Encouraging Developments Against Zionist Apartheid Regime!

[Big Guy]

You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Omelette's are delicious and ain't nobody want nasty brown shells in their omelettes.

If I was Argus I would complain that somebody is stealing my ideas, opinions and quotes. Do it again and I will report you (as soon as I can figure out to who).

[Rue]

None I challenge your comments on Israeli terrorism for these reasons:

1-the fact that Jews in Palestine may have engaged in terrorism, does not make it morally acceptable for Hamas or anyone else to engage in terrorism-such a contention is illogical and that is what you are inferring, two wrongs make a right;

2-your comment infers as well that the number of deaths the Jewish terrorists supposedly carried out surpasses what Hamas has done in a selective time period of attacks you picked out for Hamas-this makes no logical sense either-the number of deaths by terrorists does not determine their morality-this formula you use that number of deaths defines moral consequence is absurd-terrorism whether it injures or kills 1 or a thousand or a million is still wrong and immoral precisely because it attacks the innocent and deems violence and intimidation as an acceptable means of expressing political opinion;

3-your reference is misleading for two reasons; i-it infers Israel was created by terrorists-it was not; at its peak the Jewish terrorists you refer to in Irgun and then the break of Lehi-Stern gangs never amounted to more than 1,000 in Irgun and 200 or so in the Stern gang. The total number of Jews in Palestine was 470,0000; do the math, it would be impossible for such a small percentage of terrorists to have had any significant role-the no alone shows they were less than o,5 percent of the population so to even suggest indirectly they reflect Zionism or enabled the Israeli state is absolute b.s.-they were in fact renounced by the Jews of Palestine; ii-the Irgun denounced its own terrorist actions and joined the British Arrmed Foces in fighting the Nazis-even the 200 or so Stern gang members if whom some whow ere pro Mussolini and anti Zionists try infer represented all Zionists and engaged in an alliance with Hitler ceased to operate when WW2 broke out;

4-your moral equivalency argument with Hamas or Palestinian terrorists is defective-its interesting you do not compare the ratio of terrorists per Jews in Palestine with the number of terrorists per Palestinians today-without that number how do you even pretend to make a claim of moral equivalency;

5-Shamir and Begin had to renounce terror as a political tool to get elected-Hamas and PA elected officials do not-they maintain their direct relationship with terrorists and charters calling for the destruction or dismantling of Israel.

But hey I get it, two wrongs make a right and Britain, it never engaged in immorality in the Middle East or elsewhere and when it was sending Jews back to their deaths in Nazi Germany that was moral.

Oh but wait when it lied to the League of Nations telling them they would create a Jewish state in order to get the mandate to administer the Middle East they acted morally creating a Jew free Palestinian state out of most of Palestine to prevent a Jewish state.

They acted morally when they flooded Palestinian with Arabs from outside Palestine to prevent a Jewish majority emerging to create a state.

They acted moral when they arrested and tortured illegal Jewish immigrants in Palestine.

As for the Palestinians, well you seem to forget they killed more Jews in terrorist attacks when the Jewish terrorists existed and have continued ever since.

Yah I got it.

[Rue]

Bottom line is terrorism is wrong whoever does it.

Bottom line is, the death of Palestinian and Israeli citizens is truly a shame and the number of deaths does not define the shame, any death does.

Bottom line is, Hamas is deliberately getting its people killed as a political tool

Bottom line is, we pro Israelis do not want Palestinian civilians killed and can only pray the tunnels are blown up as quickly as possible and something can be done to assure Hamas does not continue to attack Israel so it does not have to return fire and kill innocent people.

Bottom line is IDF soldiers are dying as we speak because they do not call in air strikes to protect their soldiers from ambushes to spare more civilian deaths,

Bottom line is, anyone who apologizes or condones what Hamas does needs to go to Gaza and volunteer as a shield otherwise their arm chair at a distance cheer leading of what they are doing is nothing but b.s.

Bottom line is-no pro Israeli on this board condones what some of you are in terms of what Hamas is doing. We do not have a selective moral code that suspends any criticism of Israel as you do Hamas.

[Rue]

Bug Guy I advanced the argument before Argus did about sometimes having to make decisions where in the short term civilians must die so that in the long term less civilians will die. With due fairness to Argus he continued it so if you have criticism with due respect to him, I started that line of reasoning although he did a great job restating it.

I do not hide from such an unpopular stand with you. I take responsibility for what I said. On one level I thing the death of anyone innocent is a sin and a tragedy. On the other hand, in a war of attrition with terrorists sometimes decisions are made where civilians will die so that in the long term less civilians will die.

That may sound immoral to you and it may be on one basic level where we argue any death of an innocent is immoral, but on another level, it becomes the moral imperative of a state that must protect its people and its precisely what is fueling both Israel and Hamas.

