Israeli forces kill dozens in Gaza as U.S. Embassy opens in Jerusalem

[Kieran00001]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You keep blatantly misrepresenting my posts, adding fake interpenetration in line with your made up versions of my views. About as dishonest as expected.

 

The current situation is bad. You constantly push for actions which would make it worse. There is no scenario in which allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel will not result in more chaos, mayhem and bloodshed. Your posts fail to address or even register this point.

 

Not particularly interested in your warped take on Zionism, or its constant application to whatever. Considering you can't even bring yourself to address problematic trends and ideology on the Palestinian side, or their implications, the one sided torrent of nonsense is less than meaningless.

 

Your time would be better spent not pretending I haven't addressed, on numerous posts and topics, ways to advance and allow a peaceful resolution.

 

It is not so long ago that Palestine was enjoying 8 long years of peace, it was not Palestine who ended that, it was Israel.  It is very clear that resolution will be found in an ideology change from Israel, not Palestine.

[jimmyyy]

On 5/16/2018 at 8:05 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

This is a discussion about a mass killing, not a sub group discussing their addiction to call of duty.

I don't play call of Duty, 5 tours in Iraq and 2 in Afghan was enough for me you tool.

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

5555 the uk is relocating its embassy to jerusalem bravo mr. president d. trump is right again.

israel has correctly protected its borders in selfdefence against muslim terrorists .

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

The UK is not moving their embassy to Jerusalem and has repeatedly called the US move a mistake. 

 

Anyway, cool of you to support the bombing raids of banned chemical weapons as a self defence move against rock throwing children who are walled in with every calorie that passes the blockade counted and rationed, with basic school supplies like crayons banned from passing through should they fall into the hands of a terrorist child who wants to do some colouring.

[jimmyyy]

On 5/16/2018 at 8:08 AM, Kieran00001 said:

 

The wheelchair was armed with a slingshot.  As for children being used as shields, did you think that gave them the right to shoot them? As a combat vet you should know the rules of engagement, they just broke the Geneva Convention, and you are supporting them in that.

If a rock is thrown at my soldiers that is deadly intent.  Please tell me where in the geneva convention that prohibits a country to defend its borders from active assault.  Don't worry i will wait.  If a soldier or terrorist puts a child in front of him while shooting at my DFP, no care will be given.  Its easy for you to sit behind a keyboard and second guess the soldier isn't it.

[jimmyyy]

On 5/15/2018 at 9:34 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

You have verifiable evidence of this?

yes 50 hamas soldiers died in the event. 

[roobaa01]

@Kieran00001  uk prime minister said, the embassy would be relocated.

 

70 years of palestinians terror and killing of innocent jews.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[farcanell]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The UK is not moving their embassy to Jerusalem and has repeatedly called the US move a mistake. 

 

Anyway, cool of you to support the bombing raids of banned chemical weapons as a self defence move against rock throwing children who are walled in with every calorie that passes the blockade counted and rationed, with basic school supplies like crayons banned from passing through should they fall into the hands of a terrorist child who wants to do some colouring.

The estimated 90 million dollars used to build the illegal tunnels, under isreal and Egyption defensive positions, would have brought a whole container ship load of crayons, with money left over.

 

but good one on calling him out about the UK embassy.

[farcanell]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Obviously, I haven't written or said any such nonsense. That's something you made up. Again.

 

All to cover the impossibility of the selectively applied "two wrongs  don't make a right" bit

 

 

 

Lol... I think it’s more about covering up the fact that he hasn’t got a credible counter argumentment to anything at all

[roobaa01]

the plain truth palestinian terrorists want to terminate us JEWS as it is written in the violent book koran.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Ron19]

A number of troll posts and answers have been removed.

[Kiwiken]

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

Well... according to most of the rest of the world, anti Zionism is the same thing as antisemitism.... so... you know... maybe rethink that one

 

It perplexes me that Anti Semitism is reported as being anti Jewish. this shows the ignorance of most of the World Press and indeed many in the World.

To me an Anti Semite is someone who dislikes person of Semitic Races e.g Jews or Arabs or both.

To back up what I am saying I will give you the definition of a Semitic gleaned from the web

1. 1.

   relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2. 2.

   relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

 

Therefore being anti Zionist is not truly being anti Semitic any more than disliking Arabs.

