What the Palestinians Need to do: Surrender, Surrender, Surrender

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Israel should never have been created. The creation of Israel effectively punished the Palestinians for the sins of the Europeans in Nazi Europe. The European Jews should have either stayed in Europe or come to the United States.

With that being said, Israel is here now and it's power is unstoppable. It has nuclear weapons equipped on board submarines, which basically means that even if you nuke Israel, you can probably kiss the capital of several Arab states as well as possibly the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina goodbye. I don't know how how holy Damascus is, but that might go too. Israel's military forces are also unstoppable. Their air force is the largest, most advanced and best trained in the region. Israel's tank armies have previously decimated the Syrians and Egyptians despite being outnumbered and even one-upped on the plane of superior technology in Syrian hands. Syria's economy sucks, and Egypt's economy is barely holding itself together after its revolution. There's no awesome Arab army over the horizon.

Secondly, Israel gets these blank checks from the United States, just like the Austria-Hungary dual monarchy got from WWI Germany. Israel can round up a bunch of Palestinian kids, blow their brains out and skull fuck them. The US will still have Israel's back. The Republicans love Israel and dislike Muslims, as do centrists in US politics. Combined with massive American Jewish financial influence, as well as massive Jewish presence in the Democratic Party, both parties are effectively and unalterably pro-Israel.

That means that you really can't do anything to Israel via the United Nations. The US will veto it in the Security Council. The UN could pass a Resolution saying that Israel should not blow Palestinian kids brains out and skull fuck them, the best you can expect from the US is that it abstains.

So the Palestinians are totally beaten and what's worse is that they are continuing to lose what they have. Israel continues to steal their land every day by building new settlements and breaking international law.

Even in the future, you can't take Israel back without getting nuked in the process. You can't take Israel back when the US comes to Israel's rescue and woops your ass. Even in the very long run, there appears to be no way even a large union of Arab states can match the economy of the United States. I believe that if you take out oil, the exports of the Arab world are no greater than those of Switzerland.

I don't see how you take Israel out by force, so it appears that you just have to take what you can get at the bargaining table. It appears that the longer the Palestinians wait, the longer Hamas holds them up, the more time Israel has to steal additional Palestinian lands. Eventually there won't be much left to steal.


WEB

[College_Republican]

What's with the anti-Israel talk? Israel has claims to that land going back thousands of years. Israel is a prosperous democracy in the middle of a desert. They have a tiny piece of land in the desert that they made into a great country. All of the Arab countries around them, many of which have lots of oil, are nowhere near as prosperous economically and politically as Israel. Israel is not what is wrong with that region, it is just about the only thing that is right with it. If Israel would lay down its arms Israelis would be slaughtered. If Palestinians laid down their arms their would be peace. Only one side targets children and innocent civilians here. The idea that Israel is somehow the bad guy is nonsense and quite a common talking point in far-left circles such as the anti-America Code Pink.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

What's with the anti-Israel talk?

Asked and answered: "Israel should never have been created. The creation of Israel effectively punished the Palestinians for the sins of the Europeans in Nazi Europe. The European Jews should have either stayed in Europe or come to the United States."



Israel has claims to that land going back thousands of years.

Only problem is that Israel only held those lands for about 200 years among the thousands of years to which those claims go back.



Israel is a prosperous democracy in the middle of a desert. They have a tiny piece of land in the desert that they made into a great country. All of the Arab countries around them, many of which have lots of oil, are nowhere near as prosperous economically and politically as Israel.

Israel's primary enemies do not have a lot of oil. Israel's two major enemies were Egypt and Syria. Egypt does not have much oil to my knowledge, Syria has some kind of natural fuels, but they are not in the same league as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They might only be natural gas producers and not oil producers.

The lack of economic and political development on their part implies a very morally reprehensible argument by you: you can conquer other people's lands if you establish capitalism and democracy on it.



Israel is not what is wrong with that region, it is just about the only thing that is right with it.


Israel is part of the problem. Israel should never have been created, but moving past that, there continued land grabbing and bullying of their neighbors is a huge problem. That is why all of their neighbors hate them including established democracies (Turkey, Lebanon) and emerging democracies (Egypt, Iraq).



If Israel would lay down its arms Israelis would be slaughtered.

Strawman argument, I don't call for any laying down of arms.



If Palestinians laid down their arms their would be peace.

One can describe surrender as peace, it's misleading though.



Only one side targets children and innocent civilians here.

This is false. Both sides target civilians. Palestinians directly target civilians, Israel targets civilians with land-grabbing, and then with counterattacks which will inevitably kill civilians as collateral damage.



The idea that Israel is somehow the bad guy is nonsense and quite a common talking point in far-left circles such as the anti-America Code Pink.

It's not nonsense, your white washing of Israel's conduct is nonsense. The latter part of your comment is guilt by association. The idea that Arabs are the bad guys who should have their lands seized is quite a common talking point in far-right circles such as the racist Ku Klux Klan and terrorist militia groups. Other comments of yours, like denial of racism in the original Constitution are also held by those racist far-right groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

[College_Republican]

One side targets civilians as a strategy. The other tries to avoid civilians. Guess which is which? Furthermore, the Palestinian terrorists purposefully launch their attacks from densely populated center where children may get hurt when Israel strikes back. It is the Palestinian fault. Israel has a right to defend their country for terrorists.

I remain perplexed as to why you are so opposed to Israel having a state there. It is this tiny piece of land in the Middle east. How many Muslim states are there that are many times larger each? Israel just wants to live in piece on their tiny parcel of land. Perhaps we should also say that Muslim states have no right to exist. Hell, nobody has any right to exist anywhere. How is that? Kind of like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" when the government lady asked the alien "why did you come to our planet" and he's like "your planet?" And she's like "yes, this is our planet..."

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

One side targets civilians as a strategy. The other tries to avoid civilians. Guess which is which?

They minimize civilian casualties, they don't avoid them. The easiest way to avoid the civilian casualties is not to drop the bombs. I don't begrudge Israel for its reprisals, but I do begrudge them for ever establishing the state in the first place and then continuing stealing lands to expand it.



Furthermore, the Palestinian terrorists purposefully launch their attacks from densely populated center where children may get hurt when Israel strikes back. It is the Palestinian fault. Israel has a right to defend their country for terrorists.

Israel has only left Palestinians with densely populated centers! The Gaza Strip used to be huge, now the only thing left that hasn't been stolen is a tiny piece of densely populated land.



I remain perplexed as to why you are so opposed to Israel having a state there.

1) They stole the land. Is theft good?
2) The justification is bullshit: Jews were victims, so it's ok to victimize the Palestinians. Having held the lands 2,000 years ago is not justification.



It is this tiny piece of land in the Middle east. How many Muslim states are there that are many times larger each? Israel just wants to live in piece on their tiny parcel of land.

Is it OK to steal from Best Buy? Come on, they have so many stores and make billions of dollars every year. What's wrong with just stealing a truck full of computers? Just one truck, they've got hundreds of trucks and thousands of computers. Come on.



Perhaps we should also say that Muslim states have no right to exist. Hell, nobody has any right to exist anywhere. How is that? Kind of like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" when the government lady asked the alien "why did you come to our planet" and he's like "your planet?" And she's like "yes, this is our planet..."

First of all, let's be clear what my position is: Israel should never have been created.

If I had magic powers or I was a super mutant like Magneto or the Dark Phoenix and I could just move shit around with a thought, I would wipe out Israel. I would move all the Jews who live there to the United States and I would put as much of their shit their as possible. That's what I would do if I had magic powers.

As I do not have magic powers and no one else does, and Israel has nuclear weapons loaded on cruise missiles in modern ultra quiet submarines, Israel has to be respected, not because it's a legitimate state, but because it can kill millions of people in an act of retaliation.

As to the broader point which you might be making about how all nations are founded on conquest, that is true, but I think Israel is different. Israel only did its conquest 50 years ago. We appear to have developed some morals on what is right and wrong since the end of World War II. I think that consistency with those morals is that Israel should have never been created. The creation of Israel was merely the result of European prejudice, subjugation of Arab people, Arab military and political weakness and intense Jewish lobbying on Western leaders.


WEB

[College_Republican]

You never addressed my question about why you are so adamant that Israel has no right to exist. Jewish people have a historic claim to that land. The state of Israel wasn't the first Israel. Israel is mentioned in the bible (I think--I was a Catholic before going secular so I don't know the bible lol). So nobody "stole" anything. If this is your attitude then why aren't you saying the same thing for the Muslim states? I view this hatred toward Israel as wholly unreasonable. Maybe I am missing something.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

You never addressed my question about why you are so adamant that Israel has no right to exist. Jewish people have a historic claim to that land. The state of Israel wasn't the first Israel. Israel is mentioned in the bible (I think--I was a Catholic before going secular so I don't know the bible lol). So nobody "stole" anything. If this is your attitude then why aren't you saying the same thing for the Muslim states? I view this hatred toward Israel as wholly unreasonable. Maybe I am missing something.

Obviously false, I answered your question:

Post 1:

"Israel should never have been created. The creation of Israel effectively punished the Palestinians for the sins of the Europeans in Nazi Europe. The European Jews should have either stayed in Europe or come to the United States."

Post 5:

1) They stole the land. Is theft good?
2) The justification is bullshit: Jews were victims, so it's ok to victimize the Palestinians. Having held the lands 2,000 years ago is not justification.

With regards to your assertion about my views on "Muslim states", have you read my posts on "Muslim states?" No. So it is a lie for you to claim that I "don't do the same thing for Muslims states" when you have no factual basis to make that statement.

With regards to "hatred" that is little more than a cheap personal attack. You fail to even acknowledge what I write, let alone actually refuting it, so you resort to twisting my fact and principle-based arguments into pure emotion. Pathetic.

Nonetheless, the hatred you express towards people who are not white is not the way I formulate my beliefs about Israel. Real hatred can be seen in such things as your pretense that the three-fifths compromise in the original Constitution wasn't aimed directly at black people and your pretense that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist.

College Republican: "Blacks were not three-fifths of a person either. Enslaved people were three-fifths of a person. Not nearly all blacks were enslaved."

http://www.history.org/almanack/people/african/aaintro.cfm

During the Revolutionary era, more than half of all African Americans lived in Virginia and Maryland. Most blacks lived in the Chesapeake region, where they made up more than 50 to 60 percent of the overall population. The majority, but not all, of these African Americans were slaves. In fact, the first official United States Census taken in 1790 showed that eight percent of the black populace was free.

According to College Republican, 92% of blacks beings slaves means "not nearly all blacks were enslaved."

College Republican: "Furthermore I have yet to see evidence that Limbaugh is racist."

"Barack the Magic Negro" by Rush Limbaugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N08ZIsSPKuo

So calling Obama a "magic negro" and a "halfrican" saying "who the hell cares?" about black people are not examples of racism according to you.

Aside from hatred towards blacks, your hatred towards Muslims is shown in your belief that they deserved to have their lands stolen 60 years ago, and should continue to have their lands stolen today. The logic appears to be that any resistance to land-stealing should be retaliated upon with additional land-stealing. CR, the only hatred on this thread is your hatred towards Muslims and blacks, apparently a general hatred towards people who are not white.

[College_Republican]

Obviously false, I answered your question:

Post 1:

"Israel should never have been created. The creation of Israel effectively punished the Palestinians for the sins of the Europeans in Nazi Europe. The European Jews should have either stayed in Europe or come to the United States."

Post 5:

1) They stole the land. Is theft good?
2) The justification is bullshit: Jews were victims, so it's ok to victimize the Palestinians. Having held the lands 2,000 years ago is not justification.

I am not ignoring this. I merely don't see how Israel could steal land that was historically Jewish. Maybe Best Buy and Circuit City have the right to exist next to one another, huh?


With regards to your assertion about my views on "Muslim states", have you read my posts on "Muslim states?" No. So it is a lie for you to claim that I "don't do the same thing for Muslims states" when you have no factual basis to make that statement.

I haven't read your views on Muslim states? Do you wish they didn't exist too? What do you think Hamas would do if their sick wet dream of Israel being destroyed came true? START A MUSLIM STATE! That's right, a secular democracy (Israel) would be replaced with yet another oppressive sharia law "state." What could possibly be wrong with THAT? And since you mentioned the holocaust, might I ask what holocaust? That never happened. Just ask Hamas...


With regards to "hatred" that is little more than a cheap personal attack. You fail to even acknowledge what I write, let alone actually refuting it, so you resort to twisting my fact and principle-based arguments into pure emotion. Pathetic.

I'm sorry WEB, my bad, your love of Israel, I should have said... I didn't know I had to specifically acknowledge everything you wrote. I read what you write and you should just assume this.


Nonetheless, the hatred you express towards people who are not white is not the way I formulate my beliefs about Israel. Real hatred can be seen in such things as your pretense that the three-fifths compromise in the original Constitution wasn't aimed directly at black people and your pretense that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist.

This is bullshit. When did I say that the three-fifths clause wasn't aimed at blacks? You're just making shit up know? And the fact that I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a racist is exhibit B is this outrageous personal attack against me? I don't give a damn what someone's skin color is. How dare you accuse me of racism. HOW DARE YOU. You ought to immediately apologize for this. Did you know that if you asked me who my favorite American political figure was I would say Fredrick Douglass? Racists don't like Frederick Douglass--they hate him.


College Republican: "Blacks were not three-fifths of a person either. Enslaved people were three-fifths of a person. Not nearly all blacks were enslaved." {/QUOTE]

Not all blacks were enslaved. That's called a fact, not proof that I'm racist. We on the right tend to use facts rather than emotions.

[QUOTE] According to College Republican, 92% of blacks beings slaves means "not nearly all blacks were enslaved."

The point I'm making is that it was about enslaved people first and foremost and not all black people qualified. Besides you cherry picked your statistics from just Virginia and Maryland. If you included the entire U.S. black population then no reasonable person would disagree with what I said.


So calling Obama a "magic negro" and a "halfrican" saying "who the hell cares?" about black people are not examples of racism according to you.

Why did Limbaugh say these things? Because he was doing what he doe and mocking the left. Funny how you fail to mention Harry Reid talking about Obama's mysterious lack of a "negro dialect."


Aside from hatred towards blacks, your hatred towards Muslims is shown in your belief that they deserved to have their lands stolen 60 years ago, and should continue to have their lands stolen today. The logic appears to be that any resistance to land-stealing should be retaliated upon with additional land-stealing. CR, the only hatred on this thread is your hatred towards Muslims and blacks, apparently a general hatred towards people who are not white.

Bullshit again. Why don't you just ask My Muslim uncle or some of my dad's black friends about that? This is BS if I ever saw it. Whatever happened to the rule against personal attacks. You don't understand how deeply I am irked by such accusations.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I am not ignoring this. I merely don't see how Israel could steal land that was historically Jewish. Maybe Best Buy and Circuit City have the right to exist next to one another, huh?

Then you lied. You said, "you never addressed my question about why you are so adamant that Israel has no right to exist." Now you say you "don't see how Israel could steal land that was historically Jewish" which directly contradicts your "never addressed my question". If I never addressed your question there would be nothing for you to say "don't see" the logic in. Your saying you "don't see" the logic in my answer, debunks your previous statement that there was no answer.



I haven't read your views on Muslim states? Do you wish they didn't exist too? What do you think Hamas would do if their sick wet dream of Israel being destroyed came true? START A MUSLIM STATE! That's right, a secular democracy (Israel) would be replaced with yet another oppressive sharia law "state." What could possibly be wrong with THAT? And since you mentioned the holocaust, might I ask what holocaust? That never happened. Just ask Hamas...

That's right, you never read them. Instead of acknowledging that you never read them, you merely go on to attempt arguing your opinion. So which is it, have you read them or not? If you haven't, then you lied in saying that I believe X, Y, or Z about Muslims when you never even read it.



I'm sorry WEB, my bad, your love of Israel, I should have said... I didn't know I had to specifically acknowledge everything you wrote. I read what you write and you should just assume this.

You're being sarcastic now, the discussion is over. If you pull this shit again you are gone. Once again, you basically resort to dishonesty. You did not know acknowledge what I wrote. You pretended I never wrote what I did, and pretended that I wrote things I never did. Your morally indignant comments are based on self-serving lies.



This is bullshit. When did I say that the three-fifths clause wasn't aimed at blacks? You're just making shit up know? And the fact that I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a racist is exhibit B is this outrageous personal attack against me? I don't give a damn what someone's skin color is. How dare you accuse me of racism. HOW DARE YOU. You ought to immediately apologize for this. Did you know that if you asked me who my favorite American political figure was I would say Fredrick Douglass? Racists don't like Frederick Douglass--they hate him.

I just quoted you suggesting that the three-fifths compromise was not aimed at blacks. In any case, it appears that my use of your tactics had almost the desired effect. Now the only question is, do you see the parallel between your taking my political opinion and reducing it to "hatred" and my doing the exact same thing to yours?



Not all blacks were enslaved. That's called a fact, not proof that I'm racist. We on the right tend to use facts rather than emotions.


92% of blacks in 1790 were slaves. That's nearly all, which contradicts your statement to the contrary.



The point I'm making is that it was about enslaved people first and foremost and not all black people qualified. Besides you cherry picked your statistics from just Virginia and Maryland. If you included the entire U.S. black population then no reasonable person would disagree with what I said.

No, the point you were making is that the three fifths compromise was aimed at slaves and not at blacks, which is false. First, nearly all blacks were slaves. Second, nearly all slaves were black. Third, you failed to get the correct meaning from what you read. The figure is the 1790 census, not the demographics of merely two states, as you falsely state.



Why did Limbaugh say these things? Because he was doing what he doe and mocking the left. Funny how you fail to mention Harry Reid talking about Obama's mysterious lack of a "negro dialect."

Which is just more of your apologism for an obvious racist. He was mocking black people, not the left. Your complaint about Harry Reid is yet more BS. I'm talking about Limbaugh, not Reid. Your insistence that I break into a criticism of a completely random person makes no sense, and is yet another lie from which you base your fake morally indignant comments on. That appears to be the modus operandi in your comments: lie and create a basis for moral outrage, then make morally outraged comments.



Bullshit again. Why don't you just ask My Muslim uncle or some of my dad's black friends about that? This is BS if I ever saw it. Whatever happened to the rule against personal attacks. You don't understand how deeply I am irked by such accusations.

The rule against personal attacks? Why didn't you ask that question when you were making them? You reduced my opinions to "hatred", I did the same for yours. You took my opinions which are based on principle (not stealing land) and facts (Israel only held Israel briefly 2,000 years ago) and replace that with pure emotion (hatred). That is definitely not debate and is hardly better than a personal attack. I did the same thing to your views.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

In any case, I'll tolerate no sarcasm, especially when it's based on nothing more than blatant lies. Thread closed. To be re-opened at a later date.

[margot]

You never addressed my question about why you are so adamant that Israel has no right to exist. Jewish people have a historic claim to that land. The state of Israel wasn't the first Israel. Israel is mentioned in the bible (I think--I was a Catholic before going secular so I don't know the bible lol). So nobody "stole" anything. If this is your attitude then why aren't you saying the same thing for the Muslim states? I view this hatred toward Israel as wholly unreasonable. Maybe I am missing something.

Palestinians are an amalgamation of people who have lived in the area of Syria-Palestine and the Levant for 5,000 years.

Many are descended from Jewish farmers who remained on the land after the first and second Jews rebellions against Rome.

The Palestinians have been treated very badly by European refugees since the 1920s.... and it was unnecessary.

[Cicero]

I agree with you OP. Palestinians should surrender. But, that's about where the agreements end.

First, Israel was formed by the U.N. which carved a piece of land out for them which was formerly under British control. If we want to blame anyone for stealing then by all means, let's send the British PM and the UN's Secretary-General letters to scold them for past decisions, not the "thieves" of Israel.

Once established, Israel went through multiple wars, known as the Arab-Israeli wars. IMO, if you can go through hell to keep the dirt mound you sit on, then you've earned your stay.

As it stands today, Israel is a sovereign nation and there's no going back unless they're obliterated which seems unlikely (thank God, literally).

Thanks Brits and UN for making the mess, not Israel.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I agree with you OP. Palestinians should surrender. But, that's about where the agreements end.

First, Israel was formed by the U.N. which carved a piece of land out for them which was formerly under British control. If we want to blame anyone for stealing then by all means, let's send the British PM and the UN's Secretary-General letters to scold them for past decisions, not the "thieves" of Israel.

Well to say that the land was "formerly under British control" conveniently leaves out about 2,000 years of history when the land was under control of various empires but still inhabited by the same Arabic people.

Blaming the British and the UN makes no sense, since it is Israel which occupies and expands the lands and thus obviously are the first parties responsible for those acts.



Once established, Israel went through multiple wars, known as the Arab-Israeli wars. IMO, if you can go through hell to keep the dirt mound you sit on, then you've earned your stay.

As it stands today, Israel is a sovereign nation and there's no going back unless they're obliterated which seems unlikely (thank God, literally).

Thanks Brits and UN for making the mess, not Israel.

Your argument is a might makes right argument. I disagree with that philosophy. Right makes right.

[Cicero]

Well to say that the land was "formerly under British control" conveniently leaves out about 2,000 years of history when the land was under control of various empires but still inhabited by the same Arabic people.

Blaming the British and the UN makes no sense, since it is Israel which occupies and expands the lands and thus obviously are the first parties responsible for those acts.



Your argument is a might makes right argument. I disagree with that philosophy. Right makes right.

I apologize. I was a bit spirited when writing the reply. Still, I think Israel should remain.

And perhaps I am naive or it is just a part of being an American, but why can't Israel be shared by both?

Is it too hard to live together? Is there really much that hate? If so, I can't say I'd blame Israel if they sealed up their borders and just traded with the rest of the world and avoid their neighbors.

As for the actual topic of this thread: the Palestinians should probably stop their skirmishes, bombs, etc. but I don't think Israel believes them to be the largest of threats with their sights on Iran's nuke program.

Also, I know that Israel has done questionable things to protect themselves, but I don't think that they would deliberately destroy Mecca and the Muslim holy sites just to spite their Islamists enemies.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I apologize. I was a bit spirited when writing the reply.

That's a nice gesture, but not quite necessary. Nothing wrong with being spirited. It's all about the forum rules here. If one wants to call Obama a piece of shit or Romney an ass pirate, that's fine, so long as one can handle ones comment being called worthless, etc.

http://politicalforum.net/showthread.php?3-Forum-Rules



Still, I think Israel should remain.

Well I think it's fair to say that we have major differences of opinion on Israel. Not quite 180 degrees, but quite different. Ideally, I would like to see the end of Israel as a nation-state. Most of the people can stay where they are, but I would like to see the nation eliminated, merged with the West Bank and re-created as Palestine. As one might gather from what I've written, I see Israel as a nation-state as fundamentally illegitimate and evil.



And perhaps I am naive or it is just a part of being an American, but why can't Israel be shared by both?

Is it too hard to live together? Is there really much that hate? If so, I can't say I'd blame Israel if they sealed up their borders and just traded with the rest of the world and avoid their neighbors.

Well what if the US was invaded by China 200 years from now, and due to whatever our problems were (insane military debacles) the US lost about 50% of its land to China. Then China wanted to bargain about whether the US should be allowed to exist and whether the US gets to keep 50% or 35% of its land. Most people do not want to have their land stolen, and especially with the outrageous way that Israel is currently doing it.

Israel is actually sealing up their borders for the most part with the wall they are building. Of course they are building the wall on someone else's land, which is a perfect example of Israel's history as a state.



As for the actual topic of this thread: the Palestinians should probably stop their skirmishes, bombs, etc. but I don't think Israel believes them to be the largest of threats with their sights on Iran's nuke program.

Also, I know that Israel has done questionable things to protect themselves, but I don't think that they would deliberately destroy Mecca and the Muslim holy sites just to spite their Islamists enemies.

I think Israel would really hurt Muslims real bad in the case of Muslims launching nukes at Israel or overwhelming them with conventional tanks and aircraft. Bye-bye Damascus/Cairo/Tehran/Mecca/Medina. I would not put that past Israel at all.

With regards to the Palestinians, Israel has a plan, continue to take their land until they are little more than a handful of ghettos surrounded by Israel and enclosed in concrete walls.

The Palestinians would do well to do what most people cannot: acknowledge defeat to an evil nation that has stolen their land.


WEB

[Cicero]

Well I think it's fair to say that we have major differences of opinion on Israel. Not quite 180 degrees, but quite different. Ideally, I would like to see the end of Israel as a nation-state. Most of the people can stay where they are, but I would like to see the nation eliminated, merged with the West Bank and re-created as Palestine. As one might gather from what I've written, I see Israel as a nation-state as fundamentally illegitimate and evil.



Well what if the US was invaded by China 200 years from now, and due to whatever our problems were (insane military debacles) the US lost about 50% of its land to China. Then China wanted to bargain about whether the US should be allowed to exist and whether the US gets to keep 50% or 35% of its land. Most people do not want to have their land stolen, and especially with the outrageous way that Israel is currently doing it.

Israel is actually sealing up their borders for the most part with the wall they are building. Of course they are building the wall on someone else's land, which is a perfect example of Israel's history as a state.



I think Israel would really hurt Muslims real bad in the case of Muslims launching nukes at Israel or overwhelming them with conventional tanks and aircraft. Bye-bye Damascus/Cairo/Tehran/Mecca/Medina. I would not put that past Israel at all.

With regards to the Palestinians, Israel has a plan, continue to take their land until they are little more than a handful of ghettos surrounded by Israel and enclosed in concrete walls.

The Palestinians would do well to do what most people cannot: acknowledge defeat to an evil nation that has stolen their land.


WEB

To the first part of the quote: I will give you that Israel's "occupation" could be seen as evil (personally, I think it's just), but the people aren't evil and wish for annihilation of people who disagree with them. I believe they will destroy anyone who means to threaten them (which could be Iran, depending how seriously they take the situation), but it's not the Palestinians as most the killings on their side are done by independent militants. Which brings me to my second point.

I'd like to improve my previous statements (not changing my opinion, just clarifying). I don't think Israel wouldn't destroy Islamic capitals, but I was saying they wouldn't destroy them because of one nation. In other words, they'd only destroy Mecca is the Saudis went to war with them which seems unlikely. Israel is not above destroying their enemies (which they have a right to, or any nation for that matter, if provoked), but imo they are above destroying cities in another country then they fighting against.

As for the middle section about "If China occupied the US." The key difference is that BOTH Jews and Muslims believe that the land is theirs. China has no claim to the US as we're the first and (so far) the only nation that's sat here. Secondly, China has no reason to want this land, unless it's just for the heck of it, while the Palestinians and Jews both have reasons to be on the land because it ties to their religions (and Christianity for that matter).

