The Palestinian self-victimization is the loudest of all three.

It will never happen, but I would love to see the Palestinians and Israelis unite in common cause against their common enemy: namely, hte rest of the Muslim world, which (a) wants to see Israel destroyed and (b) doesn't give a flying shiat about the Palestinians, except to use them as pawns.

I think we should give the land to the Dutch.

I got a feeling the victimization is going to be thick in this thread

Israel and Palestine are like a couple of emo kids fighting over whether My Chemical Romance is better than AFI.

They slap each other and cry as loud as they can when they get hit.

...only these emo kids play for KEEPS.

Party Boy: I got a feeling the victimization is going to be thick in this thread

That's one word for it.

Ancient tribal hatred sucks.

Party Boy: I got a feeling the victimization is going to be thick in this thread

Well, now that you're here...

Beatle_Matt: They slap each other and cry as loud as they can when they get hit.

I don't see the Israelis crying too much. It's the Palestinians who cry when they punch the big guy and the big guy puts their head through a wall.

Now you might disagree and say Israel is a bully, but the last thing one should be doing is giving the bully a reason to put your head through a wall.

There are various religious opinions who agree that, if it could lead to true peace, two-states would be acceptable.

As this clearly wouldn't right now, however, I certainly oppose this idea as do most Israelis. Ask if Israelis support the creation of a state ruled by Hamas and you'll get wildly different results.

Too many young people dying in an old man's war over there.

Tatsuma: As this clearly wouldn't right now, however, I certainly oppose this idea as do most Israelis. Ask if Israelis support the creation of a state ruled by Hamas and you'll get wildly different results.

Democracy is such a nuisance


So if you oppose this idea, then what is it? One state? Are the Palestinians going to be allowed voting rights?

The top item for Palestinians is the establishment of an independent sovereign state at 97%, followed by the rights of refugees at 95% and agreement on the future of Jerusalem at 94%.

snip

More than 90% of Palestinians want refugees to be given the right to return with compensation, while 77% of Israelis say that is unacceptable.

On Jerusalem, the sides are poles apart. The most attractive option for Palestinians - 95% - is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Palestine, and for Israelis it is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Israel at 56%.

And this is why there is not going to be any peace or treaty. Israel will never allow the right of return, as it is demographic suicide, nor will it give up all of Jerusalem either. On the other hand, they will never relinquish their claim on all of Jerusalem and the right of millions of arabs to move inside of Israel, make Jews a minority and destroy the state from within return.

Tatsuma: And this is why there is not going to be any peace or treaty. Israel will never allow the right of return, as it is demographic suicide

Can't let the brown folks in

Tatsuma: The top item for Palestinians is the establishment of an independent sovereign state at 97%, followed by the rights of refugees at 95% and agreement on the future of Jerusalem at 94%.

snip

More than 90% of Palestinians want refugees to be given the right to return with compensation, while 77% of Israelis say that is unacceptable.

On Jerusalem, the sides are poles apart. The most attractive option for Palestinians - 95% - is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Palestine, and for Israelis it is for all of Jerusalem to remain in Israel at 56%.

And this is why there is not going to be any peace or treaty. Israel will never allow the right of return, as it is demographic suicide, nor will it give up all of Jerusalem either. On the other hand, they will never relinquish their claim on all of Jerusalem and the right of millions of arabs to move inside of Israel, make Jews a minority and destroy the state from within return.

ahhhh the dirty arabs are boiling over the walls ahhhhhhhh

What happened in South Africa after apartheid ended?

Bored Horde: Can't let the brown folks in

They have 22 states, and occupy 99.9% of the whole Middle-East.

I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

Tatsuma: Bored Horde: Can't let the brown folks in

They have 22 states, and occupy 99.9% of the whole Middle-East.

I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

What gave you the right to take the land from them in the first place? It hasn't been yours since Hadrian kicked you out in 136 AD. It did belong to the Mohammedan kingdoms from the 7th century onward, and they defended it successfully against wave after wave of western would-be-conquerors. Did you expect them to relinquish it without a fight?

