'US teen' among five dead in West Bank and Tel Aviv attacks

[dave_boo]

<snip>

I know that there are some who will say that merely feeding someone is taking an active role. Are they sure that they want to claim that? Because if so, Israel bombing a house full of people who live with Hamas commanders is completely justified then....

And yet, the outrage at one Jewish teenager dying is about a hundred-fold more than the collective deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children from you and your co-apologists.

There is a huge difference, too. Ezra had a choice to be where he was. Palestinian toddlers do/did not.

Please quote my post where I did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish.

So let me get this right...since he was traveling in an area that the Palestinians didn't want him in...and he was feeding the soldiers...that makes him an acceptable 'casualty'?

And how does that differ than the needless deaths on the "Palestinian" side?

Seriously? Quote the post where you didn't afford the same compassion?

How about all of your posts?

Like they say down South...'put up or shut up'.

Should be painfully easy for someone of your vast intellect to be able to link to such a post if it's "all" of mine.

[dave_boo]

He was a religious Jew and there are places of interest to religious Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel demonizers may not want to visit there except to show solidarity with Jew seeking rock throwing, knife wielding, and car ramming "freedom fighters" (TERRORISTS actually) but this boy was not there with any kind of weapon. He was murdered by a terrorist. Period. End of.

The Israel demonization agenda is so transparent. Imagine the attention that would paid to this conflict by the very same obsessive demonization movement if the sides in conflict were both Arabs. You wouldn't hear a peep. Their issue is about Jews being in that region period, in ANY borders, and the BS propaganda about "European colonization" as if Jews in Israel was anything at all similar to Belgians in the Congo.

The early Zionist immigrants probably did get the idea from European colonists. They can do it, and get away with it, why can't we? They had considered other places such as Argentina, northern Australia,and Uganda among others.

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

And like other European colonists they probably didn't think twice that there were other peoples already resident there..they are just natives, invisible men.

Maybe there were some Zionists who genuinely wanted to bring prosperity to the region and share their wealth and know how with the locals, just as other European colonists elsewhere thought they were bringing civilization and God's words to the heathens. There were other Zionistss who had no intention of doing so and realized that the locals had to go by ethnic cleansing,bribery, or manipulating foreign powers if they were to become a Jewish majority in their own state.

Zionists simply chose their run at colonialism about 100 years too late, at the worst of possible moment just as Palestinian nationalism was increasing. And that conflict continues today.

Through their superior wealth, know how, technology, organization and international political influence, the mainly European Zionists have been victorious ...so far. But it ain't over yet.

Just because the bully wins does not make it right.

One day history will come full circle and Israel/Palestine will become a multicultural society, probably invited to join the EU where they will all be able to work, worship and live in each other's present lands in peace and prosperity. that's my dream. I hope it happens in my lifetime.

Nice attempt at historical revisionism.

From your wikipedia page it's very apparent that those other locales were suggested by non-Jews. Were they considered? Quite briefly. And understandably as during the time those (serious ones) were being proffered the Ottoman Empire, well known for their various REAL ethnic cleansings/genocides, were in charge of modern day Israel. And let's be honest..."Palestinian" nationalism was actually Jordanian attempting to break away from the kuffar Ottoman Empire with a healthy dose of anti-semitism (resulting in mass murders even before the Balfour Declaration).

And last I checked Israel was a multi-culture society even having what would be called treasonous, due to their speech and actions, "Palestinian" Arabs in Knesset. The "Palestinian" region...not so much with their charters calling for a Judenrein area. But we could dream that peace can be achieved.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full.

dave_boo wrote

You didn't address all my questions.

We get the fact that you celebrate the guy's death. You're happy that he was in the 'wrong' place doing the 'wrong' thing and was murdered for that.

Now kindly answer the second part of my post. When Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel proper, is Israel morally right for wiping out the whole family of the Hamas person(s)? After all they are helping Hamas shoot rockets at civilians.

Your second paragraph are your words and fantasy not mine. Any unnatural early death is tragic, and I think I mentioned previously in the thread that I can empathize that his loved ones' grief is just a real as Palestinians grieving their sons and daughters killed.

I did actually answer the other part of your question but it got deleted because of the site's limit on nested quotes software...really irritating. Unless one composes off line I don't know how to retrieve a post.

