• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Who really cares about the Palestinians"?

Shermana

Heretic
This is a little off track, but it illustrates (what I see) an undercurrent of US thought & policy.
‘Killing Jews Is Worship’ Ad Campaign Rolled Out On SF Muni Buses « CBS San Francisco
It's all us-vs-them & they-just-can't-be-reasoned-with mentality which leads to certain & prolonged war.

Can they be reasoned with?

Or is it basically a situation where all their demands must be met and Israel is required to do so or be branded as this or that?

Are you going to just condemn the thinking without explaining why this mentality is wrong other than an appeal to ideology apart from the actual reality? So far that seems to be all anyone against the Israeli methodology is capable of doing. They have no solution or seemingly, understanding of the facts on the ground, just unreasonable expectations based on a woefully ignorant assessment of the facts.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Thing is, even if Israel got rid of the "illegal" settlements, they still wouldn't recognize Israel, they've offered to basically give them Judea-Samaria. So why should Israel budge on something if the other side won't? That's not childish, that's realpolitik.

Think about it. One side is being asked to give something up that's actually tangible like lucrative settlements, the other side is merely being asked to recognize Israel and guarantee a long term peace deal.

Perhaps I should ask again for a comment on what happened when Israel generously handed over Gaza, and why anything different should be expected with Judea-Samaria?


"Even if we recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they will never stop building settlements". See? Silly and childish.

To Palestinians, the right of return has tangible value, like the settlements to Israelis. They also fear for the status of Arab Israelis if they recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Can they be reasoned with?

Again, this sounds racist. I can't tell the difference between your attitude and the same attitude when it comes from the other side, and you want me to condemn them for it and praise you at the same time. It's impossible.

They're people, like yourself. They're exactly as reasonable and open to negotiation as you are. Although that's not saying much, it seems.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Again, this sounds racist. I can't tell the difference between your attitude and the same attitude when it comes from the other side, and you want me to condemn them for it and praise you at the same time. It's impossible.

They're people, like yourself. They're exactly as reasonable and open to negotiation as you are. Although that's not saying much, it seems.

Again, you simply call it racist while avoiding the actual discussion of the facts as if I just said it for no reason other than to be racist.

Which goes to further my point.

It seems that those who are so adamant against the Israeli position deliberately jump ship when it comes to discuss the details. Basically just smearing and slandering while avoiding the key issues as if they have no reason for what they do or say.
 

Shermana

Heretic
"Even if we recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they will never stop building settlements". See? Silly and childish.

To Palestinians, the right of return has tangible value, like the settlements to Israelis. They also fear for the status of Arab Israelis if they recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state.

You're avoiding the concept, Israel has offered to stop building the settlements if not almost completely evacuate them. Palestinians have not offered to accept Israel as a Jewish state or procure a long term peace plan. Are you saying Israel has to comply with the FULL demands of the Palestinians and remove ALL the settlements even if they offer them 95% of Judea-Samaria? Are you basically saying Israel must surrender to whatever the Palestinians want as part of the deal? Is it now "Childish" to want at least something from the deal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_...i–Palestinian_conflict#Camp_David_2000_Summit

Why don't you consider learning the actual facts before further proving my case.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
You're avoiding the concept, Israel has offered to stop building the settlements if not almost completely evacuate them. Palestinians have not offered to accept Israel as a Jewish state or procure a long term peace plan. Are you saying Israel has to comply with the FULL demands of the Palestinians and remove ALL the settlements even if they offer them 95% of Judea-Samaria? Are you basically saying Israel must surrender to whatever the Palestinians want as part of the deal? Is it now "Childish" to want at least something from the deal?

Peace process in the Israeli

Why don't you consider learning the actual facts before further proving my case.

When did Israel ever stop building settlements, or offer to completely stop? Even when they temporarily stopped in Gaza after being badgered by the us they carried on the the west bank.

Look, if you're going to insist that Israel is wonderful and perfect and can do no wrong, and that everything the Palestinians are going through it's their own fault, you are operating with your own unique set of facts and conversation with you is going to be impossible. You know who else operates with their own unique set of facts and thinks everything is the other guy's fault? Palestinians.

I too wonder if "they" can be reasoned with, and by "they" I mean both Israelis and Palestinians who share your militant attitude of "poor us, we never did anything wrong - all our troubles are their fault! We should teach them a lesson - violence is the only language they understand!"
 

Shermana

Heretic
When did Israel ever stop building settlements, or offer to completely stop? Even when they temporarily stopped in Gaza after being badgered by the us they carried on the the west bank.

Look, if you're going to insist that Israel is wonderful and perfect and can do no wrong, and that everything the Palestinians are going through it's their own fault, you are operating with your own unique set of facts and conversation with you is going to be impossible. You know who else operates with their own unique set of facts and thinks everything is the other guy's fault? Palestinians.

