Israeli family says Koh Samui park refused entry

6 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

So it is your opinion that the UN gave Israel some of the Palestinian Mandate land?

Short answer: Yes

And for those who like the details:

The U.N. partition plan, Resolution 181(II), of 1947 would have created independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem under international control. The Jewish Agency for Palestine, which represented the Jewish side in official negotiations, accepted the plan; the Arab side rejected it.

A few hours before the British mandate was due to expire on May 15, 1948, Jewish leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The Israeli Declaration of Independence included the following wording:

• The State of Israel is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947 ...

• We appeal to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp

So while the U.N. did not actually give any land to Israel because the partition plan was never implemented, it seemed to the founders of Israel, subsequent governments and most of its citizens today that the plan formed the basis of the State of Israel under international law. In that sense, the U.N. gave Israel some of its current land.

6 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Yet every time the UN declares Israel should comply with any UN resolution they choose to ignore it, then wonder why some people find Israel's conduct unacceptable.

Times change. The vote on the partition plan was in israel's favor, many later resolutions weren't.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Evil Penevil

@simon43

Even people who have no strong feelings one way or the other about the Israel/Palestinian conflict couldn't see the atrocities committed by Israel and not be appalled.

The Zionist state will go the way of Apartheid South Africa, and rightly so.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis,

Then don't.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis,

Then don't.

4 minutes ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

The Zionist state will go the way of Apartheid South Africa, and rightly so.

Not without a very hard fight. Jews will no longer walk quietly to their annihilation. Any attempt at Holocaust 2 is going to be very different from Holocaust 1.

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

I live on Koh Phangan. Every day, I go to the beach to swim and then eat a salad in a beach restaurant. The vast majority of fellow diners are Israeli, mostly young men and women. Previously this hasn't really bothered me.

But of late, I have started to ask myself 'Did that young Israeli guy laughing and eating his kao pat koong murder a kid last week?'. Because for sure, many of these Israeli tourists are serving in the IDF.

I have absolutely no support for Hamas etc. But war should be between adults, and we all know that kids and other innocent civilians are getting killed (murdered?) in Gaza. We've all seen the videos...

It's beginning to prey on my mind. I don't really want to eat anymore in a restaurant full of young Israelis, because for sure, they are not all innocent tourists.

I have absolutely no side in that conflict. But I do have a side when innocents are being deliberately (not accidentally) killed....

Correct me if im wrong but you have spent many years living in Myanmar correct ?

Yep nothing ironic there.

3 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

Then don't.

Not without a very hard fight. Jews will no longer walk quietly to their annihilation. Any attempt at Holocaust 2 is going to be very different from Holocaust 1.

Yes and the irony is that the always present racist Jew haters hate Jews when they were passively compliant and they also hate Jews when they have the power to fight back.

18 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I don't admit anything. The idea that God gave Israel to the Jews is a religious belief and is outside objective reasoning. It cannot be proven or disproven through verifiable facts or rational arguments. This is true of every religious belief.

So you condemn the illegal settlements as they are based on that absurd biblical belief?

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by JimCM

19 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

Where around the world did millions of people experience intense backlash?

Have you been hibernating the last quarter century?

The military response to the September 11 attacks, commonly known as the global "War on Terror," (more likely "war by terror") resulted in several major wars and military interventions across the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa

According to the Brown University Costs of War Project the at least 432,000 civilians have been killed directly by war violence—such as airstrikes, bombings, and gunshots—across the primary conflict zones. However, when accounting for indirect deaths caused by the destruction of healthcare, economies, and infrastructure, the total civilian and combatant toll rises to an estimated 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

The primary wars that occurred as a direct backlash to 9/11 include:

1. The War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)

• What happened: In October 2001, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime that had harbored Osama bin Laden. The war lasted two decades, concluding with the U.S. withdrawal and the return of the Taliban to power in 2021.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Approximately 47,000–48,000 civilians. [1, 2]

2. The Iraq War (2003–2011 & Ongoing Insurgencies)

• What happened: In March 2003, the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq under the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to terrorism (both claims were later disproven). The invasion destabilized the country, sparked a massive sectarian civil war, and created a power vacuum that birthed the terrorist group ISIS.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Estimates range from 185,000 to over 210,000 civilians killed by coalition forces, insurgent groups, and sectarian violence

3. War in the Northwest Border Region of Pakistan (2004–Present)

• What happened: Following the invasion of Afghanistan, many Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters fled across the border into Pakistan. The U.S. launched an intensive, years-long drone warfare campaign in Pakistan's tribal areas, while the Pakistani military engaged in domestic counterinsurgency operations against the Pakistani Taliban.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Over 24,000 civilians.

