[Captain Sam]

Israel is not in the possession, nor does it use the AC-130 heavy ground attack gunship. Israeli airstrikes are conducted using jet fighters (mostly F-16C\Ds and F-15Is) and special UAVs.

Well then what did I just see in that video? Was that just a very organized reconnaissance strike?
Wiki says it possess a couple modified C-130 Hercules which are used for air-to-ground attacks. I know it's wiki, but come on...
I suppose you're likely right though, since you are in the IDF and all and would know more than me.

[War Angel]

Well then what did I just see in that video?

A building hit by explosive ordanance, most likely a precision-guided bomb. The visual itself is probably from an UAV.

Was that just a very organized reconnaissance strike?

It's not recon, as shit ended up destroyed.

Wiki says it possess a couple modified C-130 Hercules which are used for air-to-ground attacks. I know it's wiki, but come on...

Please provide a link. Wiki's atricle on the IAF provides no such thing, and I myself am not familiar with such a platform in Israeli hands.

I suppose you're likely right though, since you are in the IDF and all and would know more than me.

I am not infallible, but I am still fairly confident on this matter. I could be wrong, of-course. Also, I've been discharged about two years ago... I'm a reservist.

[grassroots1]

Or, in other words: "I have absolutely no clue what I was talking about".

And what were these murders for if not for the sake of expansion? You think Israel plays an entirely reactive role? It's not like Palestinians are shooting rockets into Israel for no reason, I don't know why you're denying that the conflict exists. Israel has had a policy of extending themselves into Palestinian land, and that's why this massacre, even if it was supported by the Israeli population and seen as a reaction, is for the sake of Israeli expansion.

And you concluded with a litany of personal attacks. Wow, I thought I was actually going to have to discuss something with you.

[chaostrivia]

The massacre in January of this year is entirely sufficient. 1,500 Palestinian individuals blown up, murdered for the sake of Israeli expansion!

I'm just trying to get into your head and u're not letting me in.
What do you mean that X is "for the sake of Y"? maybe its just a language barrier, my English is not that good. I understand it as: "X is done in order that Y will be possible or easier to achieve". Am I mistaken?

If in this quote you wanted to say: "the murders are because the Israelis are just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages", they just say it. fine with me.

If you say: "And what were these murders for if not for the sake of expansion?"

Then you will have to confront the question you avoided twice already.

The question, again, is:

B) How does the murders help the expansion? or, what difference do they make? how are they necessary for the sake of the expansion? why would the expansion of (A) be impossible without the murders?
an answer to this question start something like: "The murders are necessary to support the expansion, because......"

You answer should be something like this:
"The murders of 1,500 Palestinians is for the sake of Israeli because......(here you write how is X related with Y using a relation of causality, as stated in your original quote above) . If the murders did not take place, the Israeli expansion will not be able to sustain itself or receive any kind of support - and this is why 1,500 Palestinian individuals were blown up for the sake of the Israeli expansion."

I remind you that I entered this discussion because of quote at the top of this post.
If you can't explain what you meant --> this means you have no clue what u're talking about.
If you can, then please rephrase and explain.


Good luck.
Alternatively, you still have the opportunity to take this miserable quote back and we all forget you ever said it.

Wow, I thought I was actually going to have to discuss something with you.

I hope too. Here is your 3rd chance to answer a simple question which I posed in relation with something you said.


p.s.
some of the "Palestinian individuals who were blown up for the sake of the Israeli expansion":

[Beren]

And you concluded with a litany of personal attacks.

You should be glad being called only clueless, not an anti-semite.

Wow, I thought I was actually going to have to discuss something with you.

Discuss??? Forget it when it's ISRAEL on the carpet!

[grassroots1]

Jesus what an insufferable person to debate...

Here, and then I'll expand and put it into the form you'd like:

And what were these murders for if not for the sake of expansion? You think Israel plays an entirely reactive role? It's not like Palestinians are shooting rockets into Israel for no reason, I don't know why you're denying that the conflict exists. Israel has had a policy of extending themselves into Palestinian land, and that's why this massacre, even if it was supported by the Israeli population and seen as a reaction, is for the sake of Israeli expansion.

The murders of 1,500 Palestinians in January was for the sake of Israeli expansion because it has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements, and despite the pretext of Israel playing a reactive role that is projected in the mainstream, their actions are, in reality, aggressive. This is why the murders of 1,500 Palestinian people in January were for the sake of Israeli expansion.

[chaostrivia]

Thank you. You are making an effort.

The murders of 1,500 Palestinians in January was for the sake of Israeli expansion because it has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements, and despite the pretext of Israel playing a reactive role that is projected in the mainstream, their actions are, in reality, aggressive. This is why the murders of 1,500 Palestinian people in January were for the sake of Israeli expansion.

The bolded words are my problem.

• Why the massacres in January "has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of..."? were there any problems with the continuation of the policy hadn't the massacres taken place? are you saying that the same policy that has been going for years couldn't continue, so Israel decided that 1,500 Palestinian victims is the answer to the problem that prevents its expansion?
  Why did it make a difference, what is the specific mechanism? I don't understand.
• Does it bother you that:
  
  (a) is where the murders of the Palestinians took place (this area is under full Palestinian control without even a single settlement or soldier) and (b) is where the Israel expansion takes place? I mean, there are plenty more potential victims in (b), why not senselessly butcher them instead?
• The "Palestinians" in (a) and in (b) are two totally different political entities, whose leaderships hate each other beyond my ability to describe in English? (naturally, much more than they hate Israel)

I am start to believe that I am suffering from a severe problem in my rationality and ability to apply logic and use common sense.
I still don't understand how the murders of 1,500 Palestinians in January in area (a) "has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements", which are in area (b), and are being "encroached to" for decades now.
From my knowledge of Israel and Palestine, which is CLEARLY negligible and ridiculous in comparison with yours, these two are not only totally unrelated, but also stand in contradiction with your statement. Namely, the murders of 1,500 Palestinians could also have disrupted the Israeli expansion in (b) [ also called: the West Bank ], by allowing a big bunch of westerns who don't know jack shit about the conflict to go on online forums and start saying: "The murders of 1,500 Palestinians in January was for the sake of Israeli expansion because it has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements", and create international public opinion pressure on Israel, unlike anytime before.

And to conclude I would like to draw your attention, that if Israel losses control of area (b), the width of the state of Israel will be 15km at its narrowest point, or 10 minutes by car.... Now after the criminal and colonial state of Israel has "expanded", it takes 50 minutes by car to get from its eastern side to the western side. It is common knowledge among world warfare and military strategy experts, that any country which is under a constant existential threat should reduce its strategic depth to 15 km at most.

[grassroots1]

The bolded words are my problem.

* Why the massacres in January "has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of...", are you saying that the same policy that has been going for years couldn't continue, so Israel decided that 1,500 Palestinian victims is the answer to the problem that prevents its expansion?
Remember, you said:
Quote:
So I don't know if the murders are necessary for expansion, but, like I said, they happened for the sake of it.

But now you changed your mind?
were they necessary to allow Israel to continue its consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements or where they not? AND HOW?. I still don't understand.

I didn't mean to say that it was necessary for expansion, but that it was for the sake of it. I don't know of any parallel universes, so I have no authority to say the Israeli state wouldn't have continued in the same direction if they had not bombed the shit out of the Gaza strip.

What you've done here is educate me about this issue more, certainly, and I appreciate that. But I can't understand why it's such a far fetched concept that the terrorism against the people of the Gaza strip would discourage any sort of resistance, leading to a more effective Israeli expansion in the West Bank. Israel has broken ceasefires with Hamas and went on to bomb schools and hospitals. I'm sure no one wants to resist any sort of Israeli policy now that the gaza strip was under siege for 20 days or however long it was, even if they live in the freaking west bank. If this massacre wasn't for the sake of Israeli expansion, maybe we can at least agree that it served the purpose by eliminating opposition. You could say that it has increased opposition, but we're speaking of the intentions of these decision-makers, and certainly their intention was not for the assault to backfire.

So this:

Namely, the murders of 1,500 Palestinians could also have disrupted the Israeli expansion in (b) [ also called: the West Bank ], by allowing a big bunch of westerns who don't know jack shit about the conflict to go on online forums and start saying: "The murders of 1,500 Palestinians in January was for the sake of Israeli expansion because it has allowed Israel to continue their consistent policy of encroaching into Palestinian land in settlements".

...doesn't really apply.

And to conclude I would like to draw your attention, that if Israel losses control of area (b), the width of the state of Israel will be 15km at its narrowest point, or 10 minutes by car.... Now after the criminal and colonial state of Israel has "expanded", it takes 50 minutes by car to get from its eastern side to the western side. It is common knowledge among world warfare and military strategy experts, that any country which is under a constant existential threat should reduce its strategic depth to 15 km at most.

So you're saying Israelis should WANT to lose the West Bank for reasons of military strategy?

[chaostrivia]

What you've done here is educate me about this issue more, certainly, and I appreciate that.

The kind of knowledge I have posted above can not be even classified as "an introduction to the middle east conflict", it is barely the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of the knowledge that you should have before you start to "debate". Until then, I warmly recommend you simply "learn" or "ask questions" and critically read the answers, double checking their value and likelihood to be true, a thing which you clearly did not do until this point on the fascinating and extremely complicated and difficult issue called "the middle east conflict". Unlike studying, say, WWII, here you also have a lot of disinformation that you have to recognize and then: duck.

I didn't mean to say that it was necessary for expansion, but that it was for the sake of it. I don't know of any parallel universes, so I have no authority to say the Israeli state wouldn't have continued in the same direction if they had not bombed the shit out of the Gaza strip.

I still don't understand the logic behind this, but nevermind, lets move on.

But I can't understand why it's such a far fetched concept that the terrorism against the people of the Gaza strip would discourage any sort of resistance, leading to a more effective Israeli expansion in the West Bank.

I don't know about "concepts", I know that "terrorism against the people of the Gaza strip would discourage any sort of resistance" is just contradictory to the reality in the middle east. Historically, the "Resistance level" of the Palestinians depend only slightly on the Israeli military activity, but more on the international atmosphere and circumstances, internal political forces, and many other factors. U'll have to trust me on this one, as a full explanation is too long, and we're not there yet.

Israel has broken ceasefires with Hamas

FICTION
Israel BEGGED the Hamas to prolongate the cease fire, Hamas decided to break it and continue to fire rockets on southern Israel.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27284555.htm
Even the Arabs blamed Hamas for the conflict:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821037.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... hamas-gaza
how wrong are you?

and went on to bomb schools and hospitals

come on...

I'm sure no one wants to resist any sort of Israeli policy now that the gaza strip was under siege for 20 days or however long it was, even if they live in the freaking west bank.

The demonstrations against operation Cast Lead were more frequent and violent in London than they were in the West Bank.
The reason for this is, that a different Palestinian faction is in control of the west bank, and they despise Hamas (who controls Gaza). The amount of hate is something that I can not put in words: not only that the political agenda of the two factions are total opposites, they were also involved in brutal fightings which cost the lives of over 1,000 Palestinians already. These deaths are not so reported worldwide, as they are much less "sexy" to the world media in comparison with those made with US-financed high tech weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%8 ... s_conflict

Here, some more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm --> Don't miss the "attitude to Israel" of the Hamas, ruler of Gaza, who fired - out of exactly the same altitude - rockets on southern Israel, 9,000 of them in 8 years to be exact, with civilians as their targets.

To cut a VERY long story short:

To stop the rocket missiles Israel could have just bombed Gaza flat for the air, look at the map, its barely 9 km wide, we have enough fire power. Instead, we risked our soldiers and got into this hell on earth using infantry and armored corps - with the goal of reduction of unnecessarily civilian deaths to possible minimum. Most of the casualties in Cast Lead were armed terrorists who were involved in warfare against Israel. But unfortunately, minimum 20% and 40% of them were innocent civilians or at least "non-combatants". This is what happens when you fight in the most densely populated place on the planet, which is exactly where the operation took place!
The operation was successful, the rocket fire from Gaza on southern Israel stopped.
Israel did what it had to do, and reluctantly - we simply couldn't take this shit anymore.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945489.html
Sderot is a southern city that was constantly under rocket fire, from 2001 to 2009, until the "murder of 1,500 Palestinians for the sake of Israeli expansion" stopped it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32210400
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinia ... _on_Israel

How wrong are you?
How many rockets on your own town will you take before you demand to strike back?

So you're saying Israelis should WANT to lose the West Bank for reasons of military strategy?

Man, it was ironically said

[grassroots1]

Until then, I warmly recommend you simply "learn" or "ask questions" and critically read the answers, double checking their value and likelihood to be true, a thing which you clearly did not do until this point on the fascinating and extremely complicated and difficult issue called "the middle east conflict". Unlike studying, say, WWII, here you also have a lot of disinformation that you have to recognize and then: duck.

I have critically read the things that people have said on these forums as much as possible, I don't appreciate the assumption that I haven't done so up to this point.

I know that "terrorism against the people of the Gaza strip would discourage any sort of resistance" is just contradictory to the reality in the middle east. Historically, the "Resistance level" of the Palestinians depend only slightly on the Israeli military activity, but more on the international atmosphere and circumstances, internal political forces, and many other factors. U'll have to trust me on this one, as a full explanation is too long, and we're not there yet.

Of course resistance depends somewhat on the military action of Israel, even if only in the time of crisis in which people are being attacked. You yourself said rocket attacks have largely stopped since the attack, which shows the efficacy of these decisions.

FICTION
Israel BEGGED the Hamas to prolongate the cease fire, Hamas decided to break it and continue to fire rockets on southern Israel.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27284555.htm
Even the Arabs blamed Hamas for the conflict:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821037.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... hamas-gaza
how wrong are you?

I don't know man, any article that confidently proclaims 'Suadi Arabia blames Hamas,' I'm not sure is worthy of my trust. And I certainly don't hold much value in the opinion of the United States government on this issue, or a security general for Israel in Gaza for that matter. I'm not sure how wrong I am.

I've seen numerous sources saying that Israel has rejected ceasefire propositions and broken them themselves.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45350

And this is all getting beside the point, which is the fact that the massacre in January was extremely heavy-handed and unnecessary.

and went on to bomb schools and hospitals

come on...

They did bomb hospitals and schools.

The demonstrations against operation Cast Lead were more frequent and violent in London than they were in the West Bank.

People in London don't have to worry about being bombed.

To stop the rocket missiles Israel could have just bombed Gaza flat for the air, look at the map, its barely 9 km wide, we have enough fire power. Instead, we risked our soldiers and got into this hell on earth using infantry and armored corps - with the goal of reduction of unnecessarily civilian deaths to possible minimum. Most of the casualties in Cast Lead were armed terrorists who were involved in warfare against Israel. But unfortunately, minimum 20% and 40% of them were innocent civilians or at least "non-combatants". This is what happens when you fight in the most densely populated place on the planet, which is exactly where the operation took place!
The operation was successful, the rocket fire from Gaza on southern Israel stopped.
Israel did what it had to do, and reluctantly - we simply couldn't take this shit anymore.

Why would you even suggest that you could have bombed the place completely? Why would that even be a possibility in your mind? If you support these kinds of ridiculous assaults on people, women, children, I can't understand it. You ask me how many rockets need to be fired onto my town before I want to 'demand to strike back?' Why don't you ask the Palestinians the same question? I'm tired of this argument.

[QatzelOk]

To stop the rocket missiles Israel could have just bombed Gaza flat for the air, look at the map, its barely 9 km wide, we have enough fire power. Instead, we risked our soldiers

If scaring kids until they piss they pants and keeping everyone poor and scared is the price of freedom for Israel, then this is the price the Israelis have to be ready to make. You have to be ready to risk a few soldiers lives if you're going to continue to rule over all those Arabs.

[Parvus]

Israel's foundation is based on Zionism and they practically have stolen the land from the Palestanians. It would be ok if they had decided to live together in a state where Jews and Arabs and any other people would be equal. But that's not the case. They built a Jewish state where Arabs were living.

Any Jew whose grandparents have left the land of Palestine, say, 500 years ago can go to Israel and become a citizen any time they want. But, an Arab whose parents have left those lands, say, 60 years ago does not have the right of return. It's racist, it's unacceptable and effectively turns whole Israel into occupied land.

That's why I find comparing Qassam rockets to Israeli killing machines of brand new technology irrelevant. Or discussing whether Israel kills civilians or not. Sure, the fact that Israel kills civilians makes the situation even worse, but that's far from being the source of the problem. How the war is conducted is not the real issue here, because Israel is on the wrong side from the very beginning.

That's why peace treaties or ceasefires don't and won't work. The Palestenians know that the whole of Israel is "occupied territory", not just Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Israel also knows that, so instead of accepting ceasefires or peace treaties, which means letting the Palestenians re-arm and at the same time looking as if they have retreated, they play offensive. They act to destroy any Palestenian resistance, which practically means almost all Palestenians. If they succeed in that, everything will be ok for them. Even if they can't, playing offensive makes sure that the Palestenian resistance always stays weak and doesn't become a real threat. No need to state that the rulers see the Israeli deaths by Qassam rockets just an unavoidable trade-off in that motive.

[Captain Sam]

Israel's foundation is based on Zionism...

Obviously. Zionism is the belief that Israel should exist. Most people are Zionists.

...and they practically have stolen the land from the Palestanians. It would be ok if they had decided to live together in a state where Jews and Arabs and any other people would be equal. But that's not the case. They built a Jewish state where Arabs were living.

Palestinians didn't start existing until the late 1960s. Previously they were Arabs who were a part of Jordan or Arabs that were a part of Egypt.

Jews, Arabs, whatever, everyone is treated equally in Israel. If you're an Israeli citizen, than you're Equal. 1/4th of Israeli citizens are Arabs.

Yes, and the English built a state where the Native Americans lived, and the French built a state where the English lived, and the Germans built a state where the French lived.

There are a dozen other Arab states.

Any Jew whose grandparents have left the land of Palestine, say, 500 years ago can go to Israel and become a citizen any time they want. But, an Arab whose parents have left those lands, say, 60 years ago does not have the right of return. It's racist, it's unacceptable and effectively turns whole Israel into occupied land.

It is suppose to be a Jewish homeland after all, where any Jew can feel safe and free from persecution.
The Arabs that left are those that didn't want to live in a country that was ruled by Jews. Those that stayed were granted Israeli citizenship. Why they're not allowed to return, is to prevent Israel from becoming overwhelmingly Muslim/Arab, where Israel would surely then be annexed, since they'd eventually gain power after becoming the majority. The only way for someone who is Muslim or Arab to become an Israeli citizen, is for them to either be born in Israel or to have been born in a Western nation and migrate to Israel.

That's why I find comparing Qassam rockets to Israeli killing machines of brand new technology irrelevant. Or discussing whether Israel kills civilians or not. Sure, the fact that Israel kills civilians makes the situation even worse, but that's far from being the source of the problem. How the war is conducted is not the real issue here, because Israel is on the wrong side from the very beginning.

Obviously the fact that all the nations that border Israel have repeatedly attacked it and tried to destroy it went right over your head. How about the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah intentionally target Israeli citizens? Israel doesn't intentionally target civilians.

Israel doesn't even occupy Gaza anymore, yet of course the Gazans feel a need to repeatedly assault Israel. Hamas hates Jews, and won't stop until every last Jew is dead.

That's why peace treaties or ceasefires don't and won't work. The Palestenians know that the whole of Israel is "occupied territory", not just Gaza Strip or the West Bank. Israel also knows that, so instead of accepting ceasefires or peace treaties, which means letting the Palestenians re-arm and at the same time looking as if they have retreated, they play offensive. They act to destroy any Palestenian resistance, which practically means almost all Palestenians. If they succeed in that, everything will be ok for them. Even if they can't, playing offensive makes sure that the Palestenian resistance always stays weak and doesn't become a real threat. No need to state that the rulers see the Israeli deaths by Qassam rockets just an unavoidable trade-off in that motive.

Every time there is a ceasefire, someone begins lobbing a bunch of rockets and mortars in to Israel, and it becomes a shitstorm once more.

There won't ever be peace in the region, until Israel stops building settlements and the Muslims stop hating Jews.

Everything you've said has been typical anti-Israeli rhetoric. Do you also think Israel commits genocide and practices apartheid?

[Tailz]

Palestinians didn't start existing until the late 1960s. Previously they were Arabs who were a part of Jordan or Arabs that were a part of Egypt.

I must correct you here Sam. The term Palestinian is a term that has come to be applied to the collective peoples who resided in the territory of Palestine prior the 1948 conflict, this included Jews and Arabs. Although the term was used much earlier than 1948. The Palestinians are not people who originate from Egypt or Jordan. After the 1948 war between the Arab states and the new State of Israel, a war in which Egypt and Jordan invaded and occupied areas of the British mandate for Palestine, areas that included the populations today labeled as Palestinians – thus those populations did not originate from Jordan or Egypt (although it must be assumed there was immigration of Jordanians and Egyptians during that time into the area of occupation, but not to as large a degree to equate that the whole population now termed as Palestinian are from Egypt or Jordan).

Accusations of this nature originate as a method of legitimising ejecting Palestinians from the territory by “Sending them home.” Which unfortunately is not the case as those people resided in the territory prior the conflict – so their already, home.

Jews, Arabs, whatever, everyone is treated equally in Israel. If you're an Israeli citizen, than you're Equal. 1/4th of Israeli citizens are Arabs.

Everyone is equal according to the law of the state of Israel, but you can't hide the fact that Israel values its Jewish population over its Arab population. This is displayed in the protests by hardline Zionists against Arabs living in Jewish areas, the number of Jewish Villages created to facilitate Jews, the fact that the JNF had to be ordered by the High Court of Israel to sell land to all Israeli's instead of only to Jews, and disparity between public works spending between predominantly Jewish municipalities and predominantly Arab municipalities. Yes the state laws denote all citizens as equal, but the application of those sentiments of equality fails at a number of levels in Israeli society, and government.

Israel doesn't even occupy Gaza anymore, yet of course the Gazans feel a need to repeatedly assault Israel. Hamas hates Jews, and won't stop until every last Jew is dead.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, the Gaza militants attack Israel as a means of retaliation against Israeli raids, Israeli airstrikes, and primarily the trade embargo stranglehold that Israel has upon Gaza by controlling Gaza’s airways, sea access, and border access. Israel restricts the import of all but the most essential items while also preventing Gazans from leaving the territory to visit the West Bank. So as much as you are correct that Israel does not occupy the Gaza strip anymore, its influence has always been present.

Everything you've said has been typical anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Yes, it was the standard anti-Israeli rhetoric, just as much as your responce was typical pro-israeli rhetoric.

[Parvus]

tailz replied most of the post and I agree with him so I'll be replying partly.

Yes, and the English built a state where the Native Americans lived, and the French built a state where the English lived, and the Germans built a state where the French lived.

But we don't have a Native American resistance in the USA, so we don't get to pick sides. The Native American genocide was an unacceptable inhumane act too, but it happened a long time ago and we can't do anything about it right now other than demanding from the US an apology, which they already did.

But the Palestenians are resisting, they still have a chance. And they have my support.

Israel doesn't even occupy Gaza anymore, yet of course the Gazans feel a need to repeatedly assault Israel. Hamas hates Jews, and won't stop until every last Jew is dead.

That's incorrect, and is a disinformation spread by the state of Israel most probably. Hamas doesn't hate Jews, but hates Israel. You can deny Israeli citizenship and migrate to Gaza any time you want and you will be looked after and protected by Hamas. You will be granted housing, a decent job, education for your children, freedom for practicing your religion if you have any and citizenship for the de-facto state of Palestine.
Of course you wouldn't want to live in Gaza though, and that's natural since it's not the best place on Earth to live because of your state's constant trying to destroy it.

Do you also think Israel commits genocide and practices apartheid?

No.

[QatzelOk]

It is suppose to be a Jewish homeland after all

But we're also told not to confuse or blend Israel with Jewish.

In fact, you often chastise people for equating these two entities when it suits your shrill pro-semitic agenda.

[danholo]

Of course you wouldn't want to live in Gaza though, and that's natural since it's not the best place on Earth to live because of your state's constant trying to destroy it.

I wouldn't want to live in it simply because of its theocratic character. Protection from Hamas is like getting protection from some mafiosi. Really good deal.

