Escalation in Israel

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
701

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
Surely the Israeli’s would not reject this simply because the Palestinians aren’t Jewish?[/quote]

You’re begging the question, and ignoring the fact that a second party would have to agree to such a situation in order to paint your progressive narrative.

Just in case you haven’t noticed, not every action in the world is driven by choices and considerations based on race.

And every time a progressive like yourself plays the race card inappropriately, which is a majority of the time, another law abiding American citizen purchases a modern sporting rifle and teaches two people how to use it. So by my count that is like 6 rifles sold and 12 more people knowing how to use them.

(That last part is fake, but as long as we’re playing fairy tales here, I want one with a happy ending.) [/quote]

The Israeli law of return unequivocally cements race at the center of the narrative. Its not so much the 6.5 million or so Jews in Israel (they live there and one can’t displace them), but the 12 million or so living peacefully and productively outside it as Europeans and Americans (but who could immediately all go and live in Israel and get citizenship) that is the elephant in the room regarding race.

702

“…the QUTARIS told HER over and over again…that Hamas was a Humanitarian organization…”

Mufasa

703

[quote]Justliftbrah wrote:
Israel has violated over 200 UN resolutions[/quote]

Have proof?

704

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

The Israeli law of return unequivocally cements race at the center of the narrative.

[/quote]

How so? The majority of Mizrahim are of Arab descent are they not?

705

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I just thought this was effective.[/quote]

The Queen’s uncle was assassinated by the IRA. Senior political figures were killed and many more were disabled in the Brighton Hotel bombing. Mny innocent civillians were killed. No one knew where the next bomb was going to go off, or when the next violence would start.

What did the British do? Negotiated a peaceful political settlement with respect to the other sides view. Has it been better for both sides since peace? Definitely. British people know that killing civilians is wrong.

Almost every person in Britain who saw that imagine immediately thought of the Brighton Hotel bombed and an Israeli flag flying over it, then Belfast flattened to the ground with 1000s of innocents dead, and then realized how mad the Israeli assault on Gaza is…

[/quote]

Not even close to being comparable. Not even remotely close.

You oughta be ashamed. That was so very, very weak. Try deadlifting.
[/quote]

The writer must resort to historical analogy, however inapposite, because he has no other thought. Just outrage.

So, by arguing by analogy, are we to believe:
–Israel should choose to negotiate with the IRA in 1978?
–Britain was posed with an existential threat of missiles sent from Derry? And then conceded–what?–its entire landmass?
–Hamas should substitute rockets for bombing bars in Liverpool, because that is so much more ethical?

No. The writer believes that 2/3 of Israel should be subject to random bombing, that Hamas should terrorize its own population* and hold them hostage, until…what? Why, until the Jews are expunged, because that is the reason for Hamas.

*Note please: there are now reports of Hamas executing Gazan who have protested against them, for “supporting the enemy.” This is entirely plausible, given what was done to Fatah supporters in 2006-2007.
And I don’t need to analogize to the IRA.

[/quote]

Just google map of Israel-Palestine showing land changes between Israel’s initial establishment and now. It doesn’t actually matter whether Hamas SAY they want to wipe Israel out and take all their territory and pose an existential threat to them, when Israel HAS actually wiped much of Palestine out, displaced its population and with every illegal settlement destroys it a little bit more.

Look at the actions, not the words. [/quote]

And you need to read a book. Maybe two.

706

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

The Israeli law of return unequivocally cements race at the center of the narrative. Its not so much the 6.5 million or so Jews in Israel (they live there and one can’t displace them), but the 12 million or so living peacefully and productively outside it as Europeans and Americans (but who could immediately all go and live in Israel and get citizenship) that is the elephant in the room regarding race.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about?

That has nothing to do with “race” in the way you have tried to use race her in this thread to mislead people.

So, Israel has the same policy every other nation does regarding people returning “home” to their country and suddenly it’s because Israel is racist so the need to bomb Hamas?

Your tree, you’ve gone out of it.

707

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
British people know that killing civilians is wrong.

[/quote]

LMAO!

Since when?[/quote]

Well the vote against bombing Assad was one clear turning point.
[/quote]

I thought the entire crux of your argument was the whole Irish Bombing stuff, but now it’s years later and dealing with Assad?

You’re all over the map man. Peg one thing down and stick with it.
[/quote]

D’oh! I forgot I was discussing this with mainly Americans, and thus the war in Iraq is only likely to be seen as Britain and the West caring about civilians.

The Irish example was one example of many that essentially says that a political solution where both sides compromise is better than killing.

708

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…the QUTARIS told HER over and over again…that Hamas was a Humanitarian organization…”

Mufasa[/quote]

And why was she repeating what she had been told?

The Qataris told me Hamas is a humanitarian organisation which is demonstrably untrue?

Nope.

They told me this over and over again - implication: it must be true.

709

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…the QUTARIS told HER over and over again…that Hamas was a Humanitarian organization…”

Mufasa[/quote]

Waiting for you to have the same defense of Clay Akin when he said a DOCTOR told HIM women can’t get pregnant from rape.

Off topic, but that is a lame, lame, lame ass defense of a moonbat, and I’m sure you feel dirty for making it.

710

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
1987-2011 Israel responsible for about 8000 Palestinians killed, against 1400 Israelis killed.
1969-2001 British Gov and associated groups responsible for about 1400 killed, with IRA groups etc responsible for about 2100 killed.