Is it so hard to see that their point-of-view of you as foreign invader is, well, kinda reasonable?

Tatsuma: I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

So Israel only belongs to the Jews, and it is not for Arabs?

If not, who is the "They" and "I" in your statement?

Tatsuma: I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

Depends on the POV. To the guy who gets thrown out of his home? It probably is a bit much. To the guy who gets the home? I'm sure its a smashing idea. To me? Knock yourselves out just stay out of my wallet and my government.

Tatsuma: I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

Not really.

However, if your desired solution is not to let Palestinians into Israel, nor to give them their own state, what do you propose to do with them?

No Arab country wants to take them in, if only to make Israeli's foreign policy all the more difficult.

Do you invade Jordan and create a state for them there? If we do that, might I suggest an island of Japan, they have far less military capability, especially if the US decides to follow it's usual course and STFU.

Do you continue the current situation where they're still fundamentally refugees waiting on a permanent home? Do you create a program to slow population growth so the problem takes care of itself within a few generations?

How do you propose to manage these rather hostile people? 3000 years ago, the unquestionable answer would be "they'd be dead by now and our claim to the land would be undisputed." Is that still an acceptable solution today to the issue of displacement?

I'm not trolling, I've just never seen you articulate these answers. I've seen you, usually justifiably arguing against most of the answers proposed to these questions.

PurplePimpSaber: What gave you the right to take the land from them in the first place?

1. Balfour Declaration
2. Subsequent White Papers
3. All the land we bought
4. UN Resolution

That what gives us the right.

PurplePimpSaber: It hasn't been yours since Hadrian kicked you out in 136 AD.

Actually there was a constant Jewish presence in Israel, even after most Jews left.

If your argument is that these people have a right to defend the land from would-be conquerors, well we came back and we're defending what's ours from people who did try and conquer us, as we were the much longer before they arrived and took violently over the country. It just took a bit longer before we had means to defend what was ours to begin with.

palladiate: However, if your desired solution is not to let Palestinians into Israel, nor to give them their own state, what do you propose to do with them?

I do not mind having Arabs in Israel. If they want to live in the State, be productive citizens and participate in it, that's 100% fine with me. The only caveat is that they have to accept the fact it's a Jewish state.

They get all their rights, they can do everything they want, they just have to accept that.

palladiate: I'm not trolling, I've just never seen you articulate these answers. I've seen you, usually justifiably arguing against most of the answers proposed to these questions.

The refugees left at the calls of the surrounding countries who urged them to. Why is Israel responsible for what the surrounding Arab states urged them to do?

While around 600,000 Arabs left, 900,000 Jewish refugees were absorbed in Israel. We didn't keep them in camps and said "No our problem, once day you go back to whatever country you're from". We accepted them and settled them in our land.

Bored Horde: Tatsuma: They

Says it all right there.

C'mon now...no need for that.

Tatsuma: I do not mind having Arabs in Israel. If they want to live in the State, be productive citizens and participate in it, that's 100% fine with me. The only caveat is that they have to accept the fact it's a Jewish state.

They get all their rights, they can do everything they want, they just have to accept that.

So what happens in a couple of decades when they out breed you and Jews become a minority?

bogey: So what happens in a couple of decades when they out breed you and Jews become a minority?

We'll let them know after Hispanics do that here in the states.

I love the fact that people here get so cranked up and so high-strung at the whiff of possible accusation of anti-semitism, crying "Disliking Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism!@" about a hundred times for every accusation that disagreeing with Israel is in fact anti-Semitism....


but boy are the same people silent at the accusation that you're a racist if you do not believe that a state headed by Hamas next to Israel is not a good idea.

bogey: So what happens in a couple of decades when they out breed you and Jews become a minority?

Actually, the demographic threat is mere speculation and at this point not really a worry, as they have significantly less children, and thanks to religious Jews, we're starting to catch up with them bit time.

50mm: We'll let them know after Hispanics do that here in the states.

I was going to include something along those lines in my post but opted not to for the sake of not appearing trollish when I was looking for an honest answer.