The essence of my reply was: Hamas are not occupying someone else's land. They are resisting an Israeli army of occupation.

The bully is different from the victim.

Google images; Palestinian children dead.

I think you will get the picture.

Edited November 22, 2015 by dexterm

[dave_boo]

Sorry thread full.

dave_boo wrote

You didn't address all my questions.

We get the fact that you celebrate the guy's death. You're happy that he was in the 'wrong' place doing the 'wrong' thing and was murdered for that.

Now kindly answer the second part of my post. When Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel proper, is Israel morally right for wiping out the whole family of the Hamas person(s)? After all they are helping Hamas shoot rockets at civilians.

Your second paragraph are your words and fantasy not mine. Any unnatural early death is tragic, and I think I mentioned previously in the thread that I can empathize that his loved ones' grief is just a real as Palestinians grieving their sons and daughters killed.

I did actually answer the other part of your question but it got deleted because of the site's limit on nested quotes software...really irritating. Unless one composes off line I don't know how to retrieve a post.

The essence of my reply was: Hamas are not occupying someone else's land. They are resisting an Israeli army of occupation.

The bully is different from the victim.

It must be that I'm kind of thick because I don't understand if you are confirming or negating my premise. So I'll ask it in a simple yes or no format.

Do you believe that when the Jewish 18 year old got killed merely for delivering some food it was ok BUT when an Israeli warplane drops a bomb on a Hamas member who was firing rockets into Israel and kills the whole family who was feeding the Hamas 'freedom fighter' that is not ok...yes or no?

[Seastallion]

And yet, the outrage at one Jewish teenager dying is about a hundred-fold more than the collective deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children from you and your co-apologists.

There is a huge difference, too. Ezra had a choice to be where he was. Palestinian toddlers do/did not.

Please quote my post where I did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish.

So let me get this right...since he was traveling in an area that the Palestinians didn't want him in...and he was feeding the soldiers...that makes him an acceptable 'casualty'?

And how does that differ than the needless deaths on the "Palestinian" side?

Seriously? Quote the post where you didn't afford the same compassion?

How about all of your posts?

Like they say down South...'put up or shut up'.

Should be painfully easy for someone of your vast intellect to be able to link to such a post if it's "all" of mine.

I don't like to converse with ignorant people, but since you insist.... This post that I am replying to is one where you "...did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish."

Re: "Please quote my post where I did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish." above.

[dexterm]

He was a religious Jew and there are places of interest to religious Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel demonizers may not want to visit there except to show solidarity with Jew seeking rock throwing, knife wielding, and car ramming "freedom fighters" (TERRORISTS actually) but this boy was not there with any kind of weapon. He was murdered by a terrorist. Period. End of.

The Israel demonization agenda is so transparent. Imagine the attention that would paid to this conflict by the very same obsessive demonization movement if the sides in conflict were both Arabs. You wouldn't hear a peep. Their issue is about Jews being in that region period, in ANY borders, and the BS propaganda about "European colonization" as if Jews in Israel was anything at all similar to Belgians in the Congo.

The early Zionist immigrants probably did get the idea from European colonists. They can do it, and get away with it, why can't we? They had considered other places such as Argentina, northern Australia,and Uganda among others.

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

And like other European colonists they probably didn't think twice that there were other peoples already resident there..they are just natives, invisible men.

Maybe there were some Zionists who genuinely wanted to bring prosperity to the region and share their wealth and know how with the locals, just as other European colonists elsewhere thought they were bringing civilization and God's words to the heathens. There were other Zionistss who had no intention of doing so and realized that the locals had to go by ethnic cleansing,bribery, or manipulating foreign powers if they were to become a Jewish majority in their own state.

Zionists simply chose their run at colonialism about 100 years too late, at the worst of possible moment just as Palestinian nationalism was increasing. And that conflict continues today.

Through their superior wealth, know how, technology, organization and international political influence, the mainly European Zionists have been victorious ...so far. But it ain't over yet.

Just because the bully wins does not make it right.

One day history will come full circle and Israel/Palestine will become a multicultural society, probably invited to join the EU where they will all be able to work, worship and live in each other's present lands in peace and prosperity. that's my dream. I hope it happens in my lifetime.

Nice attempt at historical revisionism.

