Read the response is to post 326 DWMarch was on about twerp.:rolleyes:
wut
Good bye Aladdin, hello Roger Rabbit.
“so-called Jews?” Last guy I heard use that term was Farrakhan. Some company you got there.
Jews are winners who don’t go around the world blowing themselves up for Yahweh, who achieve things, etc. You got a problem with them? Those who hate the Jews, be they communists, alt-right types, and most especially Islamists, with the Palestinian ones being the worst, are losers.
I’m sorry - I’d rebut you, but I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Is English not your native language? You say you’re a Hebrew, אז אם אתה רוצה, אפשר להמשיך את השיחה בעברית.
Alessan, your level-headed and reasonable responses to posters who say astoundingly ignorant things about your people and your nation make you one of my favorite dopers.
I am not a Hebrew (that I know of, never did do the research) so I have no idea what your quote says but for some reason my mind translated it to “LIKE A BOSS.”
Hey, thanks! But I fear you give me too much credit. These discussions, and the ignorance displayed in them (and not just on one side), often make me irrationally angry, which is why I’ve learned to largely avoid them. What you read as level-headedness is often a result of typing with clenched jaw and balled fists*, forcing myself to remain calm.
- It ain’t easy on my keyboard, either.
The two sides agree to a two state solution, but fundamentally disagree on the “right of return” and the status of Jerusalem.
Easy: they are Jewish nationalists in an area that is Muslim-majority.
Muslims have historically tolerated Jews and other “people of the book” - but as tolerated minorities. The notion of such minorities having their own countries, much less defeating Muslim nations in wars, is fundamentally objectionable - no matter how nice or nasty they are.
Certainly. They are just an offshoot of a much larger movement that exists elsewhere - the Muslim Brotherhood, who if you may recall briefly ruled in Egypt (before being tossed out in a coup). You aren’t claiming that the Egyptian ones were motivated by Israeli bad hats, are you?
You are forgetting that the Zionists in the run-up to the creation of the state did suffer all sorts of “indignities” when ruled by the Turks and then the Mandate - and worse: they had to watch as the Brits closed the borders to Jewish immigration just as the Nazis were gearing up to slaughter European Jewry.
Yes, Begin became PM and yes he was leader of the Irgun - but that was many, many years later. Doesn’t change the fact that the Haganah suppressed them at the time in direct response to Irgun terrorism.
This is no different from Arafat going from terrorist leader to leader of the PLO: people’s roles change over time.
Sure I can: I can blame them for being dumb. Repeating endlessly the same tactics that haven’t worked and have caused them nothing but misery = dumb. Do something different.
Huh? Nothing you have posted contradicts what I wrote. The Irgun was ‘violently suppressed’ at the time. That doesn’t mean each and every one of them was killed, or that they became non-persons for all time. History is full of terrorists who went on later in life to become statesmen - would that the Palestinians followed that route.
I never claimed otherwise. What has that to do with anything?
Because they will not agree to a peace deal unless it contains a “right of return” - namely, that all of those millions of Palestinians currently languishing in refugee camps get to “return” to Israel (not to Palestine). They are supposed to “return” to the same villages their families left, in '48.
That’s what a “right of return” means.
Unfortunately, Israel already has a population; the sites of those villages, left in '48, are now under Israeli farms, factories or cities.
How is this supposed to work?
As I pointed out, the “peace” they were agreeing to was not a “peace” at all, but a “truce”. The difference is that the one means war is over and normal national relations begins; the other is a temporary halt to active hostilities, with the expectation that they would resume in the future.
Would you trust a nation that had been to war with you multiple times, that would only agree to a “truce” when they were weak, and that were covertly building nukes?
Sure.
Well, sure - it is all of a piece. Palestinians have been fed a steady diet of exaggerated ethno-nationalist hopes; they are told, over and again, that all they must do is wait and Israel will be wiped out (somehow), or agree to leave, or something, and then they can go back to the villages their ancestors left from. More, they are told that giving up that dream is a sort of treason. Like people everywhere, many of them buy into that very attractive fantasy, all the more so as their current situation - living on handouts in camps - is so miserable.
Thing is, the Arab countries and the UN are actively encouraging this situation - the one by refusing to allow Palestinians to become citizens (you may recall that frustration with that situation in Kuwait led Palestinians to support Saddam’s invasion); the UN, by establishing - uniquely - a specialist agency devoted only to Palestinian refugees, and unlike any other refugees in the whole world, this agency has a mandate specifically designed not to resettle them anywhere.