I too wonder if "they" can be reasoned with, and by "they" I mean both Israelis and Palestinians who share your militant attitude of "poor us, we never did anything wrong - all our troubles are their fault! We should teach them a lesson - violence is the only language they understand!"

Why is Israel supposed to stop building settlements before the Palestinians agree to their end of the bargain?

Israel offered to stop building them in the 2000 Camp David peace accords for one thing. They offered 95% of Judea Samaria, while retaining 69 settlements under Israeli annexation. Is that asking too much?

Speaking of Gaza, why does that subject keep getting ignored when I bring it up?
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Why is Israel supposed to stop building settlements before the Palestinians agree to their end of the bargain?

Israel offered to stop building them in the 2000 Camp David peace accords for one thing. They offered 95% of Judea Samaria, while retaining 69 settlements under Israeli annexation. Is that asking too much?

Speaking of Gaza, why does that subject keep getting ignored when I bring it up?

Because the Israelis only "withdrew" for long enough to start strafing it with missiles and impose a crushing blockade. I don't want to get into it with you, because you've got your own set of facts. Arguing about facts is really boring.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Because the Israelis only "withdrew" for long enough to start strafing it with missiles and impose a crushing blockade. I don't want to get into it with you, because you've got your own set of facts. Arguing about facts is really boring.

No no, you're ignoring a key element of the Gaza withdrawal. See, the newly Free Gazans elected Hamas in to fire first at Israel. You're skipping the whole 2005-2007 period. That's sort of like saying "America unjustly attacked Japan" without addressing Pearl Harbor in a way. Do you honestly not know about this or are you painfully aware enough to know what it does to your argument so you change it to your "set of facts"? Does your "set of facts" involve Israel just firing first without cause? Do you think even the Palestinians themselves agree with this version of their story?

What other parts of the situation do you want to total disregard the facts of?

It seems your idea of "my own set of facts" means the facts that everyone else agrees to. The one who has their own set of facts is those like yourself who militantly refuse to address the critical issues and instantly want to blame Israel for everything. You have done a fine job demonstrating my point, I thank you.

So there we have it, an objective discussion of the facts regarding Israel is difficult when people don't want to discuss the parts of the story that may interfere with their blind support for the Palestinians' side of the story. Meanwhile, I have offered to have the anti-Zionist side of the story discussed, and all we've gotten is accusations of me having my own "set of facts" as a barrier to such discussion, as if the historical record is somehow different than what I've been saying. At what point is it too much to ask for the other sides' "set of facts" to actually be backed when they claim the other side has the wrong set of facts? Is that all you're capable of doing, telling me my set of facts is "different" without showing how?

I should make a whole thread on whose "set of facts" is missing the key puzzle pieces, and if they're missing them due to honest neglect or militant refusal to address them.

Besides, I'd like to know what your idea of me having my own "Set of facts" is regarding the critical issue of discussion in your rebuttal, which you didn't even know that Israel offered a complete stop to the building of Settlements, which I offered you a link to see. Does Wikipedia have their own "set of facts" too on this? Can you provide a link or site that remotely backs your dismissal of my claims here? Why don't you want to address the 2000 Camp David accords? Do you have a different "set of facts" about them? Is the historical record different? You made a claim that the "mainstream news" you've seen says differently than what I'm saying, when do I get to see this?
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Because the Israelis only "withdrew" for long enough to start strafing it with missiles and impose a crushing blockade. I don't want to get into it with you, because you've got your own set of facts.
That is a remarkably ugly and ignorant statement.
 

jazzymom

Just Jewish
Because the Israelis only "withdrew" for long enough to start strafing it with missiles and impose a crushing blockade. I don't want to get into it with you, because you've got your own set of facts. Arguing about facts is really boring.

Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas was elected.

1000s of missiles have been sent into Israel.

Israel had to put into place the iron dome system to stop the missiles from hitting civilian areas.

This is why the blockade.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas was elected.

1000s of missiles have been sent into Israel.

Israel had to put into place the iron dome system to stop the missiles from hitting civilian areas.

This is why the blockade.

From Wikipedia:
Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005

The Israel Defense Forces left the Gaza Strip on 1 September 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan and all Israeli citizens were evicted from the area. In November 2005, an "Agreement on Movement and Access" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was brokered by then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to improve Palestinian freedom of movement and economic activity in the Gaza Strip. Under its terms, the Rafah crossing with Egypt was to be reopened, with transits monitored by the Palestinian National Authority and the European Union. Only people with Palestinian ID, or foreign nationals, by exception, in certain categories, subject to Israeli oversight, were permitted to cross in and out. All goods, vehicles and trucks to and from Egypt passed through the Kerem Shalom Crossing, under full Israeli supervision. Goods were also permitted transit at the Karni crossing in the north.