But Arabs cannot be anti Semitic, Nor can Hebrew people as they are one and the same just different sides of a coin.

The problems of Israel Palestine are Complex. But so were the problems If Northern Ireland .

A just settlement can be reached but both must agree

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It is not so long ago that Palestine was enjoying 8 long years of peace, it was not Palestine who ended that, it was Israel.  It is very clear that resolution will be found in an ideology change from Israel, not Palestine.

 

It would be so much easier to address your assertions if there was any indication of what you're on about. I somehow doubt that your one-sided take on responsibility is completely accurate or factual. Considering the current ideology of such factions as Hamas makes no bones about their intentions, its apparent acceptance by you seems odd, at best.

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If a rock is thrown you can call an airstrike, really?  Check the Geneva convention again, it does not allow the targeting of hospitals and schools with banned chemical weapons.  And it would be you who is second guessing the soldiers, I am merely stating what happened.  If you recall the events at the end of the 8 years of peace, a Palestinian man was accused of kidnap, Israel went nuts, invaded Palestine, unlawfully detained 800 people and it escalated from there, culminating in air strikes of white phosphorus onto residential areas, that was not about human shields, that was Israels provocation of Palestine and then their unlawful warfare tactics.

 

Doubt you could the nonsense about calling an airstrike to handle rock throwing. Just the sort of exaggeration some posters seem to favor. That you claim to state something happened doesn't make your words correct or true. And your rendering of past events is the same one-sided take you seem to generally apply.

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed as well as the replies. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Sorry, I dont agree with your argument that it's OK for European Zionist colonizers to ethnically cleanse Palestinians because they themselves were ethnically cleansed by Nazi Germans 3,000 miles away.

 

You are quite right: there are in this world Holocaust deniers and anti Semites full of irrational hatred for Jews...I'm not one of them. I think all racism is a form of mental illness, severe inferiority complex: putting down one group to make oneself feel superior.

 

You make up a whole lot of straw-man arguments in order to deflect things you can't (or won't) address. You avoid replying to points made, and go off on made up tangents whenever your adopted narrative faces hurdles.

 

That you don't agree with something being ok or not ok, is all very well. But what you refer to (whether one accepts your terminology or not) lies in the past. The illusions you attempt to push, as if things could simply be undone, or ignoring the present day implications of such advocated moves is either naive or disingenuous.  

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You keep blatantly misrepresenting my posts, adding fake interpenetration in line with your made up versions of my views. About as dishonest as expected.

 

The current situation is bad. You constantly push for actions which would make it worse. There is no scenario in which allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel will not result in more chaos, mayhem and bloodshed. Your posts fail to address or even register this point.

 

Not particularly interested in your warped take on Zionism, or its constant application to whatever. Considering you can't even bring yourself to address problematic trends and ideology on the Palestinian side, or their implications, the one sided torrent of nonsense is less than meaningless.

 

Your time would be better spent not pretending I haven't addressed, on numerous posts and topics, ways to advance and allow a peaceful resolution.

>>There is no scenario in which allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel will not result in more chaos, mayhem and bloodshed. Your posts fail to address or even register this point.

...Baloney. I suggest you scroll a couple of posts up the thread.

I wrote..

...There are various ways to gradually incorporate Palestinians into Israeli society (not necessarily by opening the fence overnight), and I am sure when that finally happens, Israelis are smart enough to establish security checks and balances to control all extremists who want to undermine the state including their own religious and ultra Nationalist fanatics.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

It perplexes me that Anti Semitism is reported as being anti Jewish. this shows the ignorance of most of the World Press and indeed many in the World.

To me an Anti Semite is someone who dislikes person of Semitic Races e.g Jews or Arabs or both.

To back up what I am saying I will give you the definition of a Semitic gleaned from the web

1. 1.

   relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2. 2.

   relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

 

Therefore being anti Zionist is not truly being anti Semitic any more than disliking Arabs.

But Arabs cannot be anti Semitic, Nor can Hebrew people as they are one and the same just different sides of a coin.

The problems of Israel Palestine are Complex. But so were the problems If Northern Ireland .

A just settlement can be reached but both must agree

 

It perplexes me that posters still resort to this nonsense deflection, even though it was addressed and debunked on numerous occasions. I don't know if it shows ignorance, intentional obtuseness or plain trolling.