From your wikipedia page it's very apparent that those other locales were suggested by non-Jews. Were they considered? Quite briefly. And understandably as during the time those (serious ones) were being proffered the Ottoman Empire, well known for their various REAL ethnic cleansings/genocides, were in charge of modern day Israel. And let's be honest..."Palestinian" nationalism was actually Jordanian attempting to break away from the kuffar Ottoman Empire with a healthy dose of anti-semitism (resulting in mass murders even before the Balfour Declaration).

And last I checked Israel was a multi-culture society even having what would be called treasonous, due to their speech and actions, "Palestinian" Arabs in Knesset. The "Palestinian" region...not so much with their charters calling for a Judenrein area. But we could dream that peace can be achieved.

I was simply trying to addres JT's point about European colonization.

I believe we may be drifting off topic. So I won't be answering any more points about the history of Zionism. Another thread, another time maybe. I am sure some of the Israeli apologists are bound to bring up these old chestnuts and myths again.

Edited November 22, 2015 by dexterm

[Seastallion]

Myrths...good one Dex.

Oh, you edited...I thought it was deliberate, not a typo.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Seastallion

[dexterm]

Myrths...good one Dex.

Oh, you edited...I thought it was deliberate, not a typo.

Too many wines ...didn't notice my original unintended pun.

[dave_boo]

Seriously? Quote the post where you didn't afford the same compassion?

How about all of your posts?

Like they say down South...'put up or shut up'.

Should be painfully easy for someone of your vast intellect to be able to link to such a post if it's "all" of mine.

I don't like to converse with ignorant people, but since you insist.... This post that I am replying to is one where you "...did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish."

Re: "Please quote my post where I did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish." above.

The post you quoted and snipped out the relevant portions of...trying to create an impression of me that is patently false?

Here's one part that you snipped out:

Of course pointing out "Palestinian" crimes against humanity seems like a pointless exercise. Seems like there is mostly two camps of thought; there are those apologist who assume a death for a house attitude and there are those anti-"Palestinians" who just assume that's all they can do. Both reduce the people down to absurd caricatures and do nothing to promote peace.

It should be painfully obvious that I don't like stereotyping and wish there could be peace. I also, perhaps wrongly due to my inability to understand the subtlety of English, proposed a hypothetical question in the same post...if killing people for feeding others is wrong...is it wrong all the time? Personally I say it is. International law agrees with me. Doesn't matter which side they are on.

Come on...you can find a better example than that....it only took you over 30 minutes to try and pervert that post to fit your view!

[dave_boo]

He was a religious Jew and there are places of interest to religious Jews in Judea and Samaria. Israel demonizers may not want to visit there except to show solidarity with Jew seeking rock throwing, knife wielding, and car ramming "freedom fighters" (TERRORISTS actually) but this boy was not there with any kind of weapon. He was murdered by a terrorist. Period. End of.

The Israel demonization agenda is so transparent. Imagine the attention that would paid to this conflict by the very same obsessive demonization movement if the sides in conflict were both Arabs. You wouldn't hear a peep. Their issue is about Jews being in that region period, in ANY borders, and the BS propaganda about "European colonization" as if Jews in Israel was anything at all similar to Belgians in the Congo.

The early Zionist immigrants probably did get the idea from European colonists. They can do it, and get away with it, why can't we? They had considered other places such as Argentina, northern Australia,and Uganda among others.

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

And like other European colonists they probably didn't think twice that there were other peoples already resident there..they are just natives, invisible men.

Maybe there were some Zionists who genuinely wanted to bring prosperity to the region and share their wealth and know how with the locals, just as other European colonists elsewhere thought they were bringing civilization and God's words to the heathens. There were other Zionistss who had no intention of doing so and realized that the locals had to go by ethnic cleansing,bribery, or manipulating foreign powers if they were to become a Jewish majority in their own state.

Zionists simply chose their run at colonialism about 100 years too late, at the worst of possible moment just as Palestinian nationalism was increasing. And that conflict continues today.

Through their superior wealth, know how, technology, organization and international political influence, the mainly European Zionists have been victorious ...so far. But it ain't over yet.

Just because the bully wins does not make it right.

One day history will come full circle and Israel/Palestine will become a multicultural society, probably invited to join the EU where they will all be able to work, worship and live in each other's present lands in peace and prosperity. that's my dream. I hope it happens in my lifetime.

Nice attempt at historical revisionism.

