Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

Your claim was that Israel upped the ante by changing the legislation, I point out that this is not quite the case.

Whenever something doesn't fit the narrative, it's the-hell-with-them-pesky-details.

As previously posted, not overly impressed with hypothetical "what I would have done". Maybe because of the actual "been there, done that" element.

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right, but perhaps, as great advocator of passive resistance you see it differently. For me - If you can't face the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want to get hurt, don't try hurting others. Especially not when the odds are stacked against you and the consequences are known. Goes back to the reoccurring topic of being responsible for one's actions.

Expecting Palestinian riots to be free of casualties is not realistic, not is it to the advantage of the Palestinians from a PR point of view.

You know and I know that the legislation means police and IDF now have carte blanche to shoot stone throwers dead, and all they have to say is "I thought my life or someone else's was in danger from a stone being thrown" as did the army colonel last month when his wind screen was broken, he and his men in full body armor and helmets then took careful aim at the teenage stone throwers who were running away, shot one in the back, then had plenty of time to go over and kick the boy on the ground. Members of Netanyahu's cabinet congratulated the colonel. Yes, his life was clearly in danger from teenagers running away.That's the danger of this legislation.

"An Israeli human rights group has published a video it says contradicts the account of an Israeli army officer who shot dead a Palestinian teenager.

Col Israel Shomer fired at Mohammed Kasbeh after the 17-year-old threw a stone at his vehicle in the West Bank.

Israel's military said at the time that Col Shomer felt his life was in danger."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33506008

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right,

Nor do I accept is a basic human right for an army of occupation to fire live ammunition at teenagers protesting 48 years of repression.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

Your claim was that Israel upped the ante by changing the legislation, I point out that this is not quite the case.

Whenever something doesn't fit the narrative, it's the-hell-with-them-pesky-details.

As previously posted, not overly impressed with hypothetical "what I would have done". Maybe because of the actual "been there, done that" element.

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right, but perhaps, as great advocator of passive resistance you see it differently. For me - If you can't face the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want to get hurt, don't try hurting others. Especially not when the odds are stacked against you and the consequences are known. Goes back to the reoccurring topic of being responsible for one's actions.

Expecting Palestinian riots to be free of casualties is not realistic, not is it to the advantage of the Palestinians from a PR point of view.

You know and I know that the legislation means police and IDF now have carte blanche to shoot stone throwers dead, and all they have to say is "I thought my life or someone else's was in danger from a stone being thrown" as did the army colonel last month when his wind screen was broken, he and his men in full body armor and helmets then took careful aim at the teenage stone throwers who were running away, shot one in the back, then had plenty of time to go over and kick the boy on the ground. Members of Netanyahu's cabinet congratulated the colonel. Yes, his life was clearly in danger from teenagers running away.That's the danger of this legislation.

"An Israeli human rights group has published a video it says contradicts the account of an Israeli army officer who shot dead a Palestinian teenager.

Col Israel Shomer fired at Mohammed Kasbeh after the 17-year-old threw a stone at his vehicle in the West Bank.

Israel's military said at the time that Col Shomer felt his life was in danger."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33506008

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right,

Nor do I accept is a basic human right for an army of occupation to fire live ammunition at teenagers protesting 48 years of repression.

Do not presume to tell me what I know, or imply that I agree with your opinion.

Your claim was that the new ROE included in the current legislation are "upping the ante" and "pouring gas on fire", because they allow use of live ammunition against rock throwers. It was pointed out that use of live fire was already approved long before the current riots broke, hence the new ROE are not quite an upping of the ante. Accordingly, the incident quoted in the post above did not occur last month (as claimed), but in July (well before the new ROE came into effect).

I do not condone each and every use of live ammunition (or for that matter other forms of aggression) by Israel against the Palestinians. At the same time, not biased or naive enough to imagine that each and ever one of these cases is unwarranted. That Palestinians undertaking violent actions is understandable as well. That does not entail blanket condoning of all Palestinian violent actions or refusing to accept that such actions carry repercussions.

So, unless it can be demonstrated that the death toll among Palestinian rock throwers in the West Bank rose dramatically following the new ROE (and bearing in mind that the total volume of violent incidents rose significantly), the claim that these new ROE are "carte blanche" to kill rock throwers is another propaganda talking point.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9967952

[thaibeachlovers]

that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies.

If they do not know what the outcome of their policies will be then they are ignorant. They only have to look at what became of apartheid Sth Africa to know what will happen eventually. While the US currently uses it's veto to prevent anti Israeli votes in the UN becoming policy, that will change, sooner or later, and when that happens it really will be the end game for Israel, and very much self inflicted.

Currently, the situation is like a tsunami when the sea has retreated. It looks quiet, but when the water comes back it washes everything away in its path. Same will happen to Israel when they go too far ( as they will ) and ignite a rage against them throughout the world.

Israel is a specific case. It is not South Africa. It is not Nazi Germany.

This is true. They are not identical.

The occupiers have implemented their own unique brand of apartheid and despicable persecution.

By the way, Judaism is a religion. Not a race. Not a "people". It's just a religion, and it's as absurd as the next.

Ah, religion. The obsession with appearance always amuses me, especially when it involves stupid hats. It's as though the more stupid the hat, the more religious one is, as though "God" doesn't know what is in their heart.