[chaostrivia]

Everything you've said has been typical anti-Israeli rhetoric. Do you also think Israel commits genocide and practices apartheid?

No.

meanwhile in another thread.........

Parvus you are insane to think that Arabian State palestein will be non-racist ......
It will be 10 times more racist then the Israeli state ...

I seriously doubt that. Is South Africa under ANC rule 10 times more racist than the apartheid regime?

Long live coherence and consistency!

[Parvus]

meanwhile in another thread.........

Long live coherence and consistency!

I am very aware of what I said, it's not inconsistent. You're making a fool of yourself by saying that. Don't jump to conclusions when you see the word apartheid. I'm not saying that Israel is practicing apartheid, because it's not. Israel doesn't have laws that forbid Arabs from entering certain pubs or stuff like that. Well, at least not officially. What I said was a comparison: even after years of apartheid rules which officially banned blacks from certain places, stuffed them in the most obvious ghettos, oppressed and exploited them to the greatest extent, created hatred etc. the ANC didn't do the same for the white people after it gained power. And whites are a minority in South Africa while blacks are the majority. They could have easily done horrible stuff to the whites just for revenge or something, but they have not.

So we see that long years of hatred and discrimination doesn't necessarily destroy hopes for living together. There's no need to support a 2-state solution in Palestine just because you think Arabs will take revenge and found a regime 10 times more racist than Israel or something like that.

If JohnRawls in the other thread wasn't thinking about Arabs getting revenge but was thinking that Arabs are more racist than Jews, that's a racist statement itself. And there are a bunch of Arab states with Jewish communities living inside, but those states aren't as racist as Israel and the Jews there live without any serious problems. But even if they were racist states, that doesn't necessarily imply that a Palestenian state will be racist too.

[chaostrivia]

I am very aware of what I said, it's not inconsistent. You're making a fool of yourself by saying that. Don't jump to conclusions when you see the word apartheid. I'm not saying that Israel is practicing apartheid, because it's not. Israel doesn't have laws that forbid Arabs from entering certain pubs or stuff like that. Well, at least not officially. What I said was a comparison: even after years of apartheid rules which officially banned blacks from certain places, stuffed them in the most obvious ghettos, oppressed and exploited them to the greatest extent, created hatred etc. the ANC didn't do the same for the white people after it gained power. And whites are a minority in South Africa while blacks are the majority. They could have easily done horrible stuff to the whites just for revenge or something, but they have not.

OK, clarified.

So we see that long years of hatred and discrimination doesn't necessarily destroy hopes for living together. There's no need to support a 2-state solution in Palestine just because you think Arabs will take revenge and found a regime 10 times more racist than Israel or something like that.

Yes, I saw that you are a support of the one state solution. Get over it, it is not realistic. From my personal point of view, this would have been perfect. but from my knowledge of my people and my neighbors, this is simply extremely non realistic. The middle east is not south Africa, you are supposed to know it. The background of the story is different, the circumstances, the religions, the people, everything is different.

If JohnRawls in the other thread wasn't thinking about Arabs getting revenge but was thinking that Arabs are more racist than Jews, that's a racist statement itself. And there are a bunch of Arab states with Jewish communities living inside, but those states aren't as racist as Israel and the Jews there live without any serious problems.

I don't know exactly what you call "racism". Lets just talk about "the civil situation".
The "civil situation" of the Arabs who are Israeli citizens is far better than the one of the jews who used to live in Arab countries in the past and in the present.

You are repeating common mythical Arab narrative. This is not true. You didn't check to see if the myth is true, you just believe what they tell you, right?
Jews were persecuted in all countries of Islam and were the first to flee to Israel after it was established. They were also the only jewish communities who fled in staggering numbers, sometimes literally to the 100%. If you know more about the characteristic of the jewish immigration to Palestine, you should know that such staggering numbers in such a short time occur only when personal security is in danger.
If you are interested to know more, don't be mad (=as people, espcially Arabs, usually are when somebody challenges this myth), just ask me for the facts, that might perhaps bust this myth which is so popular in the Muslim world.

But even if they were racist states, that doesn't necessarily imply that a Palestenian state will be racist too.

True.
But since it will be an Arab state, the statistics that it will not be a very racist place does not look so good....