Two Thai people killed in Israel were on lunch break according to eyewitness

[bangon04]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I would add to that I don't see any evidence that the Palestinian side, particularly Hamas can be expected to negotiate in good faith either. They're still marching around the world with their scary River to the Sea mantra.

Correct. My Arab friends in Lebanon and Egypt hate Hamas and Hezbollah probably more than my Israeli friends in Tel Aviv.

More reason for the US and the UN and others to flex their diplomatic muscle, and Israel to negotiate in good faith from its superior strategic position.

[cyril sneer]

not a fan of israel but seeing these pro-palestine protests by people with no connection whatsoever to palestine puts me on israel's side

[jspill]

On 5/21/2021 at 5:16 AM, Jingthing said:

Wow. So it sounds like you don't think Israel has a right to exist. That is very extremist. Similar to Hamas. As far as the implication that Zionism in itself is a bad thing, Zionism is simply the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self determination. It doesn't mean support for any particular Israeli government policy. 

 

Zionists insist that that self determination must take the form of them running Palestine, quite a big distinction. It already had an existing population. They already had a homeland called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the other of the two official Jewish territories in the world. Which they had that before invading Palestine in 1948 and waging war and displacing (ethnically cleansing) 800k arabs. And it's twice the size of Israel, plenty of room for them.

 

So if it was just about having a home and self determination they'd have remained in the JAO, but no, zionism focuses on what they see as their holy land for religious reasons, so it's about building a country on top of an existing one and completely running it. Rather than migrating there and sharing it with the existing Arabs. 

[jspill]

On 5/21/2021 at 3:45 AM, LomSak27 said:

 

With all due respect, you left out the Balfour Declaration, the British role in creating this mess. The jews would not have been there in numbers, had the British not invaded and occupied it in WWI. Britain promised it to both the Jews and Arabs for services rendered in that war. Selling Palestine twice, and selling something never really theirs. Not surprising, it all came a cropper. 

BTW, Orde Wingate is considered the Father of The Israeli Defense Force. A fact conveniently forgotten in today's United Kingdom.

Back to the present. Hamas and Israel have declared a cease fire. Hopefully it will hold and more needless deaths, like the Thai workers, will be prevented. 

 

The Balfour declaration was addressed to the Rothschilds. It was a deal they made, in return for getting that declaration they promised to bring America into the first World War, which they subsequently did. I don't really see it as anything to do with working class British people at all, it was never something the British voted on or were consulted over. 

[jspill]

On 5/21/2021 at 12:14 PM, Jingthing said:

Wait a second buddy. 

Have you checked out the population INCREASES in the West Bank?

The 20 percent of Israeli citizens that are Arab?
Nothing remotely resembling ethnic cleansing. That's just a anti-Israel slur and outright LIES like that need to be called out every time. 

 

 

Well how much larger would it have been if the initial 800k or so people weren't displaced following the 1948 invasion, and the tens of thousands killed various massacres like at Deir Yassin or in carpet bombing over the years. 

 

They do have a high birthrate but as a percentage they country went from over 90% Arab to now 20% and their birthrate would be even higher if not for the occupation. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, jspill said:

 

Zionists insist that that self determination must take the form of them running Palestine, quite a big distinction. It already had an existing population. They already had a homeland called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the other of the two official Jewish territories in the world. Which they had that before invading Palestine in 1948 and waging war and displacing (ethnically cleansing) 800k arabs. And it's twice the size of Israel, plenty of room for them.

 

So if it was just about having a home and self determination they'd have remained in the JAO, but no, zionism focuses on what they see as their holy land for religious reasons, so it's about building a country on top of an existing one and completely running it. Rather than migrating there and sharing it with the existing Arabs. 

I see you're taking about that backwater of the Soviet Union. 

It's funny than when people usually debate conflicts between countries they usually don't resort to claiming they shouldn't have ever existed. Instead of trying to deal with the current realities. But with Israel that always comes up. Hmm.

[jspill]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I see you're taking about that backwater of the Soviet Union. 

It's funny than when people usually debate conflicts between countries they usually don't resort to claiming they shouldn't have ever existed. Instead of trying to deal with the current realities. But with Israel that always comes up. Hmm.

 

It could exist in a fair and equitable way to the Arabs, sharing land with them, e.g. accepting the generous deal Yasser Arafat made them to share the land. 

 

In its current form, a military occupation and colony with a million arabs in the open air prison of Gaza, then no of course it shouldn't exist. That's a rogue state founded on terrorism against Arabs and British soldiers, not a legitimate country or homeland. Netanyahu recently passed a nation state law declaring it the 'homeland of the Jewish people and them alone'. So apartheid. 

 

Funny how westerners are scolded for empire and colonialism, but when it comes to a certain wealthy colony that makes a lot of money for the military industrial complex it gets a pass and billions a year from US taxpayers. Hmm. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by jspill

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, jspill said:

 

It could exist in a fair and equitable way to the Arabs, sharing land with them, e.g. accepting the generous deal Yasser Arafat made them to share the land. 

 

In its current form, a military occupation and colony with a million arabs in the open air prison of Gaza, then no of course it shouldn't exist. That's a rogue state founded on terrorism against Arabs and British soldiers, not a legitimate country or homeland. Netanyahu recently passed a nation state law declaring it the 'homeland of the Jewish people and them alone'. So apartheid. 