Tatsuma: but boy are the same people silent at the accusation that you're a racist if you do not believe that a state headed by Hamas next to Israel is not a good idea.

You're not a racist if you think that a state headed by Hamas next door to Israel is not good for Israel.

Tatsuma: but boy are the same people silent at the accusation that you're a racist if you do not believe that a state headed by Hamas next to Israel is not a good idea.

Saying that isn't racist at all.

Tatsuma: They have 22 states, and occupy 99.9% of the whole Middle-East.

I want my own tiny state, of which there is only one on earth. That's too much to ask?

This is what I called you on.

FWIW these threads attract mouth breathers of all varieties. It's too bad that Death to America stopped posting his brilliant leading troll posts to show people how it's done.

Tatsuma: Why is Israel responsible for what the surrounding Arab states urged them to do?

Well, because they're still in your territory, generally subject to Israeli sovereign authority. And be honest, more than a couple were forced from their villages. The creation of Israel wasn't all happy fun times filled with Jews and Arabs loving each other. Both groups were most certainly a threat to each other.

Tatsuma: If they want to live in the State, be productive citizens and participate in it, that's 100% fine with me.

OK, because above you seemed very not ok with the fact that these people should be allowed Israeli citizenship.

What do you think the Israeli public opinion about a slow integration of small groups of refugees would be? Unlike many religions, conversion from Arab to Jew would be near impossible from all sides and for thousands of reasons, but I'm sure a cultural conversion would be very possible, if slow. Would you stand behind such a solution? Should an integrated refugee ever be given full citizenship, even if socialized?

Tatsuma: I love the fact that people here get so cranked up and so high-strung at the whiff of possible accusation of anti-semitism, crying "Disliking Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism!@" about a hundred times for every accusation that disagreeing with Israel is in fact anti-Semitism....

Sorry buddy, I consider myself fairly neutral when it comes to this whole mess but you guys brought this one on yourselves. Cry wolf and all that ya know.

Tatsuma: 1. Balfour Declaration
2. Subsequent White Papers
3. All the land we bought
4. UN Resolution

That what gives us the right.

Whats the total Area of land that these grant you?

Tatsuma: I love the fact that people here get so cranked up and so high-strung at the whiff of possible accusation of anti-semitism, crying "Disliking Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism!@" about a hundred times for every accusation that disagreeing with Israel is in fact anti-Semitism....


but boy are the same people silent at the accusation that you're a racist if you do not believe that a state headed by Hamas next to Israel is not a good idea.

You may not be a racist to oppose a Hamas-led State...just anti-democratic, as they are the duly elected leaders of the Palestinian people.

How to solve that problem then? Plenty the Israelis can do there...the Palestinians aren't resorting to violence out of pure evil, they're resorting to violence out of desperation. More action and concessions on the part of Israel to improve the liberty and quality of life of the Palestinians will draw Palestinians away from the far-right parties and encourage a more moderate Palestinian government.

ninjakirby: Whats the total Area of land that these grant you?

Damn son, Tats has quite the property if he can lay claim to all of Israel.

Discussing large populations with terms like "They", "You", and "Those" is an effort to lump them into one, easy to discriminate group.

You can't walk through a street in Gaza and say "These people support terrorists" and not expect to get heckled. You can't go door to door, meeting the families, discussing their issues, and keep hating "them".

You can look across a fence and hate "them", "they" hate you right back (in your mind) and you must stop "them" before "they" get you.

Bored Horde: Damn son, Tats has quite the property if he can lay claim to all of Israel.

Discussing large populations with terms like "They", "You", and "Those" is an effort to lump them into one, easy to discriminate group.

Because clearly I was using it as a singular nominative, and not referencing his use of 'us'.

Bored Horde: Discussing large populations with terms like "They", "You", and "Those" is an effort to lump them into one, easy to discriminate group.

That sounds like something you Canadian-types would say.

/So, now the plural form of the second and third person is racist. Noted.
//Plural form of you is "y'all"

Nabb1:
//Plural form of you is "y'all"

Now, we all know the true plural of "you" is "youse".

