Respectfully, you don’t actually care about the area or you would know more about it, the people who live there, and their history, so what’s the point of your question.
I was merely pointing out that the vast majority of Palestinians favor removing Israel and replacing it with a united Palestine.
Your content-free one-liners had limited amusement value, to begin with. Now they are edging into the realm of simply aggravating other posters. If you want to make that sort of post, take it to The BBQ Pit.
This forum is for actual discussion, not juvenile cracks.
[ /Moderating ]
Israel doesn’t treat all Palestinians like shit because of what Hamas does. As previously cited, Israel has made multiple concessions in spite of what Hamas does.
Hamas treats Palestinian civilians as expendable. Israel tries to minimize the effects of this attitude by Hamas.
Regards,
Shodan
Your odd focus on capitalization simply indicates an ignorance of the printing protocols of the time. A number of printers followed the German convention of capitalizing all nouns. Since the word “united” is an adjective, it did not get capitalized in all documents.
The Articles of Confederation, written the same summer as the Declaration of Independence, lists as Article 1:
The ƒtyle of this confederacy ƒhall be The UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
That there was a certain amount of internal bickering and a host of opinions regarding just what the new country entailed is true. However, the disparate states agreed to wage war together, negotiate treaties together, and to be recognized by a single flag.
Quibbling that it was not one nation prior to the ratification of the Constitution is silly. France did not loan money to thirteen colonies, but to a nation. Britain did not negotiate the Treaty of Paris, (in which this country is identified as "the UNITED STATES of AMERICA), with thirteen colonies, but with one nation. Separate treaties at the Peace of Paris were negotiated between Britain and France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Each single nation–including the United States–negotiated one treaty apiece. In turn, the thirteen states did not separately ratify that treaty, which was ratified by the Continental Congress for the nation.
Respectfully, you have no idea what I do and don’t care about. If you don’t want to share your opinion then don’t but you should really stop trying to tell people that they can’t participate in israel threads unless they have read as much on the topic as you have, especially since so many (though not all) of your posts are useless trivia.
I know, and I was asking what we can do to secure peace in the area if that survey really represents the deeply held feelings of the Palestinians. It sounds hopeless.
Just the most prominent example that comes to mind of how Palestinians are treated like shit.
If it weren’t for the supreme court, there would be mountain of other laws that are even more discriminatory and I would suggest that without the Israeli supreme court, Israel would in fact look a lot like South african apartheid. It seems to be the will of a few jurists that protect the Israeli arabs and the Palestinians from the “will of the people”
Harsh. He offered up some newspaper in Oregon as a cite for something to do with Israel …oh, I don’t remember, but it was no less pointless than what I wrote.
That was my point, it was in kind.
No. Just as in this post which I am quoting, you have provided nothing of substance in any of your posts that I have seen. You have posted bullshit one-liners in multiple threads. I simply linked to your most recent one-liner. You will not continue this nonsense and retain your posting privileges.
[ /Moderating ]
In an astonishing moment of candor, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Council — in explaining the high risk of Palestinians being indicted if the International Criminal Court acquires jurisdiction – has admitted that “each and every” Palestinian missile now being launched against Israeli civilian centers constitutes “a crime against humanity”; that, by contrast, Israel’s own response actions in Gaza “followed the legal procedures” because, as Hamas spokespersons admitted on TV, “the Israelis warned them to evacuate their homes before the bombardment; but, however, “as for the missiles launched from our side, we never warn anyone about where these missiles are about to fall or about the operations we carry out.”
But he also says that what Israel does to the Palestinians are crimes against humanity. Perhaps we should stop the shitty behaviour from both sides instead of pretending only one side is behaving badly.
Why is it that the pro-Israel side can say: “I disagree with the settlement activity but what Hamas is doing is wrong”
but the anti-zionist side cannot say “I disagree with the bombardment of innocent civilians but what Israel is doing is wrong”
Because some of us don’t feel that Israel is doing wrong. War was made against them, and they’re making war right back.
Because Hamas is launching weapons from civilian neighborhoods, those neighborhoods are not “innocent.” They’re combat zones.
If you shoot at me from a hospital, and I can’t shoot back…then pretty soon every building in every war zone will be a hospital. It would be a nice way to end war. Any bets on it catching on?
Why are you saying “anti-Zionist”?
Are you claiming that people who are pro-Palestinian are in favor of the elimination of the Jewish State?
No
I was talking about settlement activity
Actually, you compared two issues, one of which was settlement activity.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Why is it that the pro-Israel side can say: “I disagree with the settlement activity but what Hamas is doing is wrong”
but the anti-zionist side cannot say “I disagree with the bombardment of innocent civilians but what Israel is doing is wrong”
[/QUOTE]
And I gave the answer: many of us do agree that settlement activity is wrong, but we do not believe that Israel’s war against Hamas is wrong, because it was provoked by Hamas, which made initial attacks.
Neither side is all good or all bad. Each issue can be addressed on its own merits, without such linkage.
I think Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories should be stopped. I also think that firing rockets into Israel from Gaza is a really piss-poor way of expressing opposition to it.
Then why did you refer to one side as the “anti-Zionist side”. Modern day Zionists support the idea that the Jews are a nation deserving a state of their own in the land where the Jewish people came into existence. Namely Israel.
“Anti-Zionists” by contrast don’t believe Israel should be allowed to exist and that the Jews don’t deserve a state of their own.
So, why did you use such a phrase if you’re now saying the “anti-Zionist side” doesn’t support the elimination of the State of Israel?
You think there is “settlement activity” in Gaza?
Palestinians elected Hamas to govern in a “free and fair” election. Perhaps Hamas was the least despicable option available on the ballot – that tells us something very sad about Palestinian “democracy.”
The apparent belief that Israel needs to restrain itself until Israeli deaths catch up with Palestinian deaths is too bizarre for me to understand. Particularly since Hamas is happy to maximize its civilian deaths when Israel targets military sites; such sacrifice is the best use Hamas (whose leaders are safely sequestered in Qatar) finds for the fools that elected it.
Don;t you think it is a bit of a stretch saying that using your children as human shields is the equivalent of not automatically granting citizenship upon marriage?
Regards,
Shodan
Israel does many things that are worthy of criticism, but I don’t think this particular cite is a good example.
From your cite:
The notion, I take it, is that terrorists were using the"family reuinification via marriage to an Israeli citizen" mechanism to gain entry to Israel, then kill people. So a law was passed that residents of certain countries were now ineligible (allegedly on a temporary basis) for such citizenship.
You will note that this is effectively a limit on immigration, alleged to be in place as a direct result of some physical danger from certain countries.
Such limits are, in fact, in place (whether “officially” or not) in many countries - and for a lot less compelling reasons than “they are using the system to come here and murder us”. In Canada, for example, there is an attempt to impose language, education and income requirements, simply to exclude (or sharply reduce) all “third-world” family reunification - somethimg I would imagine to be far more objectionable: Ottawa floats idea of making immigrant spouses meet language and education requirements