Is it any wonder in such an atmosphere that Palestinian refugees reject being resettled in a first world country? They have been promised by everyone - their own leaders, other Arab states, the UN - a world organization - that they can go back to their very homes that they left; settling for anything else, they have been told, is a kind of treason. Why should they believe that the dream they have been sold for almost 70 years is simply impossible?
You have now played your silly “so called Jews” game once too often. Knock it off.
I realize that you subscribe to some Christian group that holds this sort of belief. However, the phrase “so called Jews” has been a phrase used by hate groups since the late 1940s and it is not accurate, factually, regardless what you preachers have told you.
Knock it off and if you need to open a thread to witness on your beliefs, then open that separate thread and stop dragging your religious beliefs into threads on other topics.
[/Moderating ]
We already have a refugee crisis, we don’t need to add even more by requiring the Palestinians to move out just so they can get justice. Instead of making Palestinians leave the West Bank wouldn’t it be preferable for Israel to stop their illegal actions?
I am not making my self clear. My stance is that Israel should give full legal justice to Palestinians and stop taking their land. Palestinians shouldn’t have to negotiate for this and it should happen NOW. Yes, we’d like Hamas to stop shooting rockets into Israel but it should not be linked to the legal system. Israel should change unilaterally because they have created a situation where Palestinians have no non-violent means to address crimes. Once Palestinians have a real, viable avenue then we can start negotiating.
Hunh. I thought that the point of the two state solution was to get around the right of return issue. WTF would be the point of a two state solution that also included a right of return? I thought the idea was two states along 1967 borders plus some restitution by Israel in lieu of the right of return.
Really?? So if Israelis said “Hey guys we’re gonna go because we got a better offer somewhere else” the Arabs would be like “NO FUCKING WAY!! Come back here and fight!!! We’ll beat you this time.”
I keep getting the impression that they would be pissy with pretty much anyone that came along and did what the zionsits did. If the Kurds did it, there would be a Kurdistan/Palestinan conflict.
No but the ones in Gaza sure seem to be.
And did the Israelis ever stop thinking of him as a terrorist leader?
They don’t seem to have a lot of attractive alternatives. And the Israeli response seems to be “we are stronger than you so whatever deal we reach is going to be much more favorable to us than to you” I can see why that’s tough to swallow.
So Fatah did not suppress terrorists in the west bank?
All the Palestinains options that you are proposing seem to be much less even handed. Israel gives Palestine stuff Israel isn’t really very interested in anyway but Israel gets Jerusalem and Palestinians stop asking for their shit back.
If that is non-negotiable for the Palestinians then there is simply not a deal to be had.
Without trust, even peace treaties are meaningless.
I think we agree that they should do this.
Because parents love their children and want good things for them even if those good things are in Canada.
You would think, wouldn’t you. Rejecting funded citizenship in a first world country to pursue an impossible ME feud sounds completely nuts: yet it happened.
On the one hand, Israel should cease seizing Palestinian lands for “settlements”. On that we agree.
On the other hand, you’d make Palestinian participation in negotiations contingent on Israel doing that first. That is an absurdity, leading to a wholly perverse result.
The ONLY thing that can practically guarantee Israeli hard-liners cease bad behaviors such as seizing Palestinian lands, is for Palestine to gain some sort of sovereignty over its own lands – and the only way to do that, is to either defeat Israel in war (not gonna happen) or for Israel to agree to it via peace negotiations.
In short, if Palestinians follow your prescription, the Israeli hardliners can in effect shelve the one thing that can stop them - Palestinian sovereignty - simply by making provocations: every time it looks like the peace process is advancing - seize another ‘settlement’ and dare the Israeli state to evict 'em. There is an expression for this sort of self-defeating stance: “to cut off your nose to spite your face”.
There is an Israeli equivalent: demanding that Palestinians cease all terrorist acts prior to Israeli participation in negotiations (in effect handing Palestinian extremists a ‘veto’). The difference of course is this: the status quo is greatly to the disadvantage of the Palestinians. The Israelis already have effective sovereignty over their state.
In short, we agree that Israeli “settlers” should stop; we disagree - fundamentally - on what the Palestinians ought to do if they don’t. You seem to be saying they should refuse to negotiate, which I regard as highly foolish.
Really? That’s a pretty fundamental misunderstanding. The “right of return” (to Israel) is the bone of contention (the other being Jerusalem) on which the peace process foundered.
