Deep Hatred of Black People in Israel

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

i agree that the League of Nations bore some blame. However, the primary nations pushing the harm were America and Britain. Other nations to a much lesser extent.

The Palestinians are not blameless either. As I said before, their hotheads have made things worse. But their actions are easy to understand in the context of the wrongs perpetrated against them. I do not justify them. Those actions are most unwise, but understandable. I have not said they are blameless. My point is that they are the ones most wronged, and their response is understandable.

An acceptable time limit?
No. But we also need to be practical, and there comes a time when trying to address old wrongs becomes pointless. After 1500 years, the Jewish people had made homes for themselves in many other countries. They had lives which were as comfortable and as good as their neighbours. To steal Palestine off those who had made it their home for 1500 years was just plain wrong.

In addition, the harm done to the Palestinians continues today. Israel still deals with Palestinians in a terrible way. Poverty and crimes against their human rights are an everyday reality for the Palestinians.

I am not suggesting we can reverse the whole thing, either. Israel is here to stay. But there is a lot of real estate Israel gained by military conquest, and the United Nations has said it should be returned to the Palestinians. What is needed is a new Palestine, including the conquered lands, which is sovereign and independent. It will need foreign aid to get established, and that is one place America and Britain can partially make amends.

[Svartalf]

Well, yes, since it was the Romans that expelled the Jews, the jews should have taken over Italy rather than gone and botherd people whose ancestors had settled a demographic hole.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Palestinians are not blameless either. As I said before, their hotheads have made things worse. But their actions are easy to understand in the context of the wrongs perpetrated against them. I do not justify them. Those actions are most unwise, but understandable. I have not said they are blameless. My point is that they are the ones most wronged, and their response is understandable.

Do you not find the Israeli military responses understandable as well, given the fact that Israel is targeted by rocketry and suicide bombers?

They [Jews -- Thump] had lives which were as comfortable and as good as their neighbours.

I'm not sure where you got this snippet of information, but you seem singularly unaware of the existence of anti-Semitism. Let me assure you: it exists.

In addition, the harm done to the Palestinians continues today. Israel still deals with Palestinians in a terrible way. Poverty and crimes against their human rights are an everyday reality for the Palestinians.

Random rockets attacks and the deliberate targeting of Israeli citizens aren't understandable to me, and they do not one thing to resolve any problem at all; those acts can only exacerbate the tensions. Yet to you they are "understandable"? Call me strange, but I do not "understand" the logic of murdering innocent civilians.

Such acts, as "understandable" as you find them, never solve anything at all.

I am not suggesting we can reverse the whole thing, either. Israel is here to stay. But there is a lot of real estate Israel gained by military conquest, and the United Nations has said it should be returned to the Palestinians. What is needed is a new Palestine, including the conquered lands, which is sovereign and independent.

We agree on this. It's a pity a Palestinian state wasn't formed in 1948, as the UN originally proposed.

Do you happen to know why the plan for Palestinian statehood was rejected back then? Who rejected it, and who accepted it?

It will need foreign aid to get established, and that is one place America and Britain can partially make amends.

You realize that America gives hundred of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian Authority annually, right? Over the last four years, our aid has averaged $600 million annually to the PA.

You realize that our President Obama's pressure upon the Israelis has got them to accept, at least hypothetically, the existence of a Palestinian political state, right?

Your persistent refusal to credit America with its positive actions is as revealing as your attempt to have things both ways regarding the murders of civilians: everyone here sees your bias ... except for you yourself.

[Blind groper]

Thumpa

I have consistently told you that I regard the hot heads among Palestinians and their attacks on Israel as unwise. It is understandable, since young men get very angry at injustices, just as you seem to get angry at me if I suggest America is somewhat at fault. I do not approve of rocket attacks, or any murder from either side.

I do not want to get into a discussion of antisemitism, which is a separate issue. Let's leave that, shall we?