 

While posters may entertain idiosyncratic "definitions" of what "antisemitism" means, this hardly tells much about how things are perceived in general. That the term is "confusing" doesn't change the fact that it is applied to almost uniformly applied Jews, and not to other groups, such as Arabs.

Definition of anti-Semitism

: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism

 

There are differing views on the relations between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. IMO, there is no definitive answer here, sometimes anti-Zionism is used as a cover for antisemitism and sometimes it isn't. Criticizing Zionism (or Israel) is by itself a legitimate proposition. But obviously enough, there are instances involving a measure of antisemitism, whether overt or not. Other than easily recognizable slips, I think the style of presentation is a good tell. Rational criticism put forth by most people does not require vehemence, bile and demonization.

 

 New antisemitism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

 

Either way, this isn't really what the topic is about.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Kiwiken said:

It perplexes me that Anti Semitism is reported as being anti Jewish. this shows the ignorance of most of the World Press and indeed many in the World.

To me an Anti Semite is someone who dislikes person of Semitic Races e.g Jews or Arabs or both.

To back up what I am saying I will give you the definition of a Semitic gleaned from the web

1. 1.

   relating to or denoting a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic family.
2. 2.

   relating to the peoples who speak Semitic languages, especially Hebrew and Arabic.

 

Therefore being anti Zionist is not truly being anti Semitic any more than disliking Arabs.

But Arabs cannot be anti Semitic, Nor can Hebrew people as they are one and the same just different sides of a coin.

The problems of Israel Palestine are Complex. But so were the problems If Northern Ireland .

A just settlement can be reached but both must agree

Yes... that’s a mature take on it.

 

however, just as the Geneva convention ( articles pertaining to war vs peace) has been universally accepted as a United Nations tenant,  jewery and Zionism, have also been lumped together, in common parlance, which is a pity, because it can confuse the issue.

 

googling “antisemitism and anti zionistism” demonstrates how these two issues are merging in the public forum ( per my list of links previously)

 

that said, various denominations of Jews, are anti certain other denominations of jewery, much as Coptic Christians have been persecuted by Roman Catholic Christians.... which isn’t anti Semitic, but it’s certainly anti something, and indicative of dividisions within their own religion.

 

But.... I'm 100% in agreeance with your conclusion... but as to the how of it.. well... better minds than mine, I’m afraid

Edited May 20, 2018 by farcanell

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

I don't champion any religion. I am a 110% atheist.

 

I champion the fight against social injustice. I don't like bullies. If the internet or I had been around in the 1930s I would have been championing gays, Romany, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers and the disabled against fascism.

 

There are various ways to gradually incorporate Palestinians into Israeli society (not necessarily by opening the fence overnight), and I am sure when that finally happens, Israelis are smart enough to establish security checks and balances to control all extremists who want to undermine the state including their own religious and ultra Nationalist fanatics.

 

ONE state solution.
Personally I would like to see a secular one state true modern democracy encompassing all the peoples who call themselves Palestinians and Israelis...Jews Muslims Christians. With a constitutional separation of State from any religion becoming a dominant voice in lawmaking. Other tweaks too such as citizenship being a privilege earned through voluntary community service eg army, voluntary work, paying taxes for x years etc; private religious schools to be financed 100% by parents so that children grow up mainly in state schools without the religious venom of their parents. Lots more ideas too.

 

TWO state solution
Again with security checks and balances. Based on the well known formula: return to 67 borders with land swaps, shared capital Jerusalem, compensation/recognition of all refugees (both Jews and Palestinians).
The two peoples after decades of living side by side in peace and prosperity grow to trust each other.

 

TWO state confederation.
Palestinians and Jews have the right to live work and worship wherever they like but have voting rights in separate states.

Other possible models too.

 

All 3 of course would have teething troubles with remnants of fanatics on both sides wishing to destroy the peace.
 

 

You support an Islamic organization which upholds both religion and violence. You routinely refuse to meaningfully address this. Further, you ignore any reference to religious affiliation, trends or sentiment when it comes to Palestinians as Muslims. That you throw in the occasional "Christian" fig leaf notwithstanding. Whatever your personal attitude toward religion is, got little to do with how things are among Israelis and Palestinians. That you choose to highlight such angles only with regard to one side is nothing but the usual biased dishonesty.

