So why do people hate Israel?

No offense but you are playing with semantics and I have no doubt I am using a little poetic license but the reality is you have missed my point in this which is that I don't care about percentages as much as trends and in this case I think the trend in that image indicates the reality on the ground.

I know the information you both post is slanted/biased toward your cause I can live with that because it is my job as a reader to take the information that interests me and investigate further.

So rather than beating around the bush how about answering some questions:
1) Has Palestinian ownership/habitation of land in Israel/West Bank etc. grown since 1947 or decreased.
2) Same question but this time use the year 2000.
3) If the Palestinian land control has decreased has that happened voluntarily or was it through nefarious means such as being driven off through force, suddenly finding your water supply diverted or even just the threat of violence?

because here is your problem I can look at what both you and Spike tell me and determine not who is 100% correct but who is closest to accurate based on my own search for answers.

As for the rest well my point to Benaakatz is that it is not enough to say that the majority do not approve of the actions of an extreme section of his own country while doing absolutely nothing to stop them, it wasnt an acceptable agrument when the Nazi's tried it in 1945 and it isn't now.
All to prevailent is the majority that disaprove of criminal actions but are more than happy to bask in the proceeds from it.
 
What I find disturbing though is that senojekips likes your reply although he had worked with that organisations so he must have known that your last statement is incorrect. Or is he going to say "I don't want to know"?
Before trying to second guess what you are talking about, exactly what "last statement" of MontyB's should I be aware of being incorrect?

Looking back, I see that his last statement was :
You know the most common statement in Germany after WW2 was "No I didn't support the Nazi's and I could not do anything to stop them" so sorry but heard it before and the world didn't believe it then either, guilt by association can be a bastard.

Obviously you must be angling at something else. To my knowledge B'Tselem has no official policy on that question, but I would hazard a guess that they would agree with MontyB's interpretation of it and that they would also agree that it applies in relation to Israel's general acceptance of "settler" behaviour.

My question being, why should I "know" MontyB's last statement to be incorrect?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And in answer too the question posed by the original poster, here's another quote that "was never said" or wasn't in someone's diary, as to why people hate Israel. (In this case, Ethnic Cleansing)

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.
 
Last edited:
So rather than beating around the bush how about answering some questions:
1) Has Palestinian ownership/habitation of land in Israel/West Bank etc. grown since 1947 or decreased.
2) Same question but this time use the year 2000.
3) If the Palestinian land control has decreased has that happened voluntarily or was it through nefarious means such as being driven off through force, suddenly finding your water supply diverted or even just the threat of violence?


So you choose the Palestinians only because they are losing? Tell me why do you believe they are losing then? While I do believe they need a helping hand, I will not side with them as long as they do not announce some type of condemnation of terrorist actions. These terrorist are doing their actions in the name of not only Islam, but the Arabs. If majority of Arabs truely want peace, they would denounce these actions and make sure it is known majority of them do no agree with them (the terrorists).

Why should someone condemn Israel and not the Palestinians when the Palestinians are doing the same thing?

I agree, Palestine should be given a state (the 1967 border), but how can they do that without negotiating with Israel? If they bypass Israel and some terrorist attacks them (from Palestine), this would give Israel relation ability that no one can legally dispute, therefore it is in Palestine's interest to negotiate.

Everyone at least agree with my last statement, no? I am glad U.S will veto any backdoor negotiations Palestine is attempting, but I also want Israel to discontinue their settlement building.
 
Last edited:
I will make this brief because I see no benefit in constantly rehashing the same story to people who really arent listening.

I "choose" the Palestinians because they are slowly being stripped of everything by a nation who's actions are bordering on genocide and who are supported by a country that lacks the moral fibre and backbone to put a stop to it.

During the last months of WW2 Eisenhower actively prevented the Western Allies from taking land that was going to end up in the Russian zones of occupation his view was that it was not worth the loss of life to take land he was going to have to give away well the same deal should apply to the Palestinians.