[thaibeachlovers]

Sure, Judaism is full of superstitions etc, as any other religions, including Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism. But it is how it is practiced, in real life, that really matters. I have live many years in a muslim country, and that's not something I would like to do again. Just a small example: I, as female, dressed in long sleeves and long pants, was riding a scooter in an african, muslim little town, and people were shouting at me "wh.re!, b.tch!", simply because they don't like to see a female sit on scooter and drive around. These are very backward people.

That is culture, not religion. There is no injunction in the Koran to abuse women riding m'bikes. However, agree they are backward.

Their culture relies on women being subservient and second class to men, so you acting as an independent person is threatening to them.

[Jingthing]

The topic here isn't about making fun of funny hats.

All kinds of people all over the world wear funny hats.

So what?

The topic here is actually

Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

which continues to be relevant now, day after day.

Any new comments on the actual TOPIC?

Edited October 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

The topic here isn't about making fun of funny hats.

All kinds of people all over the world wear funny hats.

cheesehat111.jpg

So what?

The topic here is actually

Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

which continues to be relevant now, day after day.

Any new comments on the actual TOPIC?

Given that it is a religious conflict ie Jewish vs Muslim, IMO it is not inappropriate to comment on religion.

[dexterm]

Morch says above (sorry thread full)

There is no one in a position of power in Israel calling for mass deportation of Palestinians, there is no general public support for that sort of thing as well. On top, Israel simply does not have the stomach to carry out something on that scale. Basically, it's just one of your standard propaganda red herring statements.

Here are just a few samples of the people in a position of power in Netanyahu's current cabinet on the issue of a 2 state solution.

Silvan Shalom, interior minister (Likud)

"We are all against a Palestinian state, there is no question about it."

Tzipi Hotovely, deputy foreign minister (Likud)

"This land is ours. All of it is ours"

Naftali Bennett, education minister (Jewish Home)

Aside from repeatedly comparing Palestinians to monkeys, Bennett - the former head of the Yesha Council, which represents Israel's illegal settlements - told the New Yorker in 2013: "I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

more from other cabinet members... (could only quote 3...fair usage)

The two-state solution is dead

Just ask Israel's own ministers

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/state-palestine-israel-zionist-150527070943455.html

My question is: if Netanyahu's current cabinet have ruled out a 2 state solution, mathematically we are left with a one state solution. What do they plan to do with the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank?..deportation, equal citizenship or apartheid? Simple question.

Morch's other quote..

Curious to know how does Netanyahu's left wing opposition figure into this view of Zionism.

Zionism, yes even ZU's Herzog's variety, is racist. I do not believe that overseas Jews should take precedence in citizenship over the existing non Jewish population.I would like to see Israel become a secular state with perhaps a special proviso that it is always a haven for any persecuted Jewish refugees, and existing family reunions.

.

How do the quotes appearing in the linked article relevant to "mass deportation of Palestinians"? And I do not mean your wild conjectures, but factually, where exactly is it even mentioned. Furthermore, it would take quite a leap of imagination to define most of the politicians quoted as wielding real power when it comes to hypothetical decisions of this magnitude, titles notwithstanding.

The question asked was discussed many times on these topics, including this one. Namely, that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies. That you refuse to accept that as a reality, does not change the way things are. Nor does it land credibility to conspiracy theories aired.

Predictably, similar quotes from the Palestinian side receive little acknowledgement (off the top of my head - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708).

As for the second issue:

What you actually posted was "I commonly differentiate between the many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace and bigoted Zionists who only believe in racial supremacy." (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9966052).

If Herzog & Co, are deemed racist, who would be those "many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace"? And, if Herzog & Co. are racist, who is there for the Palestinians to make peace with?

I repeat the simple question that you failed to answer.

If, as most of Netanyahu's cabinet and Netanyahu himself said then retracted during the election, they are clearly promoting a one state solution.

What do you think/know from listening to them will be the borders of that one state? Most of Netanyahu's cabinet seem to suggest it will be the Jordan river and encompass what they call Judaea and Samaria.If that is the case what will be the status of the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank within that one state solution?

The righeous Israeli Jews I refer to are such as Ilan Pappé, Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Amira Haas, Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions ICAHD (http://www.icahd.org), Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il) and others.

[Jingthing]

The topic here isn't about making fun of funny hats.

All kinds of people all over the world wear funny hats.

cheesehat111.jpg

So what?

The topic here is actually

Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

which continues to be relevant now, day after day.

Any new comments on the actual TOPIC?

Given that it is a religious conflict ie Jewish vs Muslim, IMO it is not inappropriate to comment on religion.

First of all, it is very simplistic to see this as only a religious conflict.

The political ideological origins of Zionism, which found material realization in the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel were for most part SECULAR.

As a POLITICAL movement for self determination/liberation/civil rights of the Jewish PEOPLE.

Obsessive Israel demonizers and also open or closeted Judeophobes can spew all kinds of lies thousands of times that Jewish is ONLY a religion, but that is patently false. Jewish is much more complex than that. Yes Jewish is a religion but a huge percentage of Jews are not religious. So there is obviously much more to it.

Here is one approach to explaining it to the misinformed:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm#Nation

• Judaism has been described as a religion, a race, a culture, and a nation

• All of these descriptions have some validity

• The Jewish people are best described as an extended family

Personally I wouldn't ever call Jews a race but would use ethnicities instead, more correct based on modern anthropology.

Extended family is a pretty good way of putting it as a conclusion, but I think the old fashioned TRIBE or TRIBES is a similar concept.

I also think saying JEWISH PEOPLE is pretty good shorthand that is similar enough to family or tribe. It does NOT mean that Jewish people are all of the same ethnicity.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

.

How do the quotes appearing in the linked article relevant to "mass deportation of Palestinians"? And I do not mean your wild conjectures, but factually, where exactly is it even mentioned. Furthermore, it would take quite a leap of imagination to define most of the politicians quoted as wielding real power when it comes to hypothetical decisions of this magnitude, titles notwithstanding.

The question asked was discussed many times on these topics, including this one. Namely, that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies. That you refuse to accept that as a reality, does not change the way things are. Nor does it land credibility to conspiracy theories aired.

Predictably, similar quotes from the Palestinian side receive little acknowledgement (off the top of my head - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708).

As for the second issue:

What you actually posted was "I commonly differentiate between the many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace and bigoted Zionists who only believe in racial supremacy." (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9966052).

If Herzog & Co, are deemed racist, who would be those "many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace"? And, if Herzog & Co. are racist, who is there for the Palestinians to make peace with?

I repeat the simple question that you failed to answer.

If, as most of Netanyahu's cabinet and Netanyahu himself said then retracted during the election, they are clearly promoting a one state solution.

What do you think/know from listening to them will be the borders of that one state? Most of Netanyahu's cabinet seem to suggest it will be the Jordan river and encompass what they call Judaea and Samaria.If that is the case what will be the status of the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank within that one state solution?

The righeous Israeli Jews I refer to are such as Ilan Pappé, Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Amira Haas, Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions ICAHD (http://www.icahd.org), Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il) and others.

If the US accepts those borders as being legal, they have negated their opposition to Russia supporting seperatists in the Ukraine, as they will be accepting land acquisition by force, surely that which the UN was set up to oppose.

Currently, only the 1948 borders are legal, and all other areas are occupied.

[Jingthing]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

[thaibeachlovers]

The topic here isn't about making fun of funny hats.

All kinds of people all over the world wear funny hats.

cheesehat111.jpg

So what?

The topic here is actually

Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

which continues to be relevant now, day after day.

Any new comments on the actual TOPIC?

Given that it is a religious conflict ie Jewish vs Muslim, IMO it is not inappropriate to comment on religion.

First of all, it is very simplistic to see this as only a religious conflict.

The origins of Zionism, which found realization in the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel were for most part SECULAR.

As a POLITICAL movement for self determination of the Jewish PEOPLE.

Obsessive Israel demonizers and also open or closeted Judeophobes can spew all kinds of lies thousands of times that Jewish is ONLY a religion, but that is patently false. Jewish is much more complex than that. Here is one approach to explaining it the misinformed:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm#Nation

• Judaism has been described as a religion, a race, a culture, and a nation

• All of these descriptions have some validity

• The Jewish people are best described as an extended family

Jews can't be considered a race, given there are black Jews and white Jews, they also can't be considered a nation, as a nation is a piece of dirt and Jews that never lived in Israel live all over the world. Extended family and culture- I can accept that.

Till Arab Israelis are shooting Palestinians in the street, I stand by my belief that it is a religious conflict.

[Jingthing]

No. The Palestinian terrorists are going after any Jewish people. They don't care if they're RELIGIOUS Jews or secular. Of course religious Jews are easier to RECOGNIZE. You know ... the funny hats.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

???????

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

[Jingthing]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

???????

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at a bloody map.

Look how small 1948 Israel was.

Instantly the Muslim/Arab world invaded en masse.

If they had accepted 1948 from the beginning, you'd have a point, but they didn't.

Any FAIR MINDED observer has to admit that those original 1948 borders were NOT DEFENSIBLE in the long run surrounded by so many hostile neighbors who never accepted the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even EXIST.

Your Japan comparison is pretty dumb.

There was no EXISTENTIAL security reason for the USA to keep any Japanese lands but they did run the place after the war and there is still a military presence in places like OKINAWA.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,

Morch wrote...

Your claim was that Israel upped the ante by changing the legislation, I point out that this is not quite the case.

Whenever something doesn't fit the narrative, it's the-hell-with-them-pesky-details.

As previously posted, not overly impressed with hypothetical "what I would have done". Maybe because of the actual "been there, done that" element.

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right, but perhaps, as great advocator of passive resistance you see it differently. For me - If you can't face the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want to get hurt, don't try hurting others. Especially not when the odds are stacked against you and the consequences are known. Goes back to the reoccurring topic of being responsible for one's actions.

Expecting Palestinian riots to be free of casualties is not realistic, not is it to the advantage of the Palestinians from a PR point of view.

You know and I know that the legislation means police and IDF now have carte blanche to shoot stone throwers dead, and all they have to say is "I thought my life or someone else's was in danger from a stone being thrown" as did the army colonel last month when his wind screen was broken, he and his men in full body armor and helmets then took careful aim at the teenage stone throwers who were running away, shot one in the back, then had plenty of time to go over and kick the boy on the ground. Members of Netanyahu's cabinet congratulated the colonel. Yes, his life was clearly in danger from teenagers running away.That's the danger of this legislation.

"An Israeli human rights group has published a video it says contradicts the account of an Israeli army officer who shot dead a Palestinian teenager.

Col Israel Shomer fired at Mohammed Kasbeh after the 17-year-old threw a stone at his vehicle in the West Bank.

Israel's military said at the time that Col Shomer felt his life was in danger."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33506008

I also do not accept rock throwing as a basic human right,

Nor do I accept is a basic human right for an army of occupation to fire live ammunition at teenagers protesting 48 years of repression.

Do not presume to tell me what I know, or imply that I agree with your opinion.

Your claim was that the new ROE included in the current legislation are "upping the ante" and "pouring gas on fire", because they allow use of live ammunition against rock throwers. It was pointed out that use of live fire was already approved long before the current riots broke, hence the new ROE are not quite an upping of the ante. Accordingly, the incident quoted in the post above did not occur last month (as claimed), but in July (well before the new ROE came into effect).

I do not condone each and every use of live ammunition (or for that matter other forms of aggression) by Israel against the Palestinians. At the same time, not biased or naive enough to imagine that each and ever one of these cases is unwarranted. That Palestinians undertaking violent actions is understandable as well. That does not entail blanket condoning of all Palestinian violent actions or refusing to accept that such actions carry repercussions.

So, unless it can be demonstrated that the death toll among Palestinian rock throwers in the West Bank rose dramatically following the new ROE (and bearing in mind that the total volume of violent incidents rose significantly), the claim that these new ROE are "carte blanche" to kill rock throwers is another propaganda talking point.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9967952

Netanyahu upped the ante with his legislation changing the ROE, so that police and IDF can now shoot with impunity any Palestinian the deem to be threatening their life or anyone else's, unless of course it is an Israeli stabbing a Palestinian or settlers throwing rocks at Palestinian cars as they frequently do.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/israeli-stabs-palestinians-nationalistic-attack-151009083712363.html

Has the Israeli "nationalist" (somehow euphemistically morphed from terrorist) who stabbed 4 Palestinians had his home demolished and residence status removed yet, or any fanatical Zionist price tag terrorists likewise. I forgot...they come under Israeli civil law, whereas Palestinians in the West Bank come under Israeli military law. Convenient.

If you are looking for evidence of dramatic increases in the death toll, look at the OP subject line

The latest death toll I can find is now 41 Palestinians killed and 7 Israelis. I am not holding my breath for a full coroner's investigation into the 41 Palestinian deaths.

[dexterm]

The topic here isn't about making fun of funny hats.

All kinds of people all over the world wear funny hats.

cheesehat111.jpg

So what?

The topic here is actually

Death toll mounts in Israel and the Palestinian territories

which continues to be relevant now, day after day.

Any new comments on the actual TOPIC?

Given that it is a religious conflict ie Jewish vs Muslim, IMO it is not inappropriate to comment on religion.

First of all, it is very simplistic to see this as only a religious conflict.

The political ideological origins of Zionism, which found material realization in the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel were for most part SECULAR.

As a POLITICAL movement for self determination/liberation/civil rights of the Jewish PEOPLE.

Obsessive Israel demonizers and also open or closeted Judeophobes can spew all kinds of lies thousands of times that Jewish is ONLY a religion, but that is patently false. Jewish is much more complex than that. Yes Jewish is a religion but a huge percentage of Jews are not religious. So there is obviously much more to it.

Here is one approach to explaining it to the misinformed:

http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm#Nation

• Judaism has been described as a religion, a race, a culture, and a nation

• All of these descriptions have some validity

• The Jewish people are best described as an extended family

Personally I wouldn't ever call Jews a race but would use ethnicities instead, more correct based on modern anthropology.

Extended family is a pretty good way of putting it as a conclusion, but I think the old fashioned TRIBE or TRIBES is a similar concept.

I also think saying JEWISH PEOPLE is pretty good shorthand that is similar enough to family or tribe. It does NOT mean that Jewish people are all of the same ethnicity.

It's very handy having a one size fits all definition of Judaism.

Criticize the originally secular Zionism...you're anti semitic

Criticize the government policies Israel...you're anti semitic.

Criticize Israel's occupation of land in the West Bank..suddenly Judaism is a religion again..God gave us biblical Judaea and Samaria....you're anti semitic.

Edited October 18, 2015 by dexterm

[thaibeachlovers]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

???????

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at a bloody map.

Look how small 1948 Israel was.

Instantly the Muslim/Arab world invaded en masse.

If they had accepted 1948 from the beginning, you'd have a point, but they didn't.

Any FAIR MINDED observer has to admit that those original 1948 borders were NOT DEFENSIBLE in the long run surrounded by so many hostile neighbors who never accepted the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even EXIST.

Your Japan comparison is pretty dumb.

There was no EXISTENTIAL security reason for the USA to keep any Japanese lands but they did run the place after the war and there is still a military presence in places like OKINAWA.

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

Edited October 18, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[Jingthing]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

???????

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at a bloody map.

Look how small 1948 Israel was.

Instantly the Muslim/Arab world invaded en masse.

If they had accepted 1948 from the beginning, you'd have a point, but they didn't.

Any FAIR MINDED observer has to admit that those original 1948 borders were NOT DEFENSIBLE in the long run surrounded by so many hostile neighbors who never accepted the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even EXIST.

Your Japan comparison is pretty dumb.

There was no EXISTENTIAL security reason for the USA to keep any Japanese lands but they did run the place after the war and there is still a military presence in places like OKINAWA.

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

Not a matter or liking or not. Everyone knows the 1948 borders are ancient history and more like a COULD HAVE been if the Arab/Muslim world did not instantly attack the new Jewish state of Israel with the clearly stated intention of CRUSHING it.

I couldn't care less if you reply or not. There is ample supply of posters here repeating the same old empty and hateful Israel demonization mantras.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at a bloody map.

Look how small 1948 Israel was.

Instantly the Muslim/Arab world invaded en masse.

If they had accepted 1948 from the beginning, you'd have a point, but they didn't.

Any FAIR MINDED observer has to admit that those original 1948 borders were NOT DEFENSIBLE in the long run surrounded by so many hostile neighbors who never accepted the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even EXIST.

Your Japan comparison is pretty dumb.

There was no EXISTENTIAL security reason for the USA to keep any Japanese lands but they did run the place after the war and there is still a military presence in places like OKINAWA.

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

Not a matter or liking or not. Everyone knows the 1948 borders are ancient history and more like a COULD HAVE been if the Arab/Muslim world did not instantly attack the new Jewish state of Israel with the clearly stated intention of CRUSHING it.

I couldn't care less if you reply or not. There is ample supply of posters here repeating the same old empty and hateful Israel demonization mantras.

[Morch]

How do the quotes appearing in the linked article relevant to "mass deportation of Palestinians"? And I do not mean your wild conjectures, but factually, where exactly is it even mentioned. Furthermore, it would take quite a leap of imagination to define most of the politicians quoted as wielding real power when it comes to hypothetical decisions of this magnitude, titles notwithstanding.

The question asked was discussed many times on these topics, including this one. Namely, that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies. That you refuse to accept that as a reality, does not change the way things are. Nor does it land credibility to conspiracy theories aired.

Predictably, similar quotes from the Palestinian side receive little acknowledgement (off the top of my head - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708).

As for the second issue:

What you actually posted was "I commonly differentiate between the many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace and bigoted Zionists who only believe in racial supremacy." (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9966052).

If Herzog & Co, are deemed racist, who would be those "many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace"? And, if Herzog & Co. are racist, who is there for the Palestinians to make peace with?

I repeat the simple question that you failed to answer.

If, as most of Netanyahu's cabinet and Netanyahu himself said then retracted during the election, they are clearly promoting a one state solution.

What do you think/know from listening to them will be the borders of that one state? Most of Netanyahu's cabinet seem to suggest it will be the Jordan river and encompass what they call Judaea and Samaria.If that is the case what will be the status of the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank within that one state solution?

The righeous Israeli Jews I refer to are such as Ilan Pappé, Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Amira Haas, Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions ICAHD (http://www.icahd.org), Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il) and others.

You keep asking the same question, and keep implying an atrocious calamity is in the making. An answer was supplied (more than once, and across several topics) but apparently, being inconclusive, and not reaffirming the upcoming-ethnic-cleansing conspiracy theory and rumor mongering makes it hard to accept.

To put it forth again - generally, Israel's right wing does not possess a realistic solution to this conundrum. All of the possible avenues of action lead to outcomes which are either contradictory to ideology and goals, or unacceptable from a domestic and international public opinion point of view. Statements including radical solutions to these issues are usually made by either rightmost ideological markers, or when attempting to garner support with right wing voters.

There is no overall accepted formulation of a solution among Israel's right wing, but a host of confused half-baked notions. Treating it as a unified ideological and political entity is tempting, but does not match reality. Not everyone on the right wing is totally out of touch with basic moral values or willing to cross any moral line. Not all are fanatics, and Netanyahu is not the worst of them by a long shot.Despite all the obsessive ethnic-cleansing-around-the-corner scaremongering, there is no real mass electoral support for such actions. And that is without even including non-right-wing voters.

An attempt to apply rational reasoning to ideological frameworks meeting unexpected realistic hurdles is futile. People do not readily alter their ideological beliefs following rational argumentation (otherwise many topics here would be much shorter). Politicians are humans, humans are able to uphold seemingly contradictory and often irrational ideas.

So guess this is not nearly as clear cut or satisfactory answer as some wish - it is what it is. Another reminder that reality is does not always conform to numbered talking points. Of course, nothing to stop you from claiming at a later date no answer was given, or to continue spreading baseless doom predictions.

As for the list of worthies - not to put too fine a point on it, how do these amount to "many" as stated earlier? Essentially, this is an affirmation that as far as you are concerned, most Israelis (Certainly the Jewish among them - not an antisemitic smear, a statistical observation - as opposed to Arab Israelis) are racist. Who are the Palestinians going to make peace with, then? Because, like it or not, fringe is by definition not the address.

[DeaconJohn]

How do the quotes appearing in the linked article relevant to "mass deportation of Palestinians"? And I do not mean your wild conjectures, but factually, where exactly is it even mentioned. Furthermore, it would take quite a leap of imagination to define most of the politicians quoted as wielding real power when it comes to hypothetical decisions of this magnitude, titles notwithstanding.

The question asked was discussed many times on these topics, including this one. Namely, that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies. That you refuse to accept that as a reality, does not change the way things are. Nor does it land credibility to conspiracy theories aired.

Predictably, similar quotes from the Palestinian side receive little acknowledgement (off the top of my head - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708).

As for the second issue:

What you actually posted was "I commonly differentiate between the many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace and bigoted Zionists who only believe in racial supremacy." (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9966052).

If Herzog & Co, are deemed racist, who would be those "many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace"? And, if Herzog & Co. are racist, who is there for the Palestinians to make peace with?

I repeat the simple question that you failed to answer.

If, as most of Netanyahu's cabinet and Netanyahu himself said then retracted during the election, they are clearly promoting a one state solution.

What do you think/know from listening to them will be the borders of that one state? Most of Netanyahu's cabinet seem to suggest it will be the Jordan river and encompass what they call Judaea and Samaria.If that is the case what will be the status of the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank within that one state solution?

The righeous Israeli Jews I refer to are such as Ilan Pappé, Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Amira Haas, Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions ICAHD (http://www.icahd.org), Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il) and others.

You keep asking the same question, and keep implying an atrocious calamity is in the making. An answer was supplied (more than once, and across several topics) but apparently, being inconclusive, and not reaffirming the upcoming-ethnic-cleansing conspiracy theory and rumor mongering makes it hard to accept.

To put it forth again - generally, Israel's right wing does not possess a realistic solution to this conundrum. All of the possible avenues of action lead to outcomes which are either contradictory to ideology and goals, or unacceptable from a domestic and international public opinion point of view. Statements including radical solutions to these issues are usually made by either rightmost ideological markers, or when attempting to garner support with right wing voters.

There is no overall accepted formulation of a solution among Israel's right wing, but a host of confused half-baked notions. Treating it as a unified ideological and political entity is tempting, but does not match reality. Not everyone on the right wing is totally out of touch with basic moral values or willing to cross any moral line. Not all are fanatics, and Netanyahu is not the worst of them by a long shot.Despite all the obsessive ethnic-cleansing-around-the-corner scaremongering, there is no real mass electoral support for such actions. And that is without even including non-right-wing voters.

An attempt to apply rational reasoning to ideological frameworks meeting unexpected realistic hurdles is futile. People do not readily alter their ideological beliefs following rational argumentation (otherwise many topics here would be much shorter). Politicians are humans, humans are able to uphold seemingly contradictory and often irrational ideas.

So guess this is not nearly as clear cut or satisfactory answer as some wish - it is what it is. Another reminder that reality is does not always conform to numbered talking points. Of course, nothing to stop you from claiming at a later date no answer was given, or to continue spreading baseless doom predictions.

As for the list of worthies - not to put too fine a point on it, how do these amount to "many" as stated earlier? Essentially, this is an affirmation that as far as you are concerned, most Israelis (Certainly the Jewish among them - not an antisemitic smear, a statistical observation - as opposed to Arab Israelis) are racist. Who are the Palestinians going to make peace with, then? Because, like it or not, fringe is by definition not the address.

You undoubtedly have some good points in there somewhere, but your verbose analysis and turgid prose style make them hard to find.

[Morch]

Jews can't be considered a race, given there are black Jews and white Jews, they also can't be considered a nation, as a nation is a piece of dirt and Jews that never lived in Israel live all over the world. Extended family and culture- I can accept that.

Till Arab Israelis are shooting Palestinians in the street, I stand by my belief that it is a religious conflict.

Arab Israelis may also be of Christian persuasion, not to mentions secular or non-observant.

That's without considering Druze, Cherkess, and Bedouin groups.

There are Israeli Arab Muslims on the police force. And other minorities mentioned serve in the IDF and the Border Guard.

I have no idea about the identity of each and every security personnel involved in shooting on the current riots, but the assumption that such situations do not occur is incorrect.

Religion is just one facet of this conflict.

[Morch]

How do the quotes appearing in the linked article relevant to "mass deportation of Palestinians"? And I do not mean your wild conjectures, but factually, where exactly is it even mentioned. Furthermore, it would take quite a leap of imagination to define most of the politicians quoted as wielding real power when it comes to hypothetical decisions of this magnitude, titles notwithstanding.

The question asked was discussed many times on these topics, including this one. Namely, that the Israeli right wing does not have a clear answer with regard to the implications of their current policies. That you refuse to accept that as a reality, does not change the way things are. Nor does it land credibility to conspiracy theories aired.

Predictably, similar quotes from the Palestinian side receive little acknowledgement (off the top of my head - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/860733-israel-launches-airstrikes-on-targets-in-gaza/?p=9938708).

As for the second issue:

What you actually posted was "I commonly differentiate between the many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace and bigoted Zionists who only believe in racial supremacy." (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9966052).

If Herzog & Co, are deemed racist, who would be those "many righteous Israelis who are genuinely seeking peace"? And, if Herzog & Co. are racist, who is there for the Palestinians to make peace with?

I repeat the simple question that you failed to answer.

If, as most of Netanyahu's cabinet and Netanyahu himself said then retracted during the election, they are clearly promoting a one state solution.