 

As for not liking bullies, allow me to point out that your own style of "debate" amounts to the very same. And before crying pot, kettle, black or something - I'm not the one advertising myself as an heroic "champion", a great "humanist" or whatever. You do, so deal with the obvious inconsistencies.

 

While its nice that you think that there are "various ways" to do things, or being sure issues could be addressed (by Israel, always just by Israel...) - you fail to actually tell what these may be, how they could be successfully applied or what your views are based upon. Describing opposition to peaceful resolution as "remnants of fanatics" does not describe reality in any way.

 

Your rosy dyed "solutions" do not relate much to prevailing conditions, nor do they address how to get there. That no mention is made of the Palestinian side commitments is telling. The usual disconnect from existing political trends and views is similarly suspect.

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Obviously, I haven't written or said any such nonsense. That's something you made up. Again.

 

All to cover the impossibility of the selectively applied "two wrongs  don't make a right" bit

 

 

 

Clearly other posters are confused by your description of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to Israel as "two wrongs don't make a right". I am still mystified what you mean by that. Any misinterpretation is down to the fact that you can't write clearly. Your style is often long winded and peppered with ambiguous language.

 

Honestly, not trying a wind up, please explain as simply as possible what you mean  by that phrase so that all readers can understand your point. What's the purpose of posting if no-one understands you.

[dexterm]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You support an Islamic organization which upholds both religion and violence. You routinely refuse to meaningfully address this. Further, you ignore any reference to religious affiliation, trends or sentiment when it comes to Palestinians as Muslims. That you throw in the occasional "Christian" fig leaf notwithstanding. Whatever your personal attitude toward religion is, got little to do with how things are among Israelis and Palestinians. That you choose to highlight such angles only with regard to one side is nothing but the usual biased dishonesty.

 

As for not liking bullies, allow me to point out that your own style of "debate" amounts to the very same. And before crying pot, kettle, black or something - I'm not the one advertising myself as an heroic "champion", a great "humanist" or whatever. You do, so deal with the obvious inconsistencies.

 

While its nice that you think that there are "various ways" to do things, or being sure issues could be addressed (by Israel, always just by Israel...) - you fail to actually tell what these may be, how they could be successfully applied or what your views are based upon. Describing opposition to peaceful resolution as "remnants of fanatics" does not describe reality in any way.

 

Your rosy dyed "solutions" do not relate much to prevailing conditions, nor do they address how to get there. That no mention is made of the Palestinian side commitments is telling. The usual disconnect from existing political trends and views is similarly suspect.

 

Writing on a public forum to criticize what I regard as social injustice is not bullying. I try hard in fact to keep personal animosity out of my posts because of the strict forum rules on flaming.

 

I mentioned 3 ways (one state, two states, confederation) that Palestinian refugees could be absorbed into Israeli society, and touched briefly on the logistics of how to make it happen. 

In a just two state solution of course where most Palestinians might remain in the West Bank and Gaza and only elderly Palestinians actually return to their homes if they want to, compensation would play a huge role for the rest. Others have suggested the number of illegal Jewish settlers (650,000?) in the West Bank should be balanced by an equal number of Palestinian refugees being allowed to return to Israel. Israel would also have to alter some of its apartheid laws that apply to its own Israeli citizens which at the moment for example prevent them from marrying a Palestinian from Gaza or the West Bank and bringing them back, despite a plethora of security checks, to live in Israel: the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, 2003. The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to leave. Naturally the family will follow the children out of Israel..ethnic cleansing by family love. Things like that would have to go.

 

Not sure if the mods would allow us to go into the nitty gritty details of Palestinian absorption, which you seem to be demanding. I'd be more than happy to put forward my ideas. It's up to the politicians to work out the practicalities.

 

It would be better if you devoted your considerable intellect into working out how things can be done rather than complaining why they can't be done, usually because its in the too hard or not pragmatic at the moment baskets

Edited May 20, 2018 by dexterm

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

As you like... but my version is that I’m “putting someone down” because they will not look at the opposing point of view.