In Israel's case they defend their people from slaughter at the hands of terrorists knowing they may have to kill civilians to prevent their own people from dying. But it does not stop there. The IDF is also in a twisted way saving Palestinian civilian lives by killing them. Twisted and perverse as that may seem its a reality. By blowing up ammunition sites and tunnels and buildings now, it will prevent even more Palestinian deaths when it has to inevitably retaliate later.

The only other alternative Israel has is to completely flatten Gaza city so it can not be used by Hamas as a population hostage centre. Is that an alternative? Or are you saying the alternative is for Israel to sit on its ass and do nothing?

The difference is Israel is not deliberately killing these civilians. It is trying to avoid deaths and its soldiers are dying on the ground because they choose no air cover to prevent civilian deaths.

What about Hamas? It too is fueled by this concept that if civilians die, its necessary. The difference? If you can not see the difference then I can't explain it. If you can't see Hamas has a philosophy that believes all Jews world wide must be killed in a religious war and that the death of a Muslim is a great thing, then you need to read their charter, and listen to their speeches and broadcasts.

You need to understand that to Hamas a death of a life is glorious if its a Jew and even more glorious if its a Muslim-to an Israeli its something to try avoid at all costs.

I do not expect you to understand my point above or any pro Hamas apologist on this forum.

.

There is a reason Israel will exchange so many Palestinian terrorists for one soldier or even body and Hamas on the other end giggles at this and now tries to kidnap soldiers and civilians.

There is a totally different view as to what life and death mean, Unfortunately those of you who live in the Western world and have never been to the Muslim countries where terrorism is the norm as a political and religious form of expression, you will ignore the difference and engage in a moral double standard where since Israel claims to be democratic you will hold them to one standard but the terrorists to another.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Rue

[Argus]

To stop Palestinian resistance you have either, like the Yanks, to pay for the extermination programme or you work for the world to step in, hang the child-killers and set up a non-racist, non-religious state. It isn't difficult.

How much are the yanks paying for this extermination program?

[Argus]

So you feel that sometimes you have to kill a whole bunch of innocent people to save a whole bunch of innocent people?

I feel that in war you choose the method of attack which will get the smallest number of your people killed.

In this particular event, not only did it save many tens of thousands of American lives it certainly saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

[Shady]

I feel that in war you choose the method of attack which will get the smallest number of your people killed.

In this particular event, not only did it save many tens of thousands of American lives it certainly saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

Exactly. And it's similar to the bombing of Dresden.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Yah I got it.

No I don't think you did. I don't have time just now to respond but will try to tomorrow. But quickly I just want to say that Britain has definitely no moral high ground to stand on - I never meant to infer that. The only Brit I actually have any respect for is Churchill (have read any of his books? very interesting reads), oh and my Father.

[marcus]

Exactly. And it's similar to the bombing of Dresden.

"Exactly" indeed my wise friend. You are absolutely correct. When I think Palestinians, I think large and well equipped military who is going on a murderous rampage while expanding their control over land. Just like the Nazis. And that's why bombing them like Dresden is perfectly legitimate and it really makes sense.

Edited July 27, 2014 by marcus

[Big Guy]

...

I do not expect you to understand my point above or any pro Hamas apologist on this forum.

.

...

I do understand your point of view. I also understand that perception is reality. What a person perceives becomes the reality to them.

Conflicts have motivations, causes, actions on the ground, repercussions and results. The motivations and causes are a subjective evaluation and will depend on the observer, the action on the ground is usually objective if one searches a good selection of resources. The repercussions and results are guesses into the future. Then the whole process is subjectively re-evaluated by the observer as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. There is so much subjectivity involved that the “reality” of what transpires depends completely on the individual.

It is not very difficult to decide who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. It is very difficult to try to remain neutral to stay as close to the truth of the situation as possible.

I do not post here to try to convince anybody of anything. I post in an attempt to solicit different views on the motivations, causes, repercussions and potential results.

Often that is very difficult to have to filter out the cheap shots, the demeaning attacks, the baiting and vandalizing by angry posters and those with personal agendas. There are some gems that do survive that make the process seem worthwhile.

Thank you for your civilized and respectful response. I do read and seriously consider opinions that are shared in that manner. You have added a few more strategic pieces to the this puzzle.

[Big Guy]

I feel that in war you choose the method of attack which will get the smallest number of your people killed.

In this particular event, not only did it save many tens of thousands of American lives it certainly saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

While I understand the approach I believe that the weakness is to rationalize deadly action now to counteract perceived deadly action of the future. This means that the end justifies the means and then preemptive strikes, defensive invasions and acceptable collateral casualties become working templates.