If the British government acted like the Israeli government, there would have been about 7466 killed. So the numbers are pretty similar.
[/quote]
There were only ever about 10k total IRA members tops over the course of your entire time frame lol. As opposed to over 4 million Palestinians. So sounds like England wiped out nearly a quarter of their enemy’s entire population whereas Israel is less than .2%

My point being that in addition to the situations being politically totally dissimilar, it’s not a good idea to try and mathematically equate them regardless.

711

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
The Irish example was one example of many that essentially says that a political solution where both sides compromise is better than killing.
[/quote]
Why don’t you do the world a favor and figure out a compromise that Hamas will agree to. Because they are the ones who refuse ceasefires, truces, and compromises. They want the Jews gone.

712

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So, since, like, yesterday?

Open a history book before you start casting aspersions, son.[/quote]

British people don’t tend to do this weird civilizational reading of history where ‘us’ is the sum total of what we did in the world since Britain began.

From where Britain was 100 years ago, does it look like Britain acts more morally and with more respect for human life or less morally and with less respect for human life? Clearly the former.

Does Israel seem to have managed to make Israel a safe place for Jews that is friends with its neighbors? Not at all. This is what is so bizarre about the whole conflict, even if you are a serious Zionist, Israel’s current actions just cannot be good for them in the long run.

713

Believe what you want, SM…

I do NOT believe that Pelosi thinks that Hamas is a Humanitarian organization.

Nor to I think that the President gets into dick-waving contest with Benjamin Netanyahu during private conversations.

Mufasa

714

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
British people know that killing civilians is wrong.

[/quote]

LMAO!

Since when?[/quote]

Well the vote against bombing Assad was one clear turning point. One can only shudder at the thought of ISIS controlling Assad’s chemical weapons (which are now safely being destroyed on an American navy ship) if the British vote hadn’t put the brakes on the Americans and the French.

[/quote]

So…Assad’s war has killed more than 160,000 people, and since the British Parliament’s brave vote, how many more have been killed? Hard to know, since the UN gave up counting about 8 months ago. One guess is 40,000 more. So the British vote put a brake on exactly what? Do you think that the brave Mother of Parliaments caused 60,000 more deaths since last summer, or prevented some imagined number?
Inaction is also a cause of disaster, but it hides in a cloak of irresponsibility.

715

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
British people know that killing civilians is wrong.

[/quote]

LMAO!

Since when?[/quote]

Well the vote against bombing Assad was one clear turning point.
[/quote]

I thought the entire crux of your argument was the whole Irish Bombing stuff, but now it’s years later and dealing with Assad?

You’re all over the map man. Peg one thing down and stick with it.
[/quote]

D’oh! I forgot I was discussing this with mainly Americans, and thus the war in Iraq is only likely to be seen as Britain and the West caring about civilians.

[/quote]

If you’re talking about bombing Assad, he’s the ruler of Syria, not Iraq…? So, what’s this got to do with anything?

716

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

D’oh! I forgot I was discussing this with mainly Americans,[/quote]

Is this some sort of personal attack? You like fallacy don’t you? It’s particularly amusing seeing as this is a backhanded insult to my intelligence based on where I’m from and my culture… Seems a touch “racist” of you.

Now you’re talking about Iraq?

Dude, make up your mind. Pick a situation and a generalization about people and stick with it.

[quote]The Irish example was one example of many that essentially says that a political solution where both sides compromise is better than killing.

[/quote]

No, you’ve been caught with your pants down praising the actions of a country to defend your warped view and using that same country and the very same fucking practices to justify the actions of the terrorists your defending here.

First they are evil colonialists that caused the damage to the Jews, then they are golden boys as they basically colonize the Irish, then the example you come up with of them not killing people is from last month…

717

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

The Israeli law of return unequivocally cements race at the center of the narrative.

[/quote]

How so? The majority of Mizrahim are of Arab descent are they not?
[/quote]

Nope. Mizrahim are not Arabs who have converted to Judaism, which they would have to be to prove the point you are trying to make.

Race isn’t simply about skin colour.

718

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Believe what you want, SM…

I do NOT believe that Pelosi thinks that Hamas is a Humanitarian organization.
[/quote]

Neither do I. Which makes her infinitely culpable for suggesting it. See what beans said. You’re defending utter moonbattery and it reflects poorly upon you.

719

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
From where Britain was 100 years ago, [/quote]

lol, yes.

“My country has been pretty swell in the short time frame I choose to pay attention to, so I’ll forget the totality of human history and even the same government sponsored violence I’m speaking out about.”

lol

720

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I just thought this was effective.[/quote]

The Queen’s uncle was assassinated by the IRA. Senior political figures were killed and many more were disabled in the Brighton Hotel bombing. Mny innocent civillians were killed. No one knew where the next bomb was going to go off, or when the next violence would start.

What did the British do? Negotiated a peaceful political settlement with respect to the other sides view. Has it been better for both sides since peace? Definitely. British people know that killing civilians is wrong.

Almost every person in Britain who saw that imagine immediately thought of the Brighton Hotel bombed and an Israeli flag flying over it, then Belfast flattened to the ground with 1000s of innocents dead, and then realized how mad the Israeli assault on Gaza is.

In France one thinks of the propaganda put out by the French colonial government in Algeria and the massacres by the foreign legion there in the name of self defense.

The bizarre IDF propaganda shows that Israel seems to have a great sense of >2000 years ago, but absolutely zero sense of what has happened in the mean time. [/quote]

Except the IRA is willing to stop. Hamas is not, neither is PA. They have rejected a state over 20 times and attacked harder and harder after each time the Jewish state and international community offered them a state.

IRA don’t fundamentally hate Brits. Hamas fundamentally hates Jews. Jews have been dealing with Moslems for the past 1400 years, I don’t think they forgot all the rivers of blood declared by Palestine leaders.