2 minutes ago, TEW said:

Create a state or declare a capital? The whole area has been conquered and reconquered by everyone from ancient Egypt, Alexander the Great, and Rome to the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and now Israel.

They did not farm the land or have an economic system? I mean, that’s just blatantly false; economic activity stretches back thousands of years. It was one of the major economic hubs of the ancient world. I wonder, would you apply this logic to any other African natives? 
 

And of course there is room for criticism. Israel is not perfect. By your logic, there is no room for criticism of the European Colonial system.

But it was never conquered by Palestinians. 

No, Israel is the one who turned the land into Milk and Honey, not the Arabs. Yeah,  and it was a major economic hub because in the Ancient World, the Nation of Israel existed. 

By your logic just the mere presence of people on  the land, makes them true owners of the land and those who created a State with a Capitol City, improving the land, farming the land and creating an economy means nothing. 

Again if the Arabs want a fight, Israel will defend themselves. Maybe Israel should take a page out of the Andrew Jackson Playbook. Or maybe Unconditional Surrender Grant's. 

23 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

But it was never conquered by Palestinians. 

No, Israel is the one who turned the land into Milk and Honey, not the Arabs. Yeah,  and it was a major economic hub because in the Ancient World, the Nation of Israel existed. 

By your logic just the mere presence of people on  the land, makes them true owners of the land and those who created a State with a Capitol City, improving the land, farming the land and creating an economy means nothing. 

Again if the Arabs want a fight, Israel will defend themselves. Maybe Israel should take a page out of the Andrew Jackson Playbook. Or maybe Unconditional Surrender Grant's. 

Yeah, I think being the original inhabitants of a land gives said people a legitimate claim on it. Not necessarily an absolute claim, but a legitimate claim nonetheless. I figured this would be a universal concept, but apparently not.

Again, I wonder if you’d apply that middle paragraph to Zimbabwe or South Africa? Do you side with the Rhodesians? How about apartheid?

47 minutes ago, TEW said:

Yeah, I think being the original inhabitants of a land gives said people a legitimate claim on it. Not necessarily an absolute claim, but a legitimate claim nonetheless. I figured this would be a universal concept, but apparently not.

Again, I wonder if you’d apply that middle paragraph to Zimbabwe or South Africa? Do you side with the Rhodesians? How about apartheid?

Well then I guess there were many original inhabitants, the Natufian, Canaanites, Philistines and Jews, were the original inhabitants The Jews defeated them all. You seem to think Palestinians and not Jews are the original inhabitants of the land. Seems the Canaanites have a stronger claim than the Palestinians. For that matter the Amorites who were defeated by Joshua at Jericho have a stronger claim as well. 

Israel will defeat Hamas. 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Yeah, I think being the original inhabitants of a land gives said people a legitimate claim on it.

25 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Does anyone, anywhere, claim they have no legitimate claim? Even the evil white supremacist males that created the US have them reservations.

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Well then I guess there were many original inhabitants, the Natufian, Canaanites, Philistines and Jews, were the original inhabitants The Jews defeated them all. You seem to think Palestinians and not Jews are the original inhabitants of the land. Seems the Canaanites have a stronger claim than the Palestinians. For that matter the Amorites who were defeated by Joshua at Jericho have a stronger claim as well. 

Israel will defeat Hamas. 

Yes. The people who were there BEFORE the Jews have a claim on the land. As do the people who were there when Israel was formed.

That's how it all works. Before the creation of the state of Israel, what was the local population like? What percent were Jews?

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Well then I guess there were many original inhabitants, the Natufian, Canaanites, Philistines and Jews, were the original inhabitants The Jews defeated them all. You seem to think Palestinians and not Jews are the original inhabitants of the land. Seems the Canaanites have a stronger claim than the Palestinians. For that matter the Amorites who were defeated by Joshua at Jericho have a stronger claim as well. 

Israel will defeat Hamas. 

The Jews currently in Israel are a diaspora that went to Israel less than a century ago. They aren’t freaking Canaanites.  

The history of that entire region is heavily obfuscated by biblical lore. It's hard to really know who was there first.

Jews started moving back to the Middle East in greater numbers in the early 20th century because the Ottoman Empire was falling apart and Europe was racist af towards Jews

19 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This is interesting, because just a few pages back, I was arguing with a poster who seems to think that fear of nuclear war in the M.E. is "moronic nonsense," because it would be self-defeating for Israel to deploy a nuke within its own region. There's logic to this argument, but you can't always expect the actors to be rational in an all-out war. You seem to be indicating that the nuclear threat does exist.

Yep, but only if we run out of options ang get "cornered". But if/when Iranians produce a nuclear bomb of their own - it will add a totally new dimension to the conflict. 