Why no Palestinian state in 1948?
Basically human nature. The Arabs opposed it, basically because they did not think there should be an Israel at all, in which they were correct. The Arab opposition was pointless and destructive, but they did not realise that at the time. The Jews accepted part, but not all of it, arguing over boundaries.

I am pleased you agree with me that there should be a new Palestinian state, sovereign and independent. It is also good that America gives aid to the Palestinian authority. It is not the only one. American aid runs to about 25% of the total, with other Arab nations giving, along with Europe, Japan, and other nations. It is not unconditional, and the donor nations have tried to use threats of withdrawn aid to control the actions of the Authority.

The reason I give little credit to America for its positive actions is because there is very little positive about American actions. The state of Israel depends heavily on the USA, and America has the power, if it chooses, to influence Israel strongly, towards establishing the Palestinian state we both agree is needed. It has not done so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpa

I have consistently told you that I regard the hot heads among Palestinians and their attacks on Israel as unwise. It is understandable, since young men get very angry at injustices, just as you seem to get angry at me if I suggest America is somewhat at fault.

1) I'm not angry at you. I am, however, amused by your inability to admit your bias. Perhaps you cannot see it?
2) That America has some blame is not the point I'm questioning, and absolving America of her misdeeds is not my aim here in this discussion.
3) Comparing someone disagreeing with you in an Internet forum to the murder of innocent civilians is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have seen written in this forum.

I do not approve of rocket attacks, or any murder from either side.

You "understand" one side's, but not the other. You identify with one side's desire to murder innocents, as you excoriate the other.

I do not want to get into a discussion of antisemitism, which is a separate issue. Let's leave that, shall we?

I'm sure you'd prefer to forget such an inconvenient history, but you did, after all, say, "they had lives which were as comfortable and as good as their neighbours" -- and a statement of such startlingly bland ignorance cannot be left unchallenged.

Do you honestly believe what you wrote there?

Do you honestly think that, say, Mathausen was a resort? Or that 40x8s were standard passenger coaches on the European rail system?

Have you ever heard the term "blood libel"? Do you know what it means?

No, when you bandy such an ignorant blandishment as "they had lives which were as comfortable and as good as their neighbours", you do not get to just back away with a request to "let's leave that, shall we?"

No, we shan't.

Explain yourself. Are you a Denier?

Why no Palestinian state in 1948?
Basically human nature. The Arabs opposed it, basically because they did not think there should be an Israel at all, in which they were correct. The Arab opposition was pointless and destructive, but they did not realise that at the time. The Jews accepted part, but not all of it, arguing over boundaries.

So, this is America's fault?

I am pleased you agree with me that there should be a new Palestinian state, sovereign and independent. It is also good that America gives aid to the Palestinian authority. It is not the only one. American aid runs to about 25% of the total, with other Arab nations giving, along with Europe, Japan, and other nations. It is not unconditional, and the donor nations have tried to use threats of withdrawn aid to control the actions of the Authority.

1) That's the way the world works. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
2) You complain that American support of Israel should be used as leverage to force Israeli policy into a particular direction (which it does do, as will be shown shortly). You also complain that American support of the NPA comes with strings attached.

Why the double-standard? Why is okay for our financial support to be used as leverage over Israeli behavior, but not Palestinian?

Here, again, is evidence of your bias.

The reason I give little credit to America for its positive actions is because there is very little positive about American actions. The state of Israel depends heavily on the USA, and America has the power, if it chooses, to influence Israel strongly, towards establishing the Palestinian state we both agree is needed. It has not done so.

This last line is nonsense. I have already linked showing where it is falsified. Obama exerted much pressure on Netanyahu to bring him to the point he did -- so much pressure that damage was done to our relations with Israel. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

This, too, is evidence of your bias; along with the double-standards you've applied as shown above, it undermines your point to the extent I'm losing interest in this conversation. I'll look back in to see if you've answered my questions.