If Israel was held to specific borders and it knew that any settlements outside those borders were going to have to handed over it would have no option but negotiate and if the Palestinians had something to negotiate with they too would be more likely to come to the table as well.

So all the US is achieving is to be led around by Israel while it takes more and more land giving Palestinians even less reason to make peace.
 
Why should someone condemn Israel and not the Palestinians when the Palestinians are doing the same thing?
Perhaps for the same reason we condemn an armed psychopathic home invader, even though the home owner is also having the occasional crack at him with the soggy end of a wet towel?
 
Last edited:
I will make this brief because I see no benefit in constantly rehashing the same story to people who really arent listening.

I "choose" the Palestinians because they are slowly being stripped of everything by a nation who's actions are bordering on genocide and who are supported by a country that lacks the moral fibre and backbone to put a stop to it.

During the last months of WW2 Eisenhower actively prevented the Western Allies from taking land that was going to end up in the Russian zones of occupation his view was that it was not worth the loss of life to take land he was going to have to give away well the same deal should apply to the Palestinians.

If Israel was held to specific borders and it knew that any settlements outside those borders were going to have to handed over it would have no option but negotiate and if the Palestinians had something to negotiate with they too would be more likely to come to the table as well.

So all the US is achieving is to be led around by Israel while it takes more and more land giving Palestinians even less reason to make peace.

May I ask you one thing? Read the Palestinian and the Hamas covenant (Palestinian National Covenant - Hamas Covenant), then put yourself in the shoes of Israel and try to figure out how to make a peace with them.

After that read "How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?" (it's very short) and compare that with their covenants.
 
Perhaps for the same reason we condemn an armed psychopathic home invader, even though the home owner is also having the occasional crack at him with the soggy end of a wet towel?

If the Palestinians would have accepted the UN partition plan they wouldn't have all those troubles right now. If they get their state with pre-1967 borders they still will end up with less than what the UN-plan would have given them.

Would they have accepted it if they had known they were going to be beaten? I don't know, but what I do know is that they believed they could destroy the Jews and take it all for themselves.
 
If the Palestinians would have accepted the UN partition plan they wouldn't have all those troubles right now. If they get their state with pre-1967 borders they still will end up with less than what the UN-plan would have given them.

Would they have accepted it if they had known they were going to be beaten? I don't know, but what I do know is that they believed they could destroy the Jews and take it all for themselves.
Of course you do realise that your answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question that was asked,... nor my answer?

On this occasion I will humour you and tell you the answer never the less. Had the Jews never taken over the land of another people, The Palestinian State would have been even larger than your rather pathetic example,... and neither the Palestinians, Israelis or their supporters have had all these troubles they have now. It would have saved many tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And today's tidbit that will no doubt be questioned by the Zionists because "is not in someone or another's diary":

[FONT=verdana,arial]"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
[FONT=verdana,arial]-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Perhaps for the same reason we condemn an armed psychopathic home invader, even though the home owner is also having the occasional crack at him with the soggy end of a wet towel?


That depends on the state laws. I have heard of cases where home invaders actually charge the home owner. Not just that but certain states in U.S do not have self-defense laws (when it comes to lethal force), so if you killed this invader (depending on the situation), you can be charged as well. Crazy, no?
 
That depends on the state laws. I have heard of cases where home invaders actually charge the home owner. Not just that but certain states in U.S do not have self-defense laws (when it comes to lethal force), so if you killed this invader (depending on the situation), you can be charged as well. Crazy, no?
Yep,... about as crazy as blaming the Palestinians for damage to their aggressor whilst trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs.
 
Yep,... about as crazy as blaming the Palestinians for damage to their aggressor whilst trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs.

RayManKiller3's remark is not crazy. In Belgium we are not alowed to defend our property. I'll give an example. A couple of years ago a woman (national champion in a martial arts discipline) kicked a man, who was coming up the stairs in her property, back to where he came from and called the police. To here amazement they took here to the police station. The reason was, she attacked a man that, at that moment, didn't steal anything. His only crime was being in her house without permission.
Laws differ from country to country and must be obeyed, even if we think they are crazy.
I also like to correct your quote:
"trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs." must be "trying to defend or regain what they think is theirs."
 
