Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But Israeli lives *are* more valuable. We were chosen by God, and there's no getting around that fact.

what God is that? One that creates people who are not worth the same?
You would have had peace long ago if you had swapped your holy books to the book about Whinney the Pooh

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have stood by watching and somewhat supporting Israel's desire and right to defend themselves however no more. They have taken off the gloves so to speak and behaved as terrorists themselves. Killing over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YOUNG INNOCENT CHILDREN......SHAME ON THEM. They will pay the ultimate price in how they are garnering such world hate.

I can imagine if ONE Israeli child was killed...what would be happening. I am devastated and so saddened to see what has happened.

Most of the world aware of what's happening feels the same way. I can't imagine how the average Israeli copes knowing theirs is now the most reviled country on the planet by a wide margin. It is a terrible cycle because the Palestinians deserve their land back, but then who would want former Israelis living among them knowing how they've behaved?

An average Israeli copes very well because he or she has been taught since childhood that the world is against us and we need to defend ourselves and this land is ours to begin with and Palestinians, there is no such thing, and besides, the Middle East is full of Arab countries, why don't they go and live there?

You would love that, wouldn't you? Won't happen, we are here to stay and one day Palestine will be free!!!! And keep living in that illusion that the world is here to get you, Paranoia much?

I don't think pp is actually speaking from the Israeli viewpoint, she's explaining it.

He/she used the pronoun "We" so I understood it as he/she being part of the "we"

I am the PP you quoted and yes, I posted it with all due sarcasm and simplification of what Israelis are taught. I'm actually on your side. There was no need to go all nuclear on me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But Israeli lives *are* more valuable. We were chosen by God, and there's no getting around that fact.

what God is that? One that creates people who are not worth the same?
You would have had peace long ago if you had swapped your holy books to the book about Whinney the Pooh

Anonymous wrote:
A little background:

My mother was born in Iraq. A bit after Israel creation, law in Iraq changed such as Jews will not be able to own property. They had to leave, or else. My mom (as a teenager) and her parents had to live in a tent for 3 years as refugees in Israel - the place that accepted them. So yes, there were about 500K refugees on the Arab side, but there were about that number refugees on the Jewish side coming from Arab countries (my dad btw had to leave Egypt) into Israel.

A quick comment before I get to the important part: I appreciate the Arab countries for forcing the Jews to move but not killing them. This is much better than what happen to my wife's family - almost all were killed in Poland by Hitler.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Anonymous wrote:You should all go and check your data.

Remind me how many people were killed by arabs in Syria just in the last couple of yeara? Was it because of Israel?

How many were killed by arabs in Iraq? Was that Israel too?

How many were killed by arabs all through the middle east and beyond?

One has to understand that if Israelis were really interested in killing Palestinians, then the number of dead would be higher than the two examples above, not a small fraction.

Plus, next time think about what would you do when someone rains rockets on your city.

Anonymous wrote:Hitler killed 6 million, Israel killed a few hundred, DEFENDING themselves. Jews weren't launching missile attacks on German teenagers before the Holocaust. To compare Israel and Hitler is not only bigoted, it shows an incredible callousness for real mass murder. If any of you anti-Semites said these things with me around, you'd be set straight real quick.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

Anonymous wrote:
You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

Are you sure about that? I don't know of any people/countries who just sat down peacefully, smiles on their faces accepting to be colonized/enslaved/occupied . That did not happen and i don't see that ever happening. History books describe in great details how those countries that you are talking about fought endlessly til one party gave up because they were not strong enough or there was outside pressure or maybe they found their morality somewhere along the way. I dont see how the Palestinians are justifying violence since they are the victims here. In any case, one thing is for sure, Palestinians will fight till Palestine is free, Palestinians do not give up . The route to justice and freedom is paved by bravery, the blood of the people who fight for those ideals, and their memories. Today, most things are manufactured in China but courage is still manufactured in Palestine, and one day Ghaza will be free~