What do you think/know from listening to them will be the borders of that one state? Most of Netanyahu's cabinet seem to suggest it will be the Jordan river and encompass what they call Judaea and Samaria.If that is the case what will be the status of the existing 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank within that one state solution?

The righeous Israeli Jews I refer to are such as Ilan Pappé, Miko Peled, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, Amira Haas, Israel’s human rights organization B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions ICAHD (http://www.icahd.org), Breaking the Silence (http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il) and others.

You keep asking the same question, and keep implying an atrocious calamity is in the making. An answer was supplied (more than once, and across several topics) but apparently, being inconclusive, and not reaffirming the upcoming-ethnic-cleansing conspiracy theory and rumor mongering makes it hard to accept.

To put it forth again - generally, Israel's right wing does not possess a realistic solution to this conundrum. All of the possible avenues of action lead to outcomes which are either contradictory to ideology and goals, or unacceptable from a domestic and international public opinion point of view. Statements including radical solutions to these issues are usually made by either rightmost ideological markers, or when attempting to garner support with right wing voters.

There is no overall accepted formulation of a solution among Israel's right wing, but a host of confused half-baked notions. Treating it as a unified ideological and political entity is tempting, but does not match reality. Not everyone on the right wing is totally out of touch with basic moral values or willing to cross any moral line. Not all are fanatics, and Netanyahu is not the worst of them by a long shot.Despite all the obsessive ethnic-cleansing-around-the-corner scaremongering, there is no real mass electoral support for such actions. And that is without even including non-right-wing voters.

An attempt to apply rational reasoning to ideological frameworks meeting unexpected realistic hurdles is futile. People do not readily alter their ideological beliefs following rational argumentation (otherwise many topics here would be much shorter). Politicians are humans, humans are able to uphold seemingly contradictory and often irrational ideas.

So guess this is not nearly as clear cut or satisfactory answer as some wish - it is what it is. Another reminder that reality is does not always conform to numbered talking points. Of course, nothing to stop you from claiming at a later date no answer was given, or to continue spreading baseless doom predictions.

As for the list of worthies - not to put too fine a point on it, how do these amount to "many" as stated earlier? Essentially, this is an affirmation that as far as you are concerned, most Israelis (Certainly the Jewish among them - not an antisemitic smear, a statistical observation - as opposed to Arab Israelis) are racist. Who are the Palestinians going to make peace with, then? Because, like it or not, fringe is by definition not the address.

You undoubtedly have some good points in there somewhere, but your verbose analysis and turgid prose style make them hard to find.

Wouldn't expect any other comment from someone who's own contributions to discussions are usually pointless one liners.

[DeaconJohn]

You undoubtedly have some good points in there somewhere, but your verbose analysis and turgid prose style make them hard to find.

Wouldn't expect any other comment from someone who's own contributions to discussions are usually pointless one liners.

Hit a nerve there, did I?

But maybe it was salutary.

Your posts are improving already.

Edited October 18, 2015 by DeaconJohn

[JHolmesJr]

I recall a recent documentary called The Gatekeepers that interviewed every single head of the Israeli Shin Bet….two things emerged from that:

1. Each and every head was against violent confrontation. (unless they all decided to lie at the same time)

2. The difference in thinking between the intelligence heads and the politicians is staggering.

Nice film. Very illuminating.

[Morch]

Do not presume to tell me what I know, or imply that I agree with your opinion.

Your claim was that the new ROE included in the current legislation are "upping the ante" and "pouring gas on fire", because they allow use of live ammunition against rock throwers. It was pointed out that use of live fire was already approved long before the current riots broke, hence the new ROE are not quite an upping of the ante. Accordingly, the incident quoted in the post above did not occur last month (as claimed), but in July (well before the new ROE came into effect).

I do not condone each and every use of live ammunition (or for that matter other forms of aggression) by Israel against the Palestinians. At the same time, not biased or naive enough to imagine that each and ever one of these cases is unwarranted. That Palestinians undertaking violent actions is understandable as well. That does not entail blanket condoning of all Palestinian violent actions or refusing to accept that such actions carry repercussions.

So, unless it can be demonstrated that the death toll among Palestinian rock throwers in the West Bank rose dramatically following the new ROE (and bearing in mind that the total volume of violent incidents rose significantly), the claim that these new ROE are "carte blanche" to kill rock throwers is another propaganda talking point.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/862271-death-toll-mounts-in-israel-and-the-palestinian-territories/?p=9967952

Netanyahu upped the ante with his legislation changing the ROE, so that police and IDF can now shoot with impunity any Palestinian the deem to be threatening their life or anyone else's, unless of course it is an Israeli stabbing a Palestinian or settlers throwing rocks at Palestinian cars as they frequently do.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/israeli-stabs-palestinians-nationalistic-attack-151009083712363.html

Has the Israeli "nationalist" (somehow euphemistically morphed from terrorist) who stabbed 4 Palestinians had his home demolished and residence status removed yet, or any fanatical Zionist price tag terrorists likewise. I forgot...they come under Israeli civil law, whereas Palestinians in the West Bank come under Israeli military law. Convenient.

