So why do people hate Israel? - Page 9




 
--
 
December 6th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
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.
December 6th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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 :
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
December 7th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
--
December 7th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
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.
December 7th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
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?
December 7th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.
December 7th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.
December 7th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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":

"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.
December 8th, 2011  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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?
December 8th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
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.
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism