How can Israel deal with the palestinians?

123578

Comments

  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm impressed and curious. By what means did you determine that he is who you think he is?

    It's him. I can't remember what his name was then. It was some convoluted name which I think began with an R. I can tell by his aggressive tone that it's him. He also mentioned back then he was gonna be joining the army and spending time in the West bank. He also mentions above that he's been on here for years. So why's he only got 15 posts? I wonder if this was the first time he was banned or if there were previous occasions. If Kat has a record of the post which got me banned when I responded to him by telling him to stick it up his arse then she can check his i.p address. I have a good ear for the tone of someone's writing. If you changed your name and came back on here I'd recognise you. It's him. Simple as that.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Found him....

    His name was [size=+3]Rue D'Awakening[/size]

    It looks like he was banned only recently for creating the thread: 'Why Louise Arbour is a Cunt'
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Found him....

    His name was [size=+3]Rue D'Awakening[/size]

    It looks like he was banned only recently for creating the thread: 'Why Louise Arbour is a Cunt'

    Hey I remember that name :)
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    miller8966 wrote:
    how can israel deal with people who's view of democracy is to shoot each other in the streets.

    doesn't stop them dealing with the americans now does it?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    doesn't stop them dealing with the americans now does it?

    yes because the republicans were shooting at the dems after they lost the mid term elections.... oh wait No they didnt!
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    If Israel is such a terrible and frightening place to live then why are settlements continuing to be built? Why are Jews still emigrating there? And why is Israel being touted across the world as a desirable holiday destination?

    So you're a Zionist and you you've read the Talmud? Please explain what this has to do with Israels continuing crimes, includingh the ongoing illegal occupation, and it's despicable treatment of the Palestinians?

    I didn't say Israel was a terrible place to live. Because of the security measures it has developed over the years one can now live there with some sense of security. In 2002, however, I can tell you (because I was there) that there was a bombing virtually once a week. Tourism was dead. I never took buses anywhere. I never went downtown to a bar or to go shopping. If I went to a restaurant or a cafe I would only go to one with an armed guard at the door, and when I walked in I would only take a table as far away from the doors and windows as I could get just in case a bomber was stopped at the door and blew himself up there. Jews continue to move to Israel because Israel is our homeland and that is of value to us. When something is of great importance to you, you are willing to take risks for it. As for the Talmud I don't know what you'd like me to explain. None of my comments about the Talmud have so far had anything to do with Israel's actions. And I won't dignify your assertion of Israeli crimes with a response, not because I don't think that Israel hasn't commited any crimes, or that the Occupation is a good thing, or that the Palestinians are not suffering, but because I know that you are unwilling or unable to see the other side of the coin, and I'm tired of give and takes where you only give and never take.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    And I won't dignify your assertion of Israeli crimes with a response, not because I don't think that Israel hasn't commited any crimes, or that the Occupation is a good thing, or that the Palestinians are not suffering, but because I know that you are unwilling or unable to see the other side of the coin, and I'm tired of give and takes where you only give and never take.

    That's fine. You obviously have personal interests to protect and a particular axe to grind.
    I come from a neutral place and so i tell it like i see it.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Ahnimus wrote:
    What exactly is a "real book". You can buy a dozen books on one topic and get a dozen different stories. I honestly think that if I read something from a source I can't trust, it might stick in my mind and I won't realize it. So I choose the best sources I can, or read multiple sources. The internet is the best way to achieve the most up-to-date, complete information. Books are mostly a waste of money.

    The way the country is structured, it may not be a theocracy in the literal meaning of the term. But it's highly laced with religion. It's based on a religion. I don't have to go there to know this. I only have to stay in Canada to see the effect religion has on the very substrate of culture and politics.

    the internet may give you "more up to date" info, but the internet also empowers crazies to say whatever they want. I would trust a real academic a lot more than the most rational sounding guy on the internet any day.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    the internet may give you "more up to date" info, but the internet also empowers crazies to say whatever they want. I would trust a real academic a lot more than the most rational sounding guy on the internet any day.

    I don't understand your use of the word 'you' in the above post. My knowledge of the Middle East situation doesn't derive solely from the internet. And I rarely read newspapers.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    That's fine. You obviously have personal interests to protect and a particular axe to grind.
    I come from a neutral place and so i tell it like i see it.