 

citing the holocost is simply a method of hilighting that there are different points of view. ( and if I was putting someone down over this, it would be the scum skinhead and neo nazi organizations spewing their filth, not someone I was trying to engage in a meaningful discussion)

 

Anyway.... That’s whats nessesary in a debate, or argument, especially when doing so with someone intent on completely ignoring the opposing point of view

Different points of view are fine, citing the holocaust denial as an example of that is way out of line and putting people down.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>There is no scenario in which allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel will not result in more chaos, mayhem and bloodshed. Your posts fail to address or even register this point.

...Baloney. I suggest you scroll a couple of posts up the thread.

I wrote..

...There are various ways to gradually incorporate Palestinians into Israeli society (not necessarily by opening the fence overnight), and I am sure when that finally happens, Israelis are smart enough to establish security checks and balances to control all extremists who want to undermine the state including their own religious and ultra Nationalist fanatics.

 

Baloney would aptly describes your lame deflections.

 

You claim that "there are ways", yet fail to specify any. You are somehow "sure" Israel can tackle security issues - not clear what's that based on. May I remind you that your "vision" would make Israel an not-Israel, and that it is doubtful the required security measures would be seen as fitting a "modern western democracy", or in compliance with the multicultural mumbo jumbo. As for "gradually" - it was you who advocated the Gazans be allowed to cross over, claiming that "they just want to go home". Comments about such things having to be done through diplomacy and negotiations were derided.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Clearly other posters are confused by your description of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to Israel as "two wrongs don't make a right". I am still mystified what you mean by that. Any misinterpretation is down to the fact that you can't write clearly. Your style is often long winded and peppered with ambiguous language.

 

Honestly, not trying a wind up, please explain as simply as possible what you mean  by that phrase so that all readers can understand your point. What's the purpose of posting if no-one understands you.

 

Clearly you do not speak for other posters, and it is hardly the case that no one understood. Just  another one of your lame trolling attempts. It would take either a decidedly partisan position or being intentionally obtuse to pretend not to understand the point made. 

 

It would seem that in your mind, there is no wrong with if the Palestinian exercised a right of return, regardless of the fact the the land is now populated by others (and been this way for 70 years). Most of the Israelis living on these lands weren't around at the time, and the same goes for the Palestinians.

 

So following your "logic" - would it be right to inflict a wrong on the current inhabitants, in order to correct a wrong done decades ago? Isn't it the very same thing you object to with regard to Israel's very existence?

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Writing on a public forum to criticize what I regard as social injustice is not bullying. I try hard in fact to keep personal animosity out of my posts because of the strict forum rules on flaming.

 

I mentioned 3 ways (one state, two states, confederation) that Palestinian refugees could be absorbed into Israeli society, and touched briefly on the logistics of how to make it happen. 

In a just two state solution of course where most Palestinians might remain in the West Bank and Gaza and only elderly Palestinians actually return to their homes if they want to, compensation would play a huge role for the rest. Others have suggested the number of illegal Jewish settlers (650,000?) in the West Bank should be balanced by an equal number of Palestinian refugees being allowed to return to Israel. Israel would also have to alter some of its apartheid laws that apply to its own Israeli citizens which at the moment for example prevent them from marrying a Palestinian from Gaza or the West Bank and bringing them back, despite a plethora of security checks, to live in Israel: the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, 2003. The law does allow children from such marriages to live in Israel until age 12, at which age the law requires them to leave. Naturally the family will follow the children out of Israel..ethnic cleansing by family love. Things like that would have to go.

 

Not sure if the mods would allow us to go into the nitty gritty details of Palestinian absorption, which you seem to be demanding. I'd be more than happy to put forward my ideas. It's up to the politicians to work out the practicalities.

 

It would be better if you devoted your considerable intellect into working out how things can be done rather than complaining why they can't be done, usually because its in the too hard or not pragmatic at the moment baskets

 

If your current style and mode of engagement represents an attempt to "keep personal animosity" from your posts, then guess we have a very different take on what that means. Them wide-brush descriptions you apply to anyone disagreeing with you, the vehemence, and the insistence that anything but your narrow version of reality is acceptable, do not convey that you are successful in your effort. About as credible as the "champion", "humanist" and whatnot.