4. Intervention Against ISIS in Syria and Iraq (2014–Present)

• What happened: As a direct spillover from the instability of the 2003 Iraq war, ISIS captured vast territories in Iraq and Syria. A U.S.-led international coalition launched thousands of airstrikes and ground support operations to destroy the group's self-proclaimed caliphate.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: Over 95,000 civilians in Syria alone, and thousands more in Iraq, killed by a combination of ISIS atrocities, Syrian government actions, and coalition airstrikes.

5. Spillover Wars: Yemen, Somalia, and Libya

• What happened: The post-9/11 counterterrorism framework expanded to target al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates in other regions. This included intensive U.S. drone programs and special operations forces backing local factions in Yemen (targeting AQAP) and Somalia (targeting al-Shabaab), alongside the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya.

• Direct Civilian Deaths: While these conflicts are deeply complex civil wars with multiple local actors, counterterrorism operations and resultant instability have directly claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives across all three nations.

 I truly admire our flawless moral superiority. It takes real talent to label an entire group a 'death cult' while completely ignoring our own impressive track record of taking innocent lives.

20 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

The West holds a valid perspective because many countries around the world fail to uphold the same values. Liberal nations in the West champion individual rights and freedoms, while numerous other countries lag behind in this regard. Does this make the West's stance unjustifiable?

Oh, absolutely. The West’s stance is completely flawless, especially when you look at how beautifully those heralded liberal values of "individual rights and freedoms" have been applied in Gaza.

It turns out that "universal human rights" actually come with a very selective terms-and-conditions sheet.

The Western commitment to international law and the "rules-based order" has been on spectacular display:

• selective empathy: The right to life and liberty is strictly championed, provided the individuals holding those rights fit the correct geopolitical demographic.

• Weaponized aid: Championing human dignity apparently includes funding and shipping the exact munitions that level hospitals and neighborhoods, followed by a deeply concerned press conference about the lack of humanitarian aid.

• Freedom of expression (with boundaries): Western institutions love free speech, until students and academics use that free speech to protest the slaughter of civilians. Then, those liberal values quickly pivot to police crackdowns and institutional censorship.

So yes, the Western perspective is totally vindicated.

Nothing says "we hold the moral high ground on human rights" quite like watching a population starve in real-time on social media while debating whether a ceasefire is "premature."

On 8/17/2026 at 10:14 PM, Jingthing said:

It's used as a racist Jew hating cudgel.

Your sleaze is a prime example.

Prove my facts to be wrong instead of always reacting with empty insults.

Same as your empty promises:

On 8/17/2026 at 1:04 AM, Jingthing said:

I can't be bothered.

If you want s response focus on a point and be coherent

On 8/17/2026 at 2:57 AM, Somjot said:

As if you would ever answer. Ok, let´s try. Respond to that:

Hind Rajab

Prove my statement to be the truth, that you never address any valid points made and only screech insults.

Or answer the point I made: Hind Rajab.

Any comments on her and what the 'most moral army' did to her?"

19 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

I don't admit anything. The idea that God gave Israel to the Jews is a religious belief and is outside objective reasoning. It cannot be proven or disproven through verifiable facts or rational arguments. This is true of every religious belief.

However, that doesn't mean it's bull<deleted>. I don't follow any religion myself, but I have respect for the beliefs of the millions who do.

I don't know what you mean with "Israel's claim," but the Israeli government has never claimed God gave Judea and Samaria to the Jews. The official government stance has never been the state of Israel has a right to the land of Palestine because of a promise from God. The government of Israel, like most of its citizens, believes the U.N., not God, gave them some of the former Mandate for Palestine and they took the rest through military action.

Religious Jews believe God gave the land to them, but not the government of Israel or most of its citizens.

Oh, my mistake! I completely forgot that when the UN draws a line on a map, it’s a secular, legally binding document, but when bulldozers clear a neighborhood in the West Bank, it’s just "strategic depth."

It is incredibly comforting to know that the Israeli government has never used the Bible as a real estate brochure.

Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People explicitly calls the land the "historical homeland"—because nothing says "purely secular UN mandate" like invoking ancient tribal history in your constitutional laws.

The current coalition guidelines literally start with: "The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all areas of the Land of Israel." I’m sure that "exclusive right" is based on a secular municipal zoning permit and definitely not a religious covenant, right?

Government-funded settlement roadmaps refer to the West Bank exclusively as "Judea and Samaria." Because using ancient biblical names for modern military zones is just peak secular efficiency.

Let’s just completely ignore the fact that:

But hey, you're right. The government doesn't claim God gave them the land. They just fund, protect, and subsidize the exact people who do claim God gave it to them, while using those exact religious claims to win elections. Huge difference. Totally secular. My bad.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Somjot