After the Israeli withdrawal on 12 September 2005, the Palestinian Authority had complete administrative authority in the Gaza Strip. The Rafah Border Crossing has been supervised by EU Border Assistance Mission Rafah under an agreement finalised in November 2005. However, since the 2005 withdrawal, Israel continues control the Gaza Strip's airspace and sea space.

Post-2006 elections violence

In the Palestinian parliamentary elections held on January 25, 2006, Hamas won a plurality of 42.9% of the total vote and 74 out of 132 total seats (56%). When Hamas assumed power the next month, the Israeli government and the key players of the international community, the United States and the EU, refused to recognize its right to govern the Palestinian Authority. Direct aid to the Palestinian government there was cut off, although some of that money was redirected to humanitarian organizations not affiliated with the government. The resulting political disorder and economic stagnation led to many Palestinians emigrating from the Gaza Strip.

In January 2007, fighting erupted between Hamas and Fatah. The deadliest clashes occurred in the northern Gaza Strip, where General Muhammed Gharib, a senior commander of the Fatah-dominated Preventive Security Force, died when a rocket hit his home. Gharib's two daughters and two bodyguards were also killed in the attack, carried out by Hamas gunmen.

At the end of January 2007, a truce was negotiated between Fatah and Hamas. However, after a few days, new fighting broke out. Fatah fighters stormed a Hamas-affiliated university in the Gaza Strip. Officers from Abbas' presidential guard battled Hamas gunmen guarding the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.

In May 2007, new fighting broke out between the factions. Interior Minister Hani Qawasmi, who had been considered a moderate civil servant acceptable to both factions, resigned due to what he termed harmful behavior by both sides.

Fighting spread in the Gaza Strip with both factions attacking vehicles and facilities of the other side. Following a break down in an Egyptian brokered truce, Israel launched an air strike which destroyed a building used by Hamas. Ongoing violence prompted fear that it could bring the end of the Fatah-Hamas coalition government, and possibly the end of the Palestinian authority.

Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk blamed the worsening situation on Israel, stating that the constant pressure of economic sanctions resulted in the "real explosion." Associated Press reporter Ibrahim Barzak wrote an eyewitness account stating:
Today I have seen people shot before my eyes, I heard the screams of terrified women and children in a burning building, and I argued with gunmen who wanted to take over my home. I have seen a lot in my years as a journalist in Gaza, but this is the worst it's been.​
From 2006-2007 more than 600 Palestinians were killed in fighting between Hamas and Fatah. In the aftermath of the Gaza War, a series of violent acts killed 54 Palestinians, while hundreds have claimed they were tortured. 349 Palestinians were killed in fighting between factions in 2007. 160 Palestinians killed each other in June alone.
The blockade was in response to the Hamas victory, not "1000s of missiles."
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Jay, I said that too.. "Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas was elected."


Hamas has allowed the rockets to be fired.

But I also said Hamas being elected.
Good grief! :facepalm:

You said:
Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas was elected.

1000s of missiles have been sent into Israel.

Israel had to put into place the iron dome system to stop the missiles from hitting civilian areas.

This is why the blockade.
You presented a naive and distorted causal chain. Let's fix it ...
Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas was elected.
This is why the blockade.
1000s of missiles have been sent into Israel.
Israel had to put into place the iron dome system to stop the missiles from hitting civilian areas.
There: much better.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
It is a great pity that more people do not familiarize themselves with the real history of the area before getting into these kind of discussions.

It's a great pity that certain forum members must always portray Israel as the victim in the Palestinian territories, regardless of the real history of the area.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Are Palestinians only cared about when Jews are doing the "oppressing?"

To be honest, part of the problem is simply information. We know about the suffering of the West Bank Palestinians, but most people-- myself included-- don't know the particulars about the Palestinian refugees in other places. It's not dishonesty or hypocrisy; it's just a poor flow of information.

Though, it occurs to me, if the West Bank Palestinians were successful in their struggles to get a nation of their own, that would go far in alleviating the suffering of the scattered Palestinians, since they would then have a place to call home, should they choose it.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
To be honest, part of the problem is simply information. We know about the suffering of the West Bank Palestinians, but most people-- myself included-- don't know the particulars about the Palestinian refugees in other places. It's not dishonesty or hypocrisy; it's just a poor flow of information.
The question then becomes: why the poor and selective flow of information.

But that is not the only issue. There is an apparent tendency to zealously cull every bit of anecdote and information than can possibly be construed as hostile to Israel that happily coexists with a studied disinterest in anything else.
 
Top