If you are looking for evidence of dramatic increases in the death toll, look at the OP subject line

The latest death toll I can find is now 41 Palestinians killed and 7 Israelis. I am not holding my breath for a full coroner's investigation into the 41 Palestinian deaths.

Nope. The changes introduced in ROE were specific to rock throwing incidents, and not as claimed in your post. The whole point was to include rock throwing attacks as a potentially life-threatening action. Shooting to prevent Knife attacks was obviously already permitted. How many of the 41 Palestinian casualties were involved in rock throwing incidents? Lumping together all Palestinian casualties (including those carrying out knife attacks) is misleading.

Your interpretation the ROE changes upped the ante, rather than being willing to consider the intensified rock throwing attack as such is not even in line with the tunes played on Palestinian social media. It seems one popular sentiment is that the change of ROE is an expression of fear by Israel, and therefore, a success of sorts.

Barking up the wrong tree, as usual. I never claimed that having different legal systems applied to the same offense is right, never commented favorably on house demolitions, "price tag" attacks or the lack of law enforcement concerning them. As far as I'm concerned the guy who stabbed the Palestinians ought to punished just the same (sans the house demolition, which I object to generally).

[Jingthing]

When Arab terrorists are chasing down random civilian Jews wielding murder knives and running over groups of them with cars, etc. ... that's not the time to take a siesta, Shin Bet, Shin Schmet.

I find this incredible. What if this was happening in YOUR country?!? Such a double standard. People would be favoring actions way more hawkish than what Israel is doing. It's such a double standard because Israel is a country that is mostly Jews; other people think Jews are supposed to be so special and just bend over and take the murder knives and say thank you, you must be frustrated. Been there. Done that. Never again. Jews don't do that anymore. Get used to it.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Couldn't you guys (both sides of this off topic argument) simply agree that some criticism comes with antisemitic motivations and some do not?

Not all criticism of Israel denotes antisemitism,but obviously, some does. Rejecting all criticism as hidden antisemitism is absurd. Not all claims that criticism on Israel indicates antisemitism are wrong. Denouncing every instance where this is raised as deflection, is ridicules.

[Morch]

You're wrong, because the Arab and Muslim world attacked Israel in 1948 and tried to wipe it out. That changed the game. Because they lost.

???????

That doesn't change the borders. If it did they wouldn't have had to leave Sinai.

On that thinking, Japan would have become American soil.

Don't be ridiculous. Look at a bloody map.

Look how small 1948 Israel was.

Instantly the Muslim/Arab world invaded en masse.

If they had accepted 1948 from the beginning, you'd have a point, but they didn't.

Any FAIR MINDED observer has to admit that those original 1948 borders were NOT DEFENSIBLE in the long run surrounded by so many hostile neighbors who never accepted the right of the Jewish state of Israel to even EXIST.

Your Japan comparison is pretty dumb.

There was no EXISTENTIAL security reason for the USA to keep any Japanese lands but they did run the place after the war and there is still a military presence in places like OKINAWA.

Like it or not, the 1948 borders are the only legal ones, until the UN changes them, and there is no chance of them doing that.

I will not be replying to that particular topic again, as it's just you say/ I say now.

BTW Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel, so other than Syria, who is threatening Israel now, that it requires more space for security? I have no problem with Israel occupying the Golan Heights as the previous situation was indeed intolerable.

The 1948 lines may be the only legal ones as far as Israel goes, that's for sure. The Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries initially rejecting the resolution could have raised some legal doubts as to ownership issues (this surfaced a bit later on, when Egypt and Jordan took over Palestinian territories), but this is water over the bridge by now.

Most of the world acknowledges that for various practical reasons, a return to the 1948 lines is no longer possible. This would have been different had there been serious peace negotiations right after the war. The Palestinian tragedy is that due to poor leadership and Arab countries meddling this did not come about. There are doubts regard peace being kept, but the Palestinians would have been better poised either way.

I am not sure if there is a relevant precedent for keeping control of conquered territory - post 1948, the Palestinians were still rejecting the partition and lacked any effective leadership. Israel withdrawing from conquered areas would not have resulted in a Palestinian state, but in relevant neighboring Arab countries take over. Or, good old fashioned anarchy. Post 1967 was pretty similar in that regard.

With the current accepted norm being the 1967 lines (or an approximation of), most 1948 lines references are futile.

Discounting the Palestinians as a potential threat, there is Hezbollah in Lebanon. If Syria keels over - who knows? (but then that goes for every country in the Middle East). Doubt that potential territorial expansion offers the security buffer it did years ago, what with rocket range and such. Granted true peace being the best defense, but solutions involving demilitarization might be a more realistic path.

[thaibeachlovers]

Couldn't you guys (both sides of this off topic argument) simply agree that some criticism comes with antisemitic motivations and some do not?

Not all criticism of Israel denotes antisemitism,but obviously, some does. Rejecting all criticism as hidden antisemitism is absurd. Not all claims that criticism on Israel indicates antisemitism are wrong. Denouncing every instance where this is raised as deflection, is ridicules.

You are wasting your pixels. That point has been noted on these pages many times, to ZERO effect.

Some posters clearly support Israel right or wrong ( or see no wrong at all ) while to others, Israel can do no right. I like to think that better heads will rule eventually.

It is worth remembering that one can only make peace with an enemy.

Edited October 18, 2015 by thaibeachlovers