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

To the first part of the quote: I will give you that Israel's "occupation" could be seen as evil (personally, I think it's just), but the people aren't evil and wish for annihilation of people who disagree with them. I believe they will destroy anyone who means to threaten them (which could be Iran, depending how seriously they take the situation), but it's not the Palestinians as most the killings on their side are done by independent militants. Which brings me to my second point.

Israel and the Israelis are not evil in that they wish the annihilation of the Palestinians, but they are evil in that they stole their land. What's worse is that even now at the very moment of this discussion, Israel is still stealing more Palestinian land.



I'd like to improve my previous statements (not changing my opinion, just clarifying). I don't think Israel wouldn't destroy Islamic capitals, but I was saying they wouldn't destroy them because of one nation. In other words, they'd only destroy Mecca is the Saudis went to war with them which seems unlikely. Israel is not above destroying their enemies (which they have a right to, or any nation for that matter, if provoked), but imo they are above destroying cities in another country then they fighting against.


I wouldn't put it past them that they would destroy Mecca just out of spite even if Saudi Arabia remained neutral in a fight between Israel and other Arab nations. Given Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Lebanese, I wouldn't put it past them.



As for the middle section about "If China occupied the US." The key difference is that BOTH Jews and Muslims believe that the land is theirs. China has no claim to the US as we're the first and (so far) the only nation that's sat here. Secondly, China has no reason to want this land, unless it's just for the heck of it, while the Palestinians and Jews both have reasons to be on the land because it ties to their religions (and Christianity for that matter).

This is not the point. The fact that Jews believe Israel is theirs and Muslims believe the land is theirs means nothing. The land IS the Arabs; what they believe is not the point. Second, China has a reason to want this land as all nations have a reason to want more land. Third, none of this is the point which is that stealing people's land is wrong and Americans wouldn't like it if a more powerful nation stole land from the country the way Israel has stolen vast amounts of land from Palestine.

[Cicero]

Israel and the Israelis are not evil in that they wish the annihilation of the Palestinians, but they are evil in that they stole their land.

I think you misread what I posted. The above statement is almost exactly what I posted, but in a different form. I'm just making sure we're on the same page with what I said.

As for the rest of the post: I will call the argument relating to whether or not Israel would destroy Muslim holy sites as finished. We have both given our opinions and it seems that we won't be swaying each other, after all it's only speculation.

I still believe that both have equal claim to the land. The statement "the land is the Arabs," does not back itself up. If you could however provide information on why you believe in the statement, then I could see from your perspective, but atm I am unconvinced.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I think you misread what I posted. The above statement is almost exactly what I posted, but in a different form. I'm just making sure we're on the same page with what I said.

My comment accurately addresses and corrects the focus of your comment. You wrote:

"I will give you that Israel's "occupation" could be seen as evil (personally, I think it's just), but the people aren't evil and wish for annihilation of people who disagree with them. "

My reply is accurate in that it pushes to the side an argument you argue against, but which I do not make (that Israelis want to annihilate the Palestinians) and reasserts my actual argument: the Israelis are evil for stealing the Palestinians land.



As for the rest of the post: I will call the argument relating to whether or not Israel would destroy Muslim holy sites as finished. We have both given our opinions and it seems that we won't be swaying each other, after all it's only speculation.

I still believe that both have equal claim to the land. The statement "the land is the Arabs," does not back itself up. If you could however provide information on why you believe in the statement, then I could see from your perspective, but atm I am unconvinced.

Basic historical facts show that the land belongs to the Palestinians. Beginning at the time of the Egyptians enslaving the Jews, they took the Jews back to Egypt. During that time Palestinians lived in modern day Israel. After the Jews escaped, they came back and slaughtered the Palestinians. Then years later, they were conquered and dispersed by the Roman Empire. For about 2,000 years after that, the Palestinians lived in Israel. Then in the late 20th century Jews came back to the land, culminating in them once again taking control of the land, moving into the area and not allowing the Palestinians to return to their own homes after they fled the fighting. So the land belong to the Palestinians and Israel stole it back then and continues to steal more of it today.