Laws differ from country to country and must be obeyed, even if we think they are crazy.
I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity.
2062bf22.jpg


I also like to correct your quote:
"trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs." must be "trying to defend or regain what they think is theirs."
Yeah,... obviously you never read yesterday's Tidbit. Which will tell you that even ardent Zionists will on occasions admit that my statement was absolutely correct.
[FONT=verdana,arial]"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
[FONT=verdana,arial]-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.[/FONT]
[/FONT] 1 Day Ago 04:03
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[FONT=verdana,arial]
And here's today's Tidbit also relating to the Palestinian ownership of the land:
[FONT=verdana,arial]
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come, and we have stolen their country.Why would they accept that?"
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]-- [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial] David Ben Gurion, q[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial]uoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.[/FONT][/quote]

Yeah,... don't bother answering,... we already know your reply, "this was actually said by anyone, nor was it in their diary". :wink:
 
Last edited:
Yep,... about as crazy as blaming the Palestinians for damage to their aggressor whilst trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs.


No, this is different. I want Israel out of the 1967 bordered Palestine, while you want all of the lands to be given to Palestine. That is the thing we disagree with, I don't try to defend Israel's terrorism or attacking of Palestine, but you try to defend Palestine actions against Israel. I don't care what the situation is, you do not purposely aim for civillians... When you resort to that, negotiations rightfully should be turned off.

So I agree with U.S and Israel on not negotiating with terrorists. Just like how the U.S knocked down Afghanistan because the Taliban were haboring them (they not necessarily were responsible except the fact Al Qaeda staged their 9/11 attack from there). Everyone in the Hamas region is therefore hostile because it is ruled by a terrorist organization (its on the terror list).

If we were back in the 1930s and we seen Israels terrorism (which were mostly aimed at militants and the military), I would be against them as I am against Palestine. I don't believe in "eye for an eye" so I am not going to accept your excuse of "Israel started the terrorism" to back the Palestinians plight.
 
I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity.
2062bf22.jpg

I think your missing his point and kind of being a smart butt on that one. I think he does mean that only laws that are not against humanity should be followed.

You have to follow what your commanders say unless it is an act against a higher up or humanity (genocide for one). Country laws do not overrule morality (this depends on what the majority thinks is "moral" at the time).
 
Last edited:
I think your missing his point and kind of being a smart butt on that one. I think he does mean that only laws that are not against humanity should be followed.

You have to follow what your commanders say unless it is an act against a higher up or humanity (genocide for one). Country laws do not overrule morality (this depends on what the majority thinks is "moral" at the time).
Smart butt??.... is it that you are naturally stupid, just don't understand what is being discussed, or are you just trying to be obtuse.

Firstly we have already shown earlier that morality is not something that you can just change to suit your views. If this were so, there would be no "morality", as everyone would claim that their actions were morally correct "in their opinion".

Secondly, this discussion is not about "state or federal laws" but, crimes against humanity. If your opinion were correct, we could never have charged most war criminals, as they were nearly always obeying laws that were quite legal in their own country at that time. How many times do you have to be told these things?

This has all been posted before, as have answers to your previous statement in your Post #93. In future I will not be re-answering things that you are either too lazy, brain washed or "thick" to remember.
 
Last edited:
Firstly we have already shown earlier that morality is not something that you can just change to suit your views. If this were so, there would be no "morality", as everyone would claim that their actions were morally correct "in their opinion".

Secondly, this discussion is not about "state or federal laws" but, crimes against humanity. If your opinion were correct, we could never have charged most war criminals, as they were nearly always obeying laws that were quite legal in their own country at that time. How many times do you have to be told these things?


I was arguing the point of which humanity overrule laws, so I don't see how you came to your conclusion on that last paragraph. With my opinions, they would be charged the same way they were charged in history.