You appear to accept the rationalization of the aggressor to begin a conflict based on secret information claimed by that aggressor. I do not. It is the winners who write the immediate history of a conflict. Time has a way of adding objectivity to evaluating the reasons and results of those conflicts. I do not have the time so I do attempt at getting to the truth through an objective prism.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Big Guy

[jacee]

Pretty simple solution really.....Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist......and we go from there.

Israel already exists.

Israel doesn't need Hamas' approval.

Why does Israel continue to embarass itself by groveling for approval from Hamas?

Hamas isn't the negotiating body for peace.

Hamas is just Israel's excuse for sustaining war against Palestinians, continuing its aggressive invasion of Palestinian territory with illegal 'settlements', refusing to live within its legal borders.

Israel doesn't want peace:

Israel wants Palestine.

.

[TimG]

Why does Israel continue to embarass itself by groveling for approval from Hamas?

It is not about Hamas per se. It is about the need to get the Palestinian extremists to recognize Israel because Israel has learned the hard way that it can't make deals with the moderates because they have no ability to get the extremists to honour them. Therefore, Israel cannot make concessions that put its security at risk as long as the extremists, as currently represented by the duly elected Hamas, refuse to accept Israel.

Israel doesn't want peace:

Israel wants Palestine.

Israel has no use for Gaza and limited use for the West Bank. Israel evicted all of its settlers from Gaza in 2005 because they thought it would help the peace process. That gesture completely backfired so please explain why they should make the same mistake in the West Bank? Edited July 27, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

It is not about Hamas per se. It is about the need to get the Palestinian extremists to recognize Israel because Israel has learned the hard way that it can't make deals with the moderates because they have no ability to get the extremists to honour them. Therefore, Israel cannot make concessions that put its security at risk as long as the extremists, as currently represented by the duly elected Hamas, refuse to accept Israel.

So Israel will keep groveling for Hamas' approval that Israel knows will never come.

It's just a pretext for sustaining war.

Israel has no use for Gaza and limited use for the West Bank. Israel evicted all of its settlers from Gaza in 2005 because they thought it would help the peace process. That gesture completely backfired so please explain why they should make the same mistake in the West Bank?

Israel wants control of all of Palestine, and sustains war to that end.

.

Edited July 27, 2014 by jacee

[marcus]

It is not about Hamas per se. It is about the need to get the Palestinian extremists to recognize Israel because Israel has learned the hard way that it can't make deals with the moderates because they have no ability to get the extremists to honour them. Therefore, Israel cannot make concessions that put its security at risk as long as the extremists, as currently represented by the duly elected Hamas, refuse to accept Israel.

When are the Israeli extremists (Israeli government) going to recognize Palestine? Israel already exists, Palestine doesn't.

Israel cannot make concessions because concessions would mean they would have to give up stealing more Palestinian land that continues to shrink in size, because Israel is always looking for an excuse not to make a deal. The status quo means, it's easier for them to continue their land theft.

It's sad to see people like you are still making excuses for something so obvious; B.S. excuses for decades in order not to allow a Palestinian State and the theft of their land.

When PLO officially recognized the State of Palestine, first in the late 80's and again during the Oslo Accord, Israel no longer had any excuses. Everything since then has been B.S. and what you're doing is continuing this B.S.

Israel has no use for Gaza and limited use for the West Bank. Israel evicted all of its settlers from Gaza in 2005 because they thought it would help the peace process. That gesture completely backfired so please explain why they should make the same mistake in the West Bank?

It's not about why but about their obligation to international law. You make it sound like Israel removed its settlers and then everything was rosie. It wasn't. When the Palestinians elected Hamas right after, Israel created an open air prison. Their occupation continued under the definition of the law with their control of the borders, sea and air. They also made life miserable for the Gazans with an inhumane siege and blockade.

So stop pretending that there is no context. This superficial story that you're trying to spread no longer works. People are aware of what is happening and all you're doing is showing that you prefer to encourage human rights violations rather than justice and peace.

[Argus]

While I understand the approach I believe that the weakness is to rationalize deadly action now to counteract perceived deadly action of the future. This means that the end justifies the means and then preemptive strikes, defensive invasions and acceptable collateral casualties become working templates.

Understanding cause and effect is a requirement to intelligent decision making. If I do this, then that will happen. If I do that, then this will happen. This is, in essence, how all decisions are made. What you appear to be decrying, is that ability to anticipate the effects of our decisions and thus make different decisions.

I.e, they understood an invasion would likely cause millions of deaths, and decided dropping the nukes would short circuit this and save many lives. If I am understanding you correctly, you believe they should have simply gone ahead and invaded, and let the chips fall where they may.

Intelligent, civilized humans don't operate that way. Unsophisticated barbarians might, and animals. But most of humans operate on a more rational basis.