 

Your previous account did not touch, in any meaningful way, on "the logistic of how to make it happen", and the same goes with regard to your current post. What you're on about are some imaginary end results, without any realistic  explanation of how to get there. It also failed to address that the figures imply a transformation of Israeli society, rather than the Palestinians being absorbed into such. If you feel that is a good thing, perhaps you ought to get a clue about how messed up Palestinian society is, before making such comments.

 

None of your nonsense begins to acknowledge that at least one of the Palestinian factions (Hamas) is not interested, and the other (Fatah/PA) cannot (or will not) commit. Similar issues exist on the Israeli side. So it's not just a matter of coming up with "visions", but there's also a need for them to be applicable.

 

Got to love the way you avoid "nitty gritty" details citing possible Mods sanction, and yet manage to toss in a detailed (if biased) comment regarding a specific issue. Naturally, nothing whatsoever about what things the Palestinian side will have to accept, undertake - it's all about Israel in your versions.

 

It would be better if you would stop making up things about my posts and positions, or expand the choice of idioms and catchphrases your falsely associate with them. In short, you haven't really addressed anything, just the standard nothing  fare.

 

[farcanell]

54 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Different points of view are fine, citing the holocaust denial as an example of that is way out of line and putting people down.

Your opinion is always welcome.... even if we were discussing isreal, and the origins of Zionism, who’s catalyst for popularism amongst Jewish people, is directly related to the holocaust

 

If anyone is put down by the fact that the holocaust existed, or rather, by denying that it existed, then I’m going to have to go way way politically incorrect, and say that I don’t care about their feelings one bit

 

that said, my comment in the post that you reference, was an example of a mass denial of a truth, nothing more, even if you choose to attempt to make it so.

 

Next time I wish to make an example of mass denial, I might say that it’s impossible to grow bananas in Tasmania, so as not to offend

[farcanell]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

If your current style and mode of engagement represents an attempt to "keep personal animosity" from your posts, then guess we have a very different take on what that means. Them wide-brush descriptions you apply to anyone disagreeing with you, the vehemence, and the insistence that anything but your narrow version of reality is acceptable, do not convey that you are successful in your effort. About as credible as the "champion", "humanist" and whatnot.

? to be fair, I do recall him saying he was 110% atheist.... I think the extra 10% accounts for his fanaticism and perceived anger and admitted hatreds

[dexterm]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Baloney would aptly describes your lame deflections.

 

You claim that "there are ways", yet fail to specify any. You are somehow "sure" Israel can tackle security issues - not clear what's that based on. May I remind you that your "vision" would make Israel an not-Israel, and that it is doubtful the required security measures would be seen as fitting a "modern western democracy", or in compliance with the multicultural mumbo jumbo. As for "gradually" - it was you who advocated the Gazans be allowed to cross over, claiming that "they just want to go home". Comments about such things having to be done through diplomacy and negotiations were derided.

Nitpicking nonsense. The Great March of Return was for publicity (like Gandhi's salt marches)to remind the world that 70% of Gazans are refugees who were ethnically cleansed 70 years ago from the land they can still see across the fence daily to make way for European colonizers.. 

 

Even if the protesters had breached the fence, it would not have led to an instant one state solution and a sudden change of Israeli policy. The inhabitants of Sderot would not have woken up with Palestinians camping in their gardens demanding access to their bathroom and half the title deed. That's just plain silly.

 

Israel gave the march added publicity of course by killing 106 demonstrators including 15 children. Whose fault that was might be cleared up with an independent inquiry, but Israel has quashed that idea.

 

Now the world is even more aware through the march of the injustice perpetrated against the Palestinians 70 years ago and continuing today. And it is this that may eventually lead to a change of Israeli policy. Israel will only change through outside pressure.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Your opinion is always welcome.... even if we were discussing isreal, and the origins of Zionism, who’s catalyst for popularism amongst Jewish people, is directly related to the holocaust

 

If anyone is put down by the fact that the holocaust existed, or rather, by denying that it existed, then I’m going to have to go way way politically incorrect, and say that I don’t care about their feelings one bit

 

that said, my comment in the post that you reference, was an example of a mass denial of a truth, nothing more, even if you choose to attempt to make it so.

 

Next time I wish to make an example of mass denial, I might say that it’s impossible to grow bananas in Tasmania, so as not to offend

Excellent example of twisting a position to suit your narrative.

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Excellent example of twisting a position to suit your narrative.

Thank you ?