17 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

I don’t get what you’re arguing.  You think they’re going to go head-to-head with Israeli tanks or something?

 

 

19 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

That building appears to be under construction.

Quote

I'm not familiar with their electoral results or even how fairly their elections are run, but I stand by the assertion that there are plenty of Palestinians who don't support Hamas.

 

At the end of the day, though, a lot of the support for Hamas stems not so much out of affinity for them but fear of Israel trying to wipe them off the map. Palestinians rightly feel like they are on the wrong end of an ethnic cleansing.

Quote

Even if a majority of Palestinians re-elect Hamas, what about those who didn't vote for them? They, too, should be slaughtered, for the sins of their brothers and sisters? This is how genocides begin.

It's pretty disappointing. I thought you were capable of understanding the both sides. Unfortunately, your recent posts are totally based on one sided information, being selected according to concept "I see only what I want to see". Moreover, you are consistently distorting facts or trying to adjust them to your basic line of thinking. That's not how it is supposed to work.

1 hour ago, ilross2003 said:

It's pretty disappointing. I thought you were capable of understanding the both sides. Unfortunately, your recent posts are totally based on one sided information, being selected according to concept "I see only what I want to see". Moreover, you are consistently distorting facts or trying to adjust them to your basic line of thinking. That's not how it is supposed to work.

 

You are being quite fast-and-loose with your terminology. What facts did I distort? I am trying to understand both sides, but both sides seem unsavory to me. I have no dog in this fight.

1. There is a crane on top of that building, so it appears to be under construction.

2. Shown me proof that all Palestinians support Hamas if you consider them one-and-the-same.

3. This is fact. You can argue with the perception if you like, but the truth is that the Palestinian people feel that they are approaching a genocide.

4. I asked a question.

If we are going to talk about distortions, it certainly appears that your admitted bias as an Israeli citizen is distorting your perception of anyone's questioning the circumstances or expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims as just being "anti-Israel," when in reality, we are expressing humanitarian concerns and considering historical relevance.

16 hours ago, TEW said:

The Jews currently in Israel are a diaspora that went to Israel less than a century ago. They aren’t freaking Canaanites.  

Wrong. Jews didn't just suddenly show up. That is a myth. Jews have always maintained a presence in Israel. And Canaanites are not Palestinians.

 

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.¹ The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

11 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

The history of that entire region is heavily obfuscated by biblical lore. It's hard to really know who was there first.

Well there are competing books. The Old Testament talks about Israel and Jerusalem, while the Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem at all. Not even once.

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Well there are competing books. The Old Testament talks about Israel and Jerusalem, while the Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem at all. Not even once.

Eh, I’m not an expert on the Koran, but it mentions Judaism and Christianity.

40 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Eh, I’m not an expert on the Koran, but it mentions Judaism and Christianity.

And let's not forget it also mentions Infidels. 

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You are being quite fast-and-loose with your terminology. What facts did I distort? I am trying to understand both sides, but both sides seem unsavory to me. I have no dog in this fight.

1. There is a crane on top of that building, so it appears to be under construction.

2. Shown me proof that all Palestinians support Hamas if you consider them one-and-the-same.

3. This is fact. You can argue with the perception if you like, but the truth is that the Palestinian people feel that they are approaching a genocide.

4. I asked a question.

If we are going to talk about distortions, it certainly appears that your admitted bias as an Israeli citizen is distorting your perception of anyone's questioning the circumstances or expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims as just being "anti-Israel," when in reality, we are expressing humanitarian concerns and considering historical relevance.

 Your 4 points are absolutely not related to why I quoted your posts. I'll tell you one thing: the problem is not with "expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims", but with "expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims" ONLY. Not with "questioning the circumstances", but with "questioning the circumstances" OF ISRAELI AGRESSION ONLY. You read and present INFORMATION that suits YOUR AGENDA ONLY. 

To make any kind of assumptions using such a strong concepts like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" - it has to take much more than listening to CNN and reading twitter. It's very easy to accuse Israel (and Israel only) while trying to mask it as "expressing humanitarian concerns and considering historical relevance". 

And I suppose, not only me, but anyone who does not agree with you has some kind of "distorted perception"...

 

1 hour ago, ilross2003 said:

 Your 4 points are absolutely not related to why I quoted your posts. I'll tell you one thing: the problem is not with "expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims", but with "expressing sympathy for Palestinian victims" ONLY. Not with "questioning the circumstances", but with "questioning the circumstances" OF ISRAELI AGRESSION ONLY. You read and present INFORMATION that suits YOUR AGENDA ONLY. 

To make any kind of assumptions using such a strong concepts like "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" - it has to take much more than listening to CNN and reading twitter. It's very easy to accuse Israel (and Israel only) while trying to mask it as "expressing humanitarian concerns and considering historical relevance". 