[marcus]

If I do this, then that will happen. If I do that, then this will happen.

Because we all know how Palestinians will react if they have their own legitimate and just state, since Zionists have this amazing ability to read the future and we should all accept their amazing ability.

Be honest for once Argus. This is what it's really like: "If I do this, then I can't steal any more land and can't control their resources and would have to give up on the dream of Greater Israel."

This is what an intelligent, honest and civilized person can conclude from what we're seeing.

Edited July 27, 2014 by marcus

[TimG]

Israel wants control of all of Palestine, and sustains war to that end.

This is just your bigotry talking. Israel wants peace. Only the insane would suggest otherwise.

[Argus]

So Israel wil keep groveling for Hamas' approval that Israel knows will never come.

It's just a pretext for sustaining war.

Israel wants control of all of Palestine, and sustains war to that end.

.

They're doing a piss poor job of it then. All the settlements combined only number about 350k people, vs 4 million Palestinians. And the Palestinian population continues to grow rapidly. So if Israel intends to somehow absorb the West bank it's certainly taking its time about it.

[jacee]

This is just your bigotry talking. Israel wants peace. Only the insane would suggest otherwise.

/report disgusting personal attack.

I believe that most Israelis want peace.

But the current right wing Israeli government regime does not.

.

Edited July 27, 2014 by jacee

[Argus]

Because we all know how Palestinians will react if they have their own legitimate state.

Get lots more missiles, as well as tanks and artillery, I suppose. Such a state, given the history of Palestinian leadership, would most resemble Yemen, a brutal, autocratic government overseeing a miserable, poverty stricken populace.

It's more like: "If I do this, then I can't steal any more land and can't control their resources and would have to give up on the dream of Greater Israel."

If they wanted to fulfill a dream of a greater Israel they'd, well, be doing something about it, wouldn't they? For example, if I was Israel, I'd want Palestinians to go away. I'd tell Egypt to open its borders, and then make life so miserable many Palestinians would move away. Maybe I'd persuade the US to bribe the Egyptians to set up big refugee camps which would become towns and cities on its own territory so the population of Gaza would shrink, then I'd put in a pile of settlements to grow the Jewish population, hold an election, and presto.

[marcus]

This is just your bigotry talking. Israel wants peace. Only the insane would suggest otherwise.

Any intelligent person already knew what the Israeli government wants. Finally this came out of the leader:

Benjamin Netanyahu Stops Pretending To Support A Sovereign Palestinian State

You were saying?

[TimG]

They also made life miserable for the Gazans with an inhumane siege and blockade.

So stop pretending that there is no context. This superficial story that you're trying to spread no longer works. People are aware of what is happening and all you're doing is showing that you prefer to encourage human rights violations rather than justice and peace.

That is rich. You want to lecture people about context but completely ignore the context behind Israel's blockade of Gaza which was entirely in reaction to the election of Hamas and Hamas's refusal to honour agreements that were already signed.

Also: the other context which you ignore: the blockade would have no meaning if Egypt did not enforce it all well. Do you ever criticize Egypt for this or is your opprobrium reserved for Jews?

[TimG]

Finally this came out of the leader:

Did you read the article? It is about security. Netanyahu does not trust Palestinians to be peaceful neighbors and thinks that giving up control would be too big a risk. It has nothing to do with a desire for the territory which is what you would like to imply. IOW - Israel wants peace - just like I said. Edited July 27, 2014 by TimG

[marcus]

Get lots more missiles, as well as tanks and artillery, I suppose. Such a state, given the history of Palestinian leadership, would most resemble Yemen, a brutal, autocratic government overseeing a miserable, poverty stricken populace./quote]

Is this more of your amazing ability to see into the future?

How about some amazing future reading from me: "Israel keeps dragging its foot with b.s. excuses and steals more land."

If they wanted to fulfill a dream of a greater Israel they'd, well, be doing something about it, wouldn't they? For example, if I was Israel, I'd want Palestinians to go away. I'd tell Egypt to open its borders, and then make life so miserable many Palestinians would move away. Maybe I'd persuade the US to bribe the Egyptians to set up big refugee camps which would become towns and cities on its own territory so the population of Gaza would shrink, then I'd put in a pile of settlements to grow the Jewish population, hold an election, and presto.

The slimy people who do not want to allow a Palestinian State know that there is a limit that the international community will accept. They are already past the point as shown by the steps taken by Europe and many organizations who are boycotting and divesting from Israel. The exact same thing that led to the fall of the Apartheid Israel.

By the way, it's nice of you to show some honesty, by admitting that the Egyptian government is in the pockets of the Zionists who area also able to "persuade" the U.S. government to do its bribery on its behalf.

Dirty, slimy, selfish Zionists are all the rage.