    You tell it like you choose to see it and refuse to open yourself to the possibility that it could be seen differently. It's a complex situation with a multitude of sides, but you choose to view it from only one perspective, which is laughable. From having lived in Israel I can see the conflict from an Israeli perspective, both the right wing one, and the left wing one, and the centrist one. I've gotten the Israeli Arab perspective from having talked to Israeli Arabs, and Palestinian perspectives from speaking face to face with Palestinians. You seem to have no first hand knowledge of the conflict or of anybody involved in it, and yet you presume to know the absolute and undeniable truth about what is happening because of what you see on television and read on the internet. give me a break.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    I don't understand your use of the word 'you' in the above post. My knowledge of the Middle East situation doesn't derive solely from the internet. And I rarely read newspapers.

    I was responding to Ahnimus. Out of curiosity where does your understanding come from?
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    dayan wrote:
    Out of curiosity where does your understanding come from?
    true understanding arises from perception.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    And I won't dignify your assertion of Israeli crimes with a response, not because I don't think that Israel hasn't commited any crimes, or that the Occupation is a good thing, or that the Palestinians are not suffering, but because I know that you are unwilling or unable to see the other side of the coin, and I'm tired of give and takes where you only give and never take.

    If and when Israel pulls back to the internationally recognised 1967 borders then I'll pay more attention to the other side of the coin if attacks against Israeli's continue. But until then I will continue to sing out the real criminal in this situation.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    I have no idea what that means. could you please speak in plain English and not in fortune cookie snippets?
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    dayan wrote:
    I have no idea what that means. could you please speak in plain English and not in fortune cookie snippets?
    You're not coming across as overly perceptive in your attitude, here. I'm detecting some hostility, which considering I spoke one line seems a little disproportionate to the situation.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    If and when Israel pulls back to the internationally recognised 1967 borders then I'll pay more attention to the other side of the coin if attacks against Israeli's continue. But until then I will continue to sing out the real criminal in this situation.

    The international community has recognized Israel's right to adjust to 67' border so as to make it more secure. They did this in UN resolution 242. They have also expressed that this should be done through negotiation. Israel is in the West Bank in the first place because it conquered it from Jordan in 67' after Jordan attacked Israel. Israel actually told Jordan to stay out of the war and that they would not be attacked by the IDF, but Jordan decided to bomb West Jerusalem instead. As always, the situation is more complicated then you make it out to be. congrats.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    angelica wrote:
    You're not coming across as overly perceptive in your attitude, here. I'm detecting some hostility, which considering I spoke one line seems a little disproportionate to the situation.

    I didn't mean to sound hostile. I didn't understand what you wrote (still don't) and I was trying to be witty, but the tone was lost in the writing. sorry.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    The international community has recognized Israel's right to adjust to 67' border so as to make it more secure. They did this in UN resolution 242. They have also expressed that this should be done through negotiation. Israel is in the West Bank in the first place because it conquered it from Jordan in 67' after Jordan attacked Israel. Israel actually told Jordan to stay out of the war and that they would not be attacked by the IDF, but Jordan decided to bomb West Jerusalem instead. As always, the situation is more complicated then you make it out to be. congrats.

    The U.N has not placed any conditions on Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders. Israel has simply been instructed to comply with international law and pull back to the 1967 borders. Stop trying to muddy the water by making excuses for the occupation with talk of Jordan having started it. It's a bit pathetic.

    And as far as the answer to your question as to where my understanding comes from, Angelica was right to say that it simply comes down to perception. It is, unconveniently for you i expect, just as simple as that. The situation in the Middle East isn't as complicated and mysterious as people like yourself often attempt to portray it. The truth of the situation is there for all to see.
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    dayan wrote:
    I didn't mean to sound hostile. I didn't understand what you wrote (still don't) and I was trying to be witty, but the tone was lost in the writing. sorry.
    Okay. I understand.;)

    What I was referring to is that actual understanding goes beyond information and information sources, to being about what ability one has to process and understand that information. Therefore al people will see a similar situation from myriad angles with differing levels of perception. There's your truth, my truth and the truth. So from my perspective, pulling rank on truth seems pointless. At the same time, I don't mean to minimize firsthand experience and understanding; it's something those on the outside lack. I just see that outside views or internet fueled views can be equally valid in different ways.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060815.htm

    'And there are solutions to all these problems. They’re pretty straight forward. The solution to the core problem, i.e. Israel-Palestine, the solution’s been known for thirty years. There should be a two-state settlement on roughly the international border, maybe straighten out some lines, ‘minor and mutual adjustments’ it was called in official US terminology back in the 60s. And that’s supported by the whole world practically.

