It’s Shinna Minna Ma, and he posted in this very thread.
Absolutely.
Well, every year that passes, Israel has more land in the West Bank, so their settlements tend to get more contiguous. The borders could be evened out a bit in negotiation, if it ever came to that. The results would still have a crazy-quilt quality.
I believe that the last time I asked him that question, he claimed that the question was “incoherent”, or something of the sort. IIRC that was when he was supporting the point blank assassination of a pregnant woman and her children, since she happened to be an Israeli settler.
He also concluded through some manner of illogic that it is anti-Semitic to not be in favor of shooting settlers on sight.
You, there! Why do Israelis build settlements?
Well, as this isn’t the correct forum for a detailed discussion of that behavior, I’ll simply disagree without elaborating all that much.
What he did, and still does IIRC, is to claim that Israelis (only the Jews, of course) are sub-human in one manner or another.
But he claims that it’s other people who view them as such, not him, because they’re the ones who are allowing them to behave as they do. After all, someone who wasn’t a sub-human would be shot for ‘looting’, but since everybody who disagrees with him doesn’t want them shot, obviously they’re really a pack of anti-Semites who think that Jews are sub-human and therefore aren’t truly responsible for their actions. Keeping forum-appropriate, I will simply note that it is a very inventive way to play out a gambit.
You’re evading the point, as you know. Unless you’re going to make the tired, but still often repeated (even here), implicit claim that the entire world is Germany and it’s always the 1930’s.
Now, how is Israel’s support of expanding into occupied territory not properly describable as the desire for lebensraum? :dubious:
Hey, Finn, can’t you answer a simple question on a subject about which you claim to know so much?
Lebensraum is a term used by the Nazis, that’s how.
Why don’t you ask me if I am still beating my Wife?
Forgive me if I am mistaken.
And that’s the *only *factual difference? I’ll consider the point made, then.
Apologies for an inadvertent editing error. I don’t always preview.
Thanks. It made me look like an ass.
Define Lebensraum and we’ll talk.
I’m beating your wife now. Didn’t you find her note?!
Note? What note? She was showing me those pictures of the squid thing…
This squid thing?? If so, you should really go and rescue your wife from the clutches of BG/Vector…
-XT
Hey, you! Why do the Israelis build settlements?
I believe the squid was last seen with Siam Sam…dammit, you’re doomed!
It’s an interesting tactic, however. Elvis gets to call the Israelis Nazis without actually doing anything to substantiate the innuendo.
And if I defend it, I am “admitting” that they are Nazis.
AND, he edited my quote, the dastardly so-in-so!
Part of the problem with this discussion, as it is with so many on this general topic, is that many participants lack even a basic factual grounding in the subject, and do not fix any errors that are made. Glutton, for instance, claimed that peace is impossible with settlements in existence, Elvis wants to argue that Israel is using Nazi practices of expansion, etc… Once we’re at the stage of nonsense like that, it’s clear that anything factual will get swallowed up in order to support the narratives that are serving as shoehorns for the factual bits they can get their hands on.
To make things even more complicated, the issue does go back some years, and a few posters have evinced a tendency for their arguments to verge away from nuance and factual analysis to polemics. I’ve long pointed out that simply calling everything a “settlement” is somewhat misleading when some of them are Jewish communities which were ethnically cleansed circa ‘48, and to which Jews are returning (if the whole idea is that Israel is wrong to misappropriate Palestinian land, why then are Palestinians right to misappropriate others’?). Different Israeli administrations have had different policies and rationales for doing anything from tolerating to outright supporting settlement growth, and that doesn’t even get into the growth of illegal settlements or the fact that referring to “the Israelis” or “the Israeli government” or even “the Likud party” ignores the fact that even during the best of times, the coalition style government which is the norm in Israeli society means that tracing ideas from their genesis to their implementation is anything but as simple as the phrase “why did the Israelis…?” implies.
Add to that the fact that many Palestinians did not historically own their land and the claim that certain territory is “Palestinian land” becomes more begging the question than arguing with factual support. Not to mention that at least one poster in this thread was quite surprised and refused to accept (I’m not sure if he does, now) the fact that the idea that there is a “1967 border on Israel’s eastern flank” that separates Israel proper from the West Bank is simply fiction…
We’ll see how the discussion shapes up, but as of yet I feel that focusing on the myriad of historical inaccuracies seems to be the safest course, just to keep the discussion factual. What I wouldn’t give for a debate on the I/P subject where all the folks arguing their positions actually knew what they were talking about and took the time to learn the facts before stating a position, rather than taking a position and then looking to see what facts they can use to support it…
Also, I’d like a pony.
Well, surely there is a boundary somewhere that separates Israel proper (i.e. the territory that the Israeli government considers to be Israeli national territory) from the West Bank (territory occupied by Israeli troops but not claimed by Israel as national territory, that is, not annexed). Certainly the many parties can differ on where this line exactly falls; for example Israel has annexed the whole of Jerusalem but many countries don’t recognize this annexation. But there’s still a line somewhere.