/E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

PurplePimpSaber: Nabb1:
//Plural form of you is "y'all"

Now, we all know the true plural of "you" is "youse".

/E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

I thought it was "youse guys", or is that merely the equivalent of "all y'all"?

Nabb1: PurplePimpSaber: Nabb1:
//Plural form of you is "y'all"

Now, we all know the true plural of "you" is "youse".

/E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!

I thought it was "youse guys", or is that merely the equivalent of "all y'all"?

Something like that. "youse" on its own is fine in Schuylkill County.

Used in a sentence:
"Youse go get some pierogis in the kitchen!"

I made this for the "Hamas shoots own people with Stinger missile" story, and have just been looking for an excuse to post it again.

PurplePimpSaber: "Youse go get some pierogis in the kitchen!"

mmmm...

I haven't had good pierogi since I left Chicago.

Blues_X: I made this for the "Hamas shoots own people with Stinger missile" story, and have just been looking for an excuse to post it again.

I lol'ed.

PurplePimpSaber: Something like that. "youse" on its own is fine in Schuylkill County.

Used in a sentence:
"Youse go get some pierogis in the kitchen!"

Oh, man, I love pierogis.

Nabb1: PurplePimpSaber: Something like that. "youse" on its own is fine in Schuylkill County.

Used in a sentence:
"Youse go get some pierogis in the kitchen!"

Oh, man, I love pierogis.

Sauerkraut and mushroom pierogis...one of the two lasting legacies of my Slovakian grandmother that has fallen to me to preserve, and by far the better of the two (the other seems to be my propensity for kidney stones...Damn you Nana!)

Crosshair: Now you might disagree and say Israel is a bully, but the last thing one should be doing is giving the bully a reason to put your head through a wall.

Except the bully is going to put your head through a wall anyway.

PurplePimpSaber: Nabb1: PurplePimpSaber: Something like that. "youse" on its own is fine in Schuylkill County.

Used in a sentence:
"Youse go get some pierogis in the kitchen!"

Oh, man, I love pierogis.

Sauerkraut and mushroom pierogis...one of the two lasting legacies of my Slovakian grandmother that has fallen to me to preserve, and by far the better of the two (the other seems to be my propensity for kidney stones...Damn you Nana!)

You had a Nana? I had a Nana! Seriously, though, those pierogis sound delicious. I'd ask you to send me the recipe, but my wife hates sauerkraut and would probably kill us both.

palladiate: If we do that, might I suggest an island of Japan

Right...

GAT_00: Except the bully is going to put your head through a wall anyway.

So who keeps breaking the cease-fires? For the most part it's the Palestinians.

They would get allot more sympathy if they didn't launch rockets and mortars from schools and hospitals. Along with not encouraging civilians to huddle around Hamas members as human shields.

"Hahaha... Oh, you COMMONERS and your CRAZY ideas!"

Tatsuma: 1. Balfour Declaration
2. Subsequent White Papers

The White papers said

The Royal Commission and previous commissions of Enquiry have drawn attention to the ambiguity of certain expressions in the Mandate, such as the expression `a national home for the Jewish people', and they have found in this ambiguity and the resulting uncertainty as to the objectives of policy a fundamental cause of unrest and hostility between Arabs and Jews. His Majesty's Government are convinced that in the interests of the peace and well being of the whole people of Palestine a clear definition of policy and objectives is essential. The proposal of partition recommended by the Royal Commission would have afforded such clarity, but the establishment of self supporting independent Arab and Jewish States within Palestine has been found to be impracticable. It has therefore been necessary for His Majesty's Government to devise an alternative policy which will, consistent with their obligations to Arabs and Jews, meet the needs of the situation in Palestine. Their views and proposals are set forth below under three heads, Section I, "The Constitution", Section II. Immigration and Section III. Land.

Section I. "The Constitution"

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

Tatsuma: 3. All the land we bought

1947 - 6.6%.
"The overall amount of land acquired by the Zionists was not extensive...The figure for 1947 is 6.6 percent of the total."