And I suppose, not only me, but anyone who does not agree with you has some kind of "distorted perception"...

Well, you really didn't make clear your reasons for quoting me. And now you are making assumptions about my education and ability to gather information. I certainly do not rely on CNN and Twitter for my news. I hate Twitter. I generally stick to BBC for my news. 

I have sympathy for all victims, but excuse me if I hold the IDF to a higher standard of conduct than Hamas. I'm also sure the IDF is much, much more skilled and effective at killing scores of people than Hamas, in no small part due to the support of the United States in the form of cash and high-tech weapons of mass destruction. They are also much more capable of being tactical and surgical in their response, rather than leveling entire civilian complexes. The fact that we are even able to compare the behavior of the two sides to one another should give you pause. Israel has gone straight from counterinsurgency to total war.

I have no agenda. It would probably be best for the world if these both groups of zealots wiped each other out, but that will unfortunately come with a heavy cost of innocent lives, and I don't want that. You are attempting to discredit me by using indirect ad-hominems, claiming that I am arguing in bad faith and by assuming that I get my information from social media and second-rate news agencies. If you want to argue, let's stick to the facts.

I think anyone trying to paint one side as the "right" side in this and minimize the misdeeds of the other as having a distorted or biased perception. The truth is that we all possess some bias, but I try to cut through mine as best I can.  As I have repeatedly said, I generally see both group's leadership as detestable in this conflict and have little desire to align myself with either, but I do think it is necessary to push back against the extremely pro-Israel narratives that have dominated Western outlooks for the last 75 years. 

I think you're having a hard time facing the reality of the racial dynamics taking hold of the Israeli state. Netanyahu is openly courting his own group of entho-fascists. He's currying favor with the most extremist, far-right Israeli elements in order to stay in power, because he was likely on the outs before this dispute. You've got crowds of Jewish nationalists emboldened, rolling down streets chanting "death to Arabs." You have Arabs and Jews beating each other in the streets. The only way one can reconcile the two and elevate one above the other is by submission to cognitive dissonance.

It's really not even worth trying to qualify righteousness for either side in these circumstances, where each one is heavily culpable for the chaos ensuing. The American military has a term to describe a situation that is wholly disastrous and incapable of being resolved: The situation in Jerusalem, due to the actions of unscrupulous, politicians and violent extremists on both sides, is totally FUBAR.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I think you're having a hard time facing the reality of the racial dynamics taking hold of the Israeli state. 

Well, this sums it up. Why exactly do you think that you have any kind of right to educate me about any kind of  "dynamics taking hold of the Israeli state"? Do you know me? Do you live here? How many books about the history of my country have you read? Academic works? Historical documents? Have you ever been in Israel? How many times? In Gaza? Have you talked to the people? You don't have agenda? Really? If you didn't have, any kind of idea about educating me about any kind of dynamics taking place in my country wouldn't have crossed your mind!

4 minutes ago, ilross2003 said:

Well, this sums it up. Why exactly do you think that you have any kind of right to educate me about any kind of  "dynamics taking hold of the Israeli state"? Do you know me? Do you live here? How many books about the history of my country have you read? Academic works? Historical documents? Have you ever been in Israel? How many times? In Gaza? Have you talked to the people? You don't have agenda? Really? If you didn't have, any kind of idea about educating me about any kind of dynamics taking place in my country wouldn't have crossed your mind!

i don't know what to tell you if you don't think that you're on the brink of a racial civil war. It's just (understandably) too hard to accept, I guess.

The United States' "partnership:" with Israel is strategically necessary, but it is also necessary for the U.S. to start pushing back against Israel's self-destructive tendencies if they're going to use our weapons and our military expertise.

8 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

i don't know what to tell you if you don't think that you're on the brink of a racial civil war. It's just (understandably) too hard to accept, I guess.

The United States' "partnership:" with Israel is strategically necessary, but it is also necessary for the U.S. to start pushing back against Israel's self-destructive tendencies if they're going to use our weapons and our military expertise.

I have no problem them using them against terrorists 

1 minute ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I have no problem them using them against terrorists 

I have a problem with them using them to kill innocent civilians, including a lot of children.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I have a problem with them using them to kill innocent civilians, including a lot of children.

And we know Hamas has and is using them as shields. 

This is like telling a cop to just shoot them in the leg. 

10 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

i don't know what to tell you if you don't think that you're on the brink of a racial civil war. It's just (understandably) too hard to accept, I guess.

You're welcome to share your opinion, even if it's totally one sided and agenda adjusted, but I'll ask again, stop telling me what to think. And no, you're wrong. But you can continue to rely on the BBC.