can read and weep, how much Americans support Israel, and how much they hate your beloved Paleshitians:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

 

[montelatici]

I don't see how disproving your lie, that support for Israel is increasing, using your own link does anything for your credibility. It enhances mine, obviously.

 

[Roudy]

Talk about cognitive dissonance: "it enhances mine obviously". Yup, you're a legend in your own mind.

As the article states, support for Israel remains strong.

 

[montelatici]

The article you linked to disproves your lie that support for Israel in the U.S. is growing. It proves the opposite.

 

[Shusha]

NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means.​

Such as?

Accept one of the peace treaties offered. Sign an end-of-conflict agreement. And hey, here's an idea: use the concrete trucked into Gaza to rebuild homes, schools and hospitals instead of tunnels.

The real question is WHY the Gazans and the Palestinians haven't done these things already.

 

[montelatici]

An end of conflict agreement that rid the Palestinians of Israeli control has never been offered.

 

[Hollie]

An end of conflict agreement that rid the Palestinians of Israeli control has never been offered.

Islamo-fascism as reiterated in the Hamas Charter knows no geographic borders or passage of time.

 

[Shusha]

An end of conflict agreement that rid the Palestinians of Israeli control has never been offered.

Israel's very valid security concerns have to be addressed. It will be temporary if Gaza and Palestine live up to the agreements.

 

[montelatici]

Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of the occupied territories, ever. Israel believes that it can rule over a non-enfranchised population of non-Jews indefinitely. That is the current strategy.

"Israel’s policy for the past decade or more is clear. It will continue to expand settlements throughout the West Bank. It will built and exclude Palestinians from Area C. On Jan. 21, in one of its latest confiscations Israel announced that it would annex 350 acres of “state land” near Jericho (Ariha) in the West Bank’s Jordan Valley. In November, Minister of Education and Diaspora Affairs Naftali Bennett said Israel would begin to settle 100,000 Jews in the Golan Heights conquered by Israel from Syria in 1967, further encircling Palestinians in the West Bank. There is nothing that Syria can do because it is in the throes of a profound civil war.

Bennett has also stated there is no need for either a two-state or a one-state solution. According to Bennett, the Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel are under control and the 320,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem are being integrated into Greater Jerusalem. As for the 2.5 million Palestinians in the remaining 40 percent of the West Bank, they will not be allowed to vote or become citizens of Israel, lessening the possibility that Israel will lose its “Jewish state” identity and characteristics — the fear of past US administrations, the Obama administration and a goodly proportion of Americans."

The Demise of the Two-State Solution and Israel’s Culpability

 

[Roudy]

The article you linked to disproves your lie that support for Israel in the U.S. is growing. It proves the opposite.

Yes it proves that American hatred for Paleshitians keeps increasing. Soweee!

 

[Roudy]

Israel has no intention of relinquishing control of the occupied territories, ever. Israel believes that it can rule over a non-enfranchised population of non-Jews indefinitely. That is the current strategy.

"Israel’s policy for the past decade or more is clear. It will continue to expand settlements throughout the West Bank. It will built and exclude Palestinians from Area C. On Jan. 21, in one of its latest confiscations Israel announced that it would annex 350 acres of “state land” near Jericho (Ariha) in the West Bank’s Jordan Valley. In November, Minister of Education and Diaspora Affairs Naftali Bennett said Israel would begin to settle 100,000 Jews in the Golan Heights conquered by Israel from Syria in 1967, further encircling Palestinians in the West Bank. There is nothing that Syria can do because it is in the throes of a profound civil war.

Bennett has also stated there is no need for either a two-state or a one-state solution. According to Bennett, the Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel are under control and the 320,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem are being integrated into Greater Jerusalem. As for the 2.5 million Palestinians in the remaining 40 percent of the West Bank, they will not be allowed to vote or become citizens of Israel, lessening the possibility that Israel will lose its “Jewish state” identity and characteristics — the fear of past US administrations, the Obama administration and a goodly proportion of Americans."

The Demise of the Two-State Solution and Israel’s Culpability

Took you this long to figure it out? The barbaric Palestinian behavior that occurred after Gaza was handed back to them proved one thing to Israel and the world, there is no peace with the animals.

 

[Boston1]

Yeah that was one hell of a scene. I remember seeing pictures of them tearing down millions of dollars worth of infrastructure simply because it had been built by the Israeli's

Billions in properties were handed over only to be destroyed out of pure racism and bigotry

That should be a thread of its own.

In any case I think Israel should push the failure of these clowns to negotiate angle and follow an entirely different path to peace.

Win the war.

 

[montelatici]

1. Gaza was not "handed back" it was turned into a large concentration camp under complete Israeli perimeter control.

2. The Israeli Jews have never had any intention of relinquishing control over the Christians and Muslims and have never had any intention of allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

 

[Hollie]

1. Gaza was not "handed back" it was turned into a large concentration camp under complete Israeli perimeter control.

2. The Israeli Jews have never had any intention of relinquishing control over the Christians and Muslims and have never had any intention of allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state.

1. Gaza was in fact handed back to Islamic terrorists when Israel unilaterally withdrew. That was yet another disaster in a never ending series of self-created disasters when the Arab retrogrades were given another opportunity to develop a functioning society and as usual, they failed.

2. See comments in item 1.