    It’s supported by Iran for example. They won’t publish it here. What they like in the West is Ahmadinejad’s ravings. But he has a superior, what they call the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. He’s his superior. Probably in a reprimand to Ahmadinejad he stated, declared officially, that Iran accepts the Arab League proposal. The Arab League proposal is for full normalization of relations with Israel when it withdraws to international borders. It goes beyond the two-state settlement, full normalization. That’s Iran. Palestinians accepted it for decades.

    It came to the Security Council in January 1976. Brought by the major Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, so-called confrontation states with the support of the others. The US vetoed it.

    And so it continues. The US and Israel have almost unilaterally barred a diplomatic settlement for over thirty years. This current Bush administration happens to be sort of extreme but not that different from others. Take his father, George Bush, who is regarded as anti-Israel, too harsh on Israel. Just take a look at his program, his program was worse than this. In 1988, the Palestinian National Council, governing body for the Palestinians, formally—they had tacitly accepted before—but they formally accepted a two-state settlement, formally, in terms of the international consensus.'

    ...Go through the rest of them, it’s about the same. In fact, if you look at the whole thirty-year record, there’s literally one month which deviates, January 2001. In 2000, the Camp David negotiations took place. Clinton realized that what the US and Israel were offering Palestinians was totally unacceptable to anybody, including Abbas. So he came out in December with what he called his parameters which were sort of vague but some of them were forthcoming. And then there were negotiations, top level negotiations, Israel, Palestine, in Taba, Egypt, in January for a week. And they were actually making progress. They were moving towards some version of the two-state settlement which more or less conformed to the long-standing consensus. And in their final press conference they said if they had a little more time they thought they could work it out, both sides. But Israel called them off, called off the negotiations…so we don’t know what would’ve happened. Then come Bush and Sharon and of course throw it out the window. But that week in Taba is actually the only break in thirty years. Of course the US propaganda system doesn’t include any of this. Take a poll in the Harvard faculty and almost nobody would’ve even heard of it.'
  • Byrnzie, you and Noam may either justify peace or you may justify war. Keep in mind that you cannot do both.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Byrnzie, you and Noam may either justify peace or you may justify war. Keep in mind that you cannot do both.

    Que? Non comprende! :confused:
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    also, if you read UN resolution 242, which Israel accepted immediately, it calls for Israel to withdraw from "territories" it conquered in the 67' war. It specifically does not say "all territories" and interviews with the various delegates to the UN who were involved in crafting the resolution testify to how carefully every word was chosen. They specifically speak about how the resolution was meant to recognize the ADMISABILITY for the purposes of security of territory conquered in a defensive war. Nothing is simple here. If Israel withdrew to the 67' border tomorrow I guarantee that the next day there would be rockets flying out of the West Bank at Israel. You write that Israel reinvaded Gaza two months after they withdrew from Gaza. They actually waited a year to reinvade, and did so only after a year of unceasing rocket attacks and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier from inside Israel. By simplifying a complicated situation you only make things worse. Open your eyes or shut your mouth.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    dayan wrote:
    You write that Israel reinvaded Gaza two months after they withdrew from Gaza. They actually waited a year to reinvade, and did so only after a year of unceasing rocket attacks and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier from inside Israel. By simplifying a complicated situation you only make things worse. Open your eyes or shut your mouth.

    'Gaza was devastated under Israeli rule. It’s now described accurately by Israeli human rights activists as the biggest prison in the world; totally encircled, no way in or out. And Israel freely carries out regular atrocities there. And of course after Palestinians voted the wrong way in a free election last January the US and Israel instantly determined that they would punish the population—punish the population because you didn’t vote the way we told you to. That’s a good indication of what Bush’s democracy promotion project that everyone talks about. It exists totally in rhetoric. In fact, there isn’t a particle of truth to it. And this is a good illustration of ‘you vote the wrong way, we punish you… with embargo, with cutting of funding, with any way we can’.

    And the atrocities continued. Just to give you some examples: In June, forty people were killed by Israeli forces, 36 in Gaza, four in the West Bank where the killings aren’t as high, it’s just mostly takeover. That was June. On June 24, an incident took place which is nonexistent for Western opinion but is existent for people who pay attention to the world.

