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.

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

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:

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~

This is the problem right here. Don't complain about Palestinian blood being shed when you think it is such a badge of honor. I don't see Palestinians as victims -- i see them as provoking Israel again and again, then complaining that Israel metes out more damage than they do. Why is that a surprise? Why would you wage war against a foe that is so much stronger than you and then act like it's not fair that they win? That is not common sense and it's not good leadership, either.

You will never win with the tactics you use. Never. Israel is bigger and stronger, and has strategic allies in the world. If you want to change your lives, look to South Africa for a role model.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

Anonymous 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.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

Do I undertand correctly that your solution is the mass migration of Palestinians to the United States?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

But how do you unhook the "Palestinian side of the argument" from the root cause? What would you have Palestinians do to end the land grabs, the oppression, the discrimination, and oh yeah, the endless demonization of the armed resistance against an oppressive occupier? Sing songs around the campfire?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

But how do you unhook the "Palestinian side of the argument" from the root cause? What would you have Palestinians do to end the land grabs, the oppression, the discrimination, and oh yeah, the endless demonization of the armed resistance against an oppressive occupier? Sing songs around the campfire?

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the situation and I have posted as much already, but it sure seems to me that Israel is responding to Palestinian provocation.