 

Funny how westerners are scolded for empire and colonialism, but when it comes to a certain wealthy colony that makes a lot of money for the military industrial complex it gets a pass and billions a year from US taxpayers. Hmm. 

A certain wealthy colony?

Your rhetoric is totally vile.

It oozes with demonizing tropes.

Debate at this gutter level is pointless. 

Goodbye.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Jingthing

[jspill]

 

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

A certain wealthy colony?

Your rhetoric is totally vile.

It oozes with demonizing tropes.

Debate at this gutter level is pointless. 

Goodbye.

 

Well you ignored all the salient points I made there and simply implied I'm an antisemite because I referred to money in the same sentence as the Jewish state.

 

So it's actually you not really engaging in debate, just looking to smear people. This perfectly demonstrates what we said earlier about any critics being smeared. 

 

It's a rich OECD country with nuclear weapons, and according to the Times of Israel itself 'Jewish donors contribute 50% of the donations to the Democratic party and 25% to the Republican party'. 

 

That's enormous wealth, and there's nothing wrong in pointing that out. That is why both parties look the other way on colonialism when it comes to Israel, because of the money involved. It's the #1 beneficiary of foreign aid from US taxpayers, by far, and 75% of it goes into the military industrial complex. 

 

It's the same reason Ilhan Omar was smeared, when she made her comment 'it's all about the Benjamins'. Which was nothing to do with everyday working class Jews, only zionist political donors and the state of Israel buying missiles from us. 

 

A huge swathe of the political spectrum agreed that Omar's comments weren't antisemitic, and mine are equivalent. So I think it's you that is debating in bad faith here.

Edited May 25, 2021 by jspill

[jspill]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I see you're taking about that backwater of the Soviet Union. 

 

There was a Jewish territorial organisation that was happy to establish a homeland anywhere in the world that wasn't inhabited, so wouldn't require bulldozing homes in an existing people's homeland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Territorial_Organization

 

They looked into many areas, but this movement eventually dissolved as it wasn't as popular as the zionist movement, which specifically wanted Palestine. 

 

So your assertion that zionism is just about finding a homeland is false, zionism is only concerned with taking over Palestine and as we've seen they have been constantly expanding their borders and annexing new land over the decades, they won't even agree to go back to using the 1967 borders. 

[DeaconJohn]

1 hour ago, jspill said:

 

 

Well you ignored all the salient points I made there and simply implied I'm an antisemite because I referred to money in the same sentence as the Jewish state.

 

So it's actually you not really engaging in debate, just looking to smear people. This perfectly demonstrates what we said earlier about any critics being smeared. 

 

It's a rich OECD country with nuclear weapons, and according to the Times of Israel itself 'Jewish donors contribute 50% of the donations to the Democratic party and 25% to the Republican party'. 

 

That's enormous wealth, and there's nothing wrong in pointing that out. That is why both parties look the other way on colonialism when it comes to Israel, because of the money involved. It's the #1 beneficiary of foreign aid from US taxpayers, by far, and 75% of it goes into the military industrial complex. 

 

It's the same reason Ilhan Omar was smeared, when she made her comment 'it's all about the Benjamins'. Which was nothing to do with everyday working class Jews, only zionist political donors and the state of Israel buying missiles from us. 

 

A huge swathe of the political spectrum agreed that Omar's comments weren't antisemitic, and mine are equivalent. So I think it's you that is debating in bad faith here.

You've clearly won the debate by citing easily provable facts and avoiding nasty ad hominem attacks.

[LomSak27]

3 hours ago, jspill said:

The Balfour declaration was addressed to the Rothschilds. It was a deal they made, in return for getting that declaration they promised to bring America into the first World War, which they subsequently did

 

Ah, The Rothschild’s. And so the favorite bogeyman of euro conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites, now makes their appearance. My only question,  what took you so long?! 

That said, it hacks me off when con-theorists, screw with history. Chaim Weizmann invented a fermentation process to manufacture acetone, the key component in cordite, smokeless powder. It is believed he was rewarded for this critical help to the British, & Allied war effort, by the British cabinet and David Lloyd George approving and signing The Balfour declaration. Indeed, it was a great service Weizmann provided, at a very critical moment, in this last, desperate mega war of Euro Imperialist powers.

[jspill]

12 hours ago, LomSak27 said:

Ah, The Rothschild’s. And so the favorite bogeyman of euro conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites, now makes their appearance. My only question,  what took you so long?! 

 

The Balfour declaration literally was addressed to Lord Rothschild, I didn't say anything other than that. Interesting that it's antisemitic to refer to even one Jewish person or family in a factual statement.

 

I was just replying to a poster assigning responsibility to 'the British' for Israel. That wasn't pulled up on by anyone as a hateful generalisation, despite it not being anything the British people voted on. It was the result of zionists within the ruling class, getting the rest of the ruling class to agree to it in exchange for bringing America into the first world war. 

 

Sure British soldiers went over there, but they were intending to set things up in a fair and equitable way, which is why the Irgun killed hundreds of them in terror attacks, the Irgun wanted much fewer concessions for the Arabs.