    On June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two civilians in Gaza city, the Muammar brothers. They claimed they’re militants, whatever that means, but they can claim anything they like. They kidnapped them, abducted them, and took them to Israel. They’re now off somewhere hidden in the Israeli prison system. It was barely mentioned in the west. Editors knew about it. No doubt they knew about it. Like there were 87 words in the Washington Post. So it was certainly known. It was in the Israeli press, IDF handouts, no question about the fact. But the West just doesn’t care about kidnapping; it’s fine, as long as our side does it. So no reaction, no comment, nothing.

    June 25th, the next day, Hamas captured an Israeli soldier.
    You can’t kidnap soldiers, you can capture them. But by definition you can’t kidnap them as was pointed out a couple of days ago by a US military historian in the LA Times. So they captured an Israeli soldier. That led to a huge reaction in the West, a major atrocity. Israel quickly launched attacks, serious attacks. In June in Gaza, thirty-six people were killed. In July it was probably about 170 according to UN sources. And that was all approved in the West, in the United States particularly, because we can’t stand outrageous kidnapping.

    The kidnapping of civilians is a much worse crime than capturing a solider, especially a soldier in an army that’s attacking your country, which is what is happening. But that doesn’t register in the West, particularly the United States, but the West in general. On July 12th, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three, and five others were killed in Lebanon. That again led to huge outrage. A major US-Israeli invasion—of course it’s the US—destroyed half of Lebanon, killed over a thousand people, a large part of the country’s wiped out, all over the place.

    That was fine. ‘Disproportionate’ is the most that anyone could say. Israel’s been kidnapping and abducting Lebanese for decades. We don’t know how many because no one looks. There was a secret prison discovered in Israel three years ago, worse than Guantanamo, totally secret. The secret prison was never even reported in the United States. It was in Israel and in Europe. And it was full of Lebanese.'

    My eyes have always been open. So the shut your mouth part of your sentence I'll shove right back up your butt where it originated.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    Que? Non comprende! :confused:

    The op-ed you posted made no metion of continued Palestinian violence, nor the active support of it from many of the groups mentioned.

    Furthermore, it made absolutely no mention of those states rejecting that very same "obvious solution" in 1947.

    In short, the post read like a call to arms. A call to arms is not and cannot be a call for peace.
  • dayandayan Posts: 475
    Byrnzie wrote:
    'Gaza was devastated under Israeli rule. It’s now described accurately by Israeli human rights activists as the biggest prison in the world; totally encircled, no way in or out. And Israel freely carries out regular atrocities there. And of course after Palestinians voted the wrong way in a free election last January the US and Israel instantly determined that they would punish the population—punish the population because you didn’t vote the way we told you to. That’s a good indication of what Bush’s democracy promotion project that everyone talks about. It exists totally in rhetoric. In fact, there isn’t a particle of truth to it. And this is a good illustration of ‘you vote the wrong way, we punish you… with embargo, with cutting of funding, with any way we can’.

    And the atrocities continued. Just to give you some examples: In June, forty people were killed by Israeli forces, 36 in Gaza, four in the West Bank where the killings aren’t as high, it’s just mostly takeover. That was June. On June 24, an incident took place which is nonexistent for Western opinion but is existent for people who pay attention to the world.

    On June 24, Israeli forces kidnapped two civilians in Gaza city, the Muammar brothers. They claimed they’re militants, whatever that means, but they can claim anything they like. They kidnapped them, abducted them, and took them to Israel. They’re now off somewhere hidden in the Israeli prison system. It was barely mentioned in the west. Editors knew about it. No doubt they knew about it. Like there were 87 words in the Washington Post. So it was certainly known. It was in the Israeli press, IDF handouts, no question about the fact. But the West just doesn’t care about kidnapping; it’s fine, as long as our side does it. So no reaction, no comment, nothing.

    June 25th, the next day, Hamas captured an Israeli soldier.
    You can’t kidnap soldiers, you can capture them. But by definition you can’t kidnap them as was pointed out a couple of days ago by a US military historian in the LA Times. So they captured an Israeli soldier. That led to a huge reaction in the West, a major atrocity. Israel quickly launched attacks, serious attacks. In June in Gaza, thirty-six people were killed. In July it was probably about 170 according to UN sources. And that was all approved in the West, in the United States particularly, because we can’t stand outrageous kidnapping.