"I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity." - Seno

This is what you said. My reply was saying how laws should be followed as long as it do not go against humanity; basically, I was protecting his statement as still valid in the correct situation. Crimes against humantiy can not be backed by laws as you said, so his statement is still valid. If he replies and say laws should be followed no matter what, then you would be correct with that statement and I would apologize. At the moment, i think you dug deeper in his statement than should have.



I already know the top part of what you said. The whole arguement of mines when I talked about morality was because you were saying he lacked morality. I was showing you how false it was and did in fact state that there are "standards of morality" in place for which the majority at that time believe is moral. Unless he said something that went against morality (which so far he didn't to my knowledge), then you can state he has no morals.

He is defending Israel's right to exist vs Palestines (he do not agree Palestine should be uprooted though), whether this is moral or not have yet to be proven on both.

We are arguing because in every instance that Israel is brought up, you feel the urge to demonize them, despite Palestine doing the same thing. I know you want Israel to feel the pressure, but you shouldn't be completely biased... I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else
 
I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else

Quick question would you feel the same if it were your land?
 
I was arguing the point of which humanity overrule laws, so I don't see how you came to your conclusion on that last paragraph. With my opinions, they would be charged the same way they were charged in history.



This is what you said. My reply was saying how laws should be followed as long as it do not go against humanity; basically, I was protecting his statement as still valid in the correct situation. Crimes against humantiy can not be backed by laws as you said, so his statement is still valid. If he replies and say laws should be followed no matter what, then you would be correct with that statement and I would apologize. At the moment, i think you dug deeper in his statement than should have.



I already know the top part of what you said. The whole arguement of mines when I talked about morality was because you were saying he lacked morality. I was showing you how false it was and did in fact state that there are "standards of morality" in place for which the majority at that time believe is moral. Unless he said something that went against morality (which so far he didn't to my knowledge), then you can state he has no morals.

He is defending Israel's right to exist vs Palestines (he do not agree Palestine should be uprooted though), whether this is moral or not have yet to be proven on both.

We are arguing because in every instance that Israel is brought up, you feel the urge to demonize them, despite Palestine doing the same thing. I know you want Israel to feel the pressure, but you shouldn't be completely biased... I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else
I am not even going to attempt to answer this drivel. As well as misquoting me, and just guessing at what others "think", it has all been answered several times previously. I'm also not interested in what you "think", I am stating the facts as they stand.

Just read what people say,... not what you would like them to have said. If this answer is any indication, you appear to be totally unable to express what you think yourself,... let alone what others might be thinking.
 
Last edited:
Yeah,... obviously you never read yesterday's Tidbit. Which will tell you that even ardent Zionists will on occasions admit that my statement was absolutely correct.

Quote:
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech. 1 Day Ago 04:03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[FONT=verdana,arial]
And here's today's Tidbit also relating to the Palestinian ownership of the land:
[FONT=verdana,arial]
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come, and we have stolen their country.Why would they accept that?"
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,arial]-- [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial] David Ben Gurion, q[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial]uoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.[/FONT]

Yeah,... don't bother answering,... we already know your reply, "this was actually said by anyone, nor was it in their diary". :wink:

What's wrong with Ben Gurion's quotes? He does not give his point of view but the Palestinian one. How they see it. He knew his "enemy".
The most important part in the last quote is not "their country" but "They see but one thing" , just as in the first quote "in their view".

He also said : "We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh; this has been extensively misquoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25."
 
Quick question would you feel the same if it were your land?


Yes, I would feel quite same. I answered this before; as long as I was raised the way I was raised now, I would not resort to terrorism. If I felt I had legal ability to contest it, then that would be my goal.



Not going to bother responding to you, Seno, I don't understand how you comprehend things.

My sole reason for quoting you was to back VDKMS's statement that a country's laws should be followed (as long as it do not go against humanity). I think you dug too deep into his words.
 
Back
Top