[Hermit]

A bit of perspective please, Thumpalumpacus. US aid to the Palestinians is civil aid only, and conditional. The main condition is that no aid is permitted for Hamas or Hamas-controlled entities. This aid amounts to $370 million in fiscal 2013. Israel, on the other hand is getting $3 billion dollars each year in military grants over a period of ten years. The main condition is that it spends three quarters of that with weapons manufacturers in the US. A couple of asymmetries are pretty obvious here, don't you think?

Of course a case can be made that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and the IDF is not. Well, it isn't in a formal sense since Israel became a nation and Israeli terrorist organisations like Haganah, Irgun and Stern were absorbed into the nation's military and Mossad. The Palestinians have no nationhood. Hamas is the closest thing it can have to an army. That makes it easy to accuse the Palestinian administration of supporting terrorism. Or might they be freedom fighters? If the former, why are they more so than the IDF? In terms of civilian lives lost and civilian property destroyed, the IDF comes out way ahead. Good on you, official defenders of a nation. Keep up the good work. Here - have some more weapons.

In light of these disparities, please don't bullshit about Obama's pressure on Israel's government. So far it has not even succeeded in removing the bulk of Jewish settlements from occupied territories.

Before you accuse me of bashing Israel and the USA, let me tell you about my attitude on the issue. I don't care about who is morally right or who is to blame, nor whose land it is or who started the violence. I don't even care who killed more civilians. I do prefer the hegemony of a nation over the area that has at least a semblance of a secular and democratic government over one that is bound to take the form of sharia law and jihad. So I am on Israel's side.

Callous? I don't think so. If the Palestinians prevailed, their rulers would push the Jews into the sea and continue shafting their own subjects regardless. I'm being pragmatic.

I'm posting this because I am trying to point out that supporting either side on moral grounds is a pretty foolish endeavour.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Xamonas

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that the original expulsion of Jews back in the 6th century somehow justifies the expulsion of the Palestinians in the 20th century?

Did you listen to anything I said? Doesn't look like it.

I am saying that none of the atrocities and murders are justified. Simple as. I am saying it should ALL stop and apportioning blame to either side is going to do nothing to hasten that end.


You are the one that keeps trying to weigh up who are the good guys and bad guys here - in fact, it appears to be your sole argument.

[Robert_S]

Xamonas

Let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that the original expulsion of Jews back in the 6th century somehow justifies the expulsion of the Palestinians in the 20th century?

Did you listen to anything I said? Doesn't look like it.

I am saying that none of the atrocities and murders are justified. Simple as. I am saying it should ALL stop and apportioning blame to either side is going to do nothing to hasten that end.


You are the one that keeps trying to weigh up who are the good guys and bad guys here - in fact, it appears to be your sole argument.

I say we find a way to pin the blame on the Chinese.

[Blind groper]

Thank you Hermit.

That was a strong and rational post.

Xamonas
I have said, repeatedly, that murders on both sides are wrong.
But this is a case of the school yard bully (Israel) who is 2 years older and 50 pounds heavier than his victim (Palestine) with powerful friends (America) trying to justify pounding his victim into the dirt because said victim tried to hit back.
Trying to say the wrong on both sides is equal is just ludicrous.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A bit of perspective please, Thumpalumpacus. US aid to the Palestinians is civil aid only, and conditional. The main condition is that no aid is permitted for Hamas or Hamas-controlled entities. This aid amounts to $370 million in fiscal 2013. Israel, on the other hand is getting $3 billion dollars each year in military grants over a period of ten years. The main condition is that it spends three quarters of that with weapons manufacturers in the US. A couple of asymmetries are pretty obvious here, don't you think?

Indeed, and I didn't say that the US was lily-white. I was rebutting the insinuation that the US doesn't aid the Palestinians, when that is clearly not the case.

Additionally, the military aid given to Israel has to defend against multiple threats, not merely that of Palestinian terrorism.

As to requiring Israel to spend that money on American products, that isn't really relevant to the discussion.