    The kidnapping of civilians is a much worse crime than capturing a solider, especially a soldier in an army that’s attacking your country, which is what is happening. But that doesn’t register in the West, particularly the United States, but the West in general. On July 12th, Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, killed three, and five others were killed in Lebanon. That again led to huge outrage. A major US-Israeli invasion—of course it’s the US—destroyed half of Lebanon, killed over a thousand people, a large part of the country’s wiped out, all over the place.

    That was fine. ‘Disproportionate’ is the most that anyone could say. Israel’s been kidnapping and abducting Lebanese for decades. We don’t know how many because no one looks. There was a secret prison discovered in Israel three years ago, worse than Guantanamo, totally secret. The secret prison was never even reported in the United States. It was in Israel and in Europe. And it was full of Lebanese.'

    My eyes have always been open. So the shut your mouth part of your sentence I'll shove right back up your butt where it originated.

    I find it amusing that you throw a one sided article back in my face and tell me your eyes are open. You have convinced yourself that your hard line position is correct and you refuse to even entertain the possibility that there could be shades of grey in this situation. that is a sure sign of fanaticism. How is it that you deplore Israeli abuses of Palestinian human rights and yet you are so hard hearted when it comes to the plight of Israelis who would like nothing better then for their neighbors to simply leave them alone and let them live in peace. You're a hypocrite. You say you speak for human rights, which should apply to both sides, but you are only sympathetic to the plight of one people. You say that you do not support Palestinian terror and yet you spend all your energy spewing hate at the victims of that terror and never criticizing it unless forced to in passing. It's absolute hypocrisy.
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Byrnzie wrote:
    It's amazing how tough people like you can be on internet message boards. You weren't picked on at school by any chance were you?
    And you werent perhaps the school yard bully were ya? Because you sure try to be one here...A little dissent and you go crying to the moderator to have me banned? Maybe you were the one who got picked on. Otherwise why go back to to mommy to have me banned. And no, I would never wish cancer on another human being. You do have me confused. Sorry you feel your the only one who thinks its ok to come online and bully people with your ignorant crap. I wont justify any more of your stupidity with a response. It is clear you don't read, don't travel and are probably of limited education. By the way, wathcing the television is not education fyi
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'd also like to add that I think the ancient doctrine of the Pharisees has drastically damaged the Jewish image. Preaching that it's ok to murder gentiles, or it's ok to steal from a gentile, but should not from a Jew. Usury, the Rothschilds, the whole monetary control of the world! That's what's damaging to the Jewish image, that's why this crap happens.

    The Holocaust was not just Hitler's uncaused hate for Jews, he hated Jews because of their control of the European monetary system, perhaps his father was a painter that became impoverished to a Jewish banker, that is the basis for Hitler's motivation. Although he was also fucked in the head.

    The point is, take some responsibility. Label me an anti-semite all you want, it doesn't change history or the future. Jewish people have to take some accountability for what has happened and is happening. If you ignore the Jewish role in the Holocaust, then you fail to explain why the Holocaust happened. I don't think it was right, it was all fucked up and Hitler was a psychotic maniac, but he was motivated by something powerful and it was monetary control.

    are scary. scary to think there are still people like you in the 21st century. wow, justifying hitler because of the rothchilds. zeig heil my friend
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Exactly, nationalism is the differentiation. Without nationalism, there would be no Zion. Jews would be living happily throughout the nations of the world. Zionism was diseased idea that was sold to the Jews without considering the consequences.

    and where exactly would the jews be living happily?germany? oh you killed them all there. Poland? Killed them all. Greece? killed them all. France? Killed them all. Russia? Killed by pogroms and Hitler. Spain? expelled by the catholics. So where exactly can jews live happily? I bet youd be good with the Madagascar plan..
  • the facethe face Posts: 192
    dayan wrote:
    I didn't suggest any such thing. Are you really unaware of the history of the Jews in Europe? Pogroms, blood libels, forced conversions, expulsions, massacres of entire communities during the crusades, abductions of Jewish babies for conversion, ghettoization, segregation, all of which preceded the holocaust.

    I dont know why to continue engaging this guys racist crap. He is fully entrenched in nis nazi views. dont bother. clearly he does not read and is not educated. save it. its too bad the mods here are ok with nazi bullshit.
Sign In or Register to comment.