The notion of confining the “right of return” to Palestine was expressly rejected:
What they mean by a ‘right of return’:
Funny you should mention Kurds. The Turks have done to the Kurds much of what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians - yet few in the ME (aside from the Kurds) seem to care. Turkish abuses of Kurds do not provoke widespread outrage. Why?
They may have disliked him, but they negotiated with him as leader of the PLO.
Serious question: have you ever engaged in significant negotiations?
People in negotiations have this thing known as “bargaining power”. Some have more of it, some have less. Those with more can demand more; those with less are worse off.
This is, like, universally true.
The Palestinians have a weak hand, compared with the Israelis. They are disorganized. They are split into two hostile camps. They lack military power. They used to have powerful allies, such as Egypt and Syria: both are now uninterested in helping them. They have world sympathy, but not much else.
This lack of bargaining power means that, in negotiations, they are in no position to make extravagant demands:* it is simply the way of reality that the stronger the bargaining position, the more you get in negotiations.
- such as, “hand over half your capital city to us, and oh, by the way, get ready to receive five or six million people who hate your present population and wish to replace it”.
Their “shit” being - most of Israel via the ‘right of return’ (which you can see upthread means ‘to return to our original villages’), including half their capital city.
Yes, it would be a rare negotiation in which the by-far weaker party walks away with the spoils. When does that ever happen?
That isn’t ‘even handed’, that’s nuts. If I only have $50 and I want a new car, it isn’t ‘even handed’ for the car dealership to give me a car for $50.
That’s the point I have been making.
If the Palestinian position is “there is no deal to be had”, then there is little to restrain the Israeli Right Wing types from simply saying ‘these guys are totally unreasonable, you can never make peace with them, so let’s just take what we want and wall off the rest’. Unfortunately, that narrative is winning in Israel, and what is causing it to win is, above all, Palestinian insistence on ‘return’.
Which is why I say anyone with real sympathy for Palestinian plight ought to be working to convince them insisting on a ‘right of return’ is silly and counter-productive.
Were the terrorists threatening your family if you wanted to leave?
If they were not under a compulsion and they were rejecting an offer of citizenship in Canada, is the right of return just a symbol of having “won”? Because ISTM that they already have a right of return but Israel is never going to let them exercise it and you can either let your children and their children suffer to make a point or you can move to Canada and bitch about the fucking Israelis from the comfort of a first world nation (or their own nation of Palestine) the way the Koreans bitch about the fucking Japanese from Los Angeles and Seoul. Eventually the Israelis will feel horrible about their treatment of the Palestinians and let them open up casinos and give them preferences in college admissions.
So it seems that they are entitled to a right of return (a right of return to Palestine is not really relevant AFAIC). IIRC Israel made offers to buy off the Palestinian right of return, was the offer not generous enough to satisfy their honor?
For the same reason that there wouldn’t be middle east outrage if the Palestinians were treating Israelis the way Israelis were treating the Palestinians.
I am also surprised by the lack of outrage at Turkish treatment of Kurds (and Cypriots and Armenians). If America started to restrict immigration and promote suffering to maintain our Christian identity, people would think we were assholes too.
And the Palestinians negotiated with Menachem Begin, neh?
Yes I have been involved in several types of negotiations and what you say is not exactly true. Sometimes negotiating means you giving me something of yours in exchange for me giving you something of mine. Like when I negotiate the terms of a merger or asset acquisition. Other times negotiating means pleading to a misdemeanor instead of standing trial on a felony. Still other times it means trying to achieve a result that resembles fair or what a court would call fair.
This is one of the fundamental differences of perspectives that I see between the two sides. Israel thinks that because it is in a strong negotiating position, it should get more. After all, who is to say what is fair? Palestinians think that there are international laws that say they are entitled to things like the right of return and they are willing to see their grandchildren’s grandchildren live in squalor to see justice be done.
In court. It happens all the time in court with rule of law. The Palestinians think they are entitled to that shit but there is no rule of law in international relations and if Israel insists on might makes right then their claim on Israel will only last as long as they are mighty.
It is if you think the dealership stole the car from you.
Or give them nukes.
how bout the Palestinians stop acting like radical Islamic losers?
Possibly the worst idea anyone has floated since wooden barbecue grills. Death in very large numbers, followed by retaliations in very large numbers, possibly dragging the world’s superpowers into an escalating war…
This is stupider than eating peas with a toilet plunger.