Of course a case can be made that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and the IDF is not. Well, it isn't in a formal sense since Israel became a nation and Israeli terrorist organisations like Haganah, Irgun and Stern were absorbed into the nation's military and Mossad. The Palestinians have no nationhood. Hamas is the closest thing it can have to an army. That makes it easy to accuse the Palestinian administration of supporting terrorism. Or might they be freedom fighters? If the former, why are they more so than the IDF? In terms of civilian lives lost and civilian property destroyed, the IDF comes out way ahead. Good on you, official defenders of a nation. Keep up the good work. Here - have some more weapons.

Yeah, and if you will go back and re-read my posts, I'm not arguing that Israel is innocent.

In light of these disparities, please don't bullshit about Obama's pressure on Israel's government. So far it has not even succeeded in removing the bulk of Jewish settlements from occupied territories.

"Bullshit"? Go and read that link.

The unquestioned premise you're bruiting here is that the Israelis are automatons who will automatically do the will of the American President. I invite you to examine that unfounded assumption a little closer. We cannot simply snap our fingers and order them to do this or that. It's true that we give them far too much aid, and don't get nearly as much leverage as I think we should. I personally think we ought to tell Netanyahu that our aid is contingent on settlements stopping, period, and let those repercussions filter through Israeli politics.

That, of course, risks losing what influence we Americans do have, but I'm fine with that. At least then we won't have that tar-baby stuck to our hands.

Before you accuse me of bashing Israel and the USA, let me tell you about my attitude on the issue. I don't care about who is morally right or who is to blame, nor whose land it is or who started the violence. I don't even care who killed more civilians. I do prefer the hegemony of a nation over the area that has at least a semblance of a secular and democratic government over one that is bound to take the form of sharia law and jihad. So I am on Israel's side.

I wasn't going to accuse you of that, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt (he said, sarcastically). The only reason why I know that's the case with Groper is because he's made his bias plain in other threads.

Callous? I don't think so. If the Palestinians prevailed, their rulers would push the Jews into the sea and continue shafting their own subjects regardless. I'm being pragmatic.

I'm posting this because I am trying to point out that supporting either side on moral grounds is a pretty foolish endeavour.

Indeed. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat, for how many readers, that I think both sides are in the wrong ("Pretending one side has any moral ascendency in that shit-splat is silly. They both have killed, and will continue to kill, non-combatants, as a matter of policy."), but if you're not going to read my previous posts, please don't take me to task over some bullshit about favoring Israel over Palestine.

[Blind groper]

[They both have killed, and will continue to kill, non-combatants, as a matter of policy.")[/color], but if you're not going to read my previous posts, please don't take me to task over some bullshit about favoring Israel over Palestine.

Israel kills at least 10 and possibly up to 50 Palestinians for every Israeli that dies. Israel demolishes entire blocks of Palestinian homes, and even hospitals for every Israeli home that might be damaged in a Palestinian attack. Israel sets up blockades to prevent supplies, including vital medical supplies, getting to Palestinian settlements, and even attacks international aid efforts trying to get vital supplies to the victims of this conflict.

I do not condone Palestinian attacks on Israel, but to try to say the harm done is equal on both sides is purely unbelievable. And the beginning of this conflict was the shameless theft of an entire homeland from the Palestinians. So sure, they should not be firing rockets at Israel, but Israel (and less directly, America) are far more guilty.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except that I didn't say that the harm was equal. I said that neither side had moral ascendancy.

Get back to me when you actually understand what I'm posting, instead of filling in your strawmen, because I'm pretty much done with you otherwise.

[Blind groper]

Wrong either way.
Moral ascendency, FWIW, belongs to the Palestinians. It was their land. It was stolen off them. And they have been persecuted ever since. Their relatively feeble attempts to fight back represent the victim of a bully who will not give up.

[Robert_S]

Wrong either way.
Moral ascendency, FWIW, belongs to the Palestinians. It was their land. It was stolen off them. And they have been persecuted ever since. Their relatively feeble attempts to fight back represent the victim of a bully who will not give up.

Someone help me with the history here. The Palestinians were forced from their homes before or after Israel was attacked the first time?

[Blind groper]

Palestinians were forced from their homes in order to create Israel.