From your wikipedia page it's very apparent that those other locales were suggested by non-Jews. Were they considered? Quite briefly. And understandably as during the time those (serious ones) were being proffered the Ottoman Empire, well known for their various REAL ethnic cleansings/genocides, were in charge of modern day Israel. And let's be honest..."Palestinian" nationalism was actually Jordanian attempting to break away from the kuffar Ottoman Empire with a healthy dose of anti-semitism (resulting in mass murders even before the Balfour Declaration).

And last I checked Israel was a multi-culture society even having what would be called treasonous, due to their speech and actions, "Palestinian" Arabs in Knesset. The "Palestinian" region...not so much with their charters calling for a Judenrein area. But we could dream that peace can be achieved.

I was simply trying to addres JT's point about European colonization.

I believe we may be drifting off topic. So I won't be answering any more points about the history of Zionism. Another thread, another time maybe. I am sure some of the Israeli apologists are bound to bring up these old chestnuts and myths again.

Conceding the point or when the tenuous stance you take crumbles under you it is necessary to state it's not relevant? Because isn't that the whole premise of your argument? That the poor natives are merely resisting invaders and thus any killing of those invaders, no matter which one, is to be celebrated? And if the invaders actually have a solid claim against the area, it kinda breaks the poor native claims up doesn't it? So trolling it out there and attempting to get a nibble was what was attempted, wasn't it? Only it didn't quite work out that way did it?

[Seastallion]

Dave Boo, you're getting more and more irrational, so I will cease rising to your off-topic inanities.

[dexterm]

Any killing of innocents is terrorism.

Did you Google images: Palestinian children killed? Were they delivering food to armed soldiers of occupation? Do you approve of their killing ...yes or no.

In many of my posts I have promoted passive resistance as a far more effective means of achieving a just peace agreement for the Palestinians than violence. Leave that to the Israelis and shame them before the world in the international and social media.

[Scott]

I suggest members get back on topic. Warnings and suspension will follow, if you don't.

[Morch]

<snip>

I know that there are some who will say that merely feeding someone is taking an active role. Are they sure that they want to claim that? Because if so, Israel bombing a house full of people who live with Hamas commanders is completely justified then....

And yet, the outrage at one Jewish teenager dying is about a hundred-fold more than the collective deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children from you and your co-apologists.

There is a huge difference, too. Ezra had a choice to be where he was. Palestinian toddlers do/did not.

So when Israeli toddlers (and one remembers the outrage expressed when the word was used to o describe an Israeli, well... toddler) get hurt in the West Bank, for example, are they counted as supporting the occupation as well? Do they have a choice where to be? (them, mind, not their parents). Why would you draw a comparison between a teen and a toddler? It would make more sense, if provide less of an emotional backdrop, to compare teen with teen..s in Palestinian teens partaking in violence or aiding those who do.

[Morch]

<snip>

I know that there are some who will say that merely feeding someone is taking an active role. Are they sure that they want to claim that? Because if so, Israel bombing a house full of people who live with Hamas commanders is completely justified then....

And yet, the outrage at one Jewish teenager dying is about a hundred-fold more than the collective deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children from you and your co-apologists.

There is a huge difference, too. Ezra had a choice to be where he was. Palestinian toddlers do/did not.

Please quote my post where I did not afford the "Palestinian" deaths the same compassion as the Jewish.

So let me get this right...since he was traveling in an area that the Palestinians didn't want him in...and he was feeding the soldiers...that makes him an acceptable 'casualty'?

And how does that differ than the needless deaths on the "Palestinian" side?

Tha Palestinian as far as I know was an innocent bystander, the 18 year old American was not. However much spin you put on it, he was there assisting the IDF in their occupation.

And if you repeat it often enough, you'll just might believe it yourself.

By your account, any Palestinian assisting (which seems to be have a very broad definition) violence, if fair game.

As a standing reminder, less we forget - the Palestinian murderer did not target the teen specifically, and apparently was not picky as yourself about who gets killed. Somewhat different than his fellow Palestinian murderer who stabbed two Israelis during prayer.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full.

dave_boo wrote

You didn't address all my questions.

We get the fact that you celebrate the guy's death. You're happy that he was in the 'wrong' place doing the 'wrong' thing and was murdered for that.

Now kindly answer the second part of my post. When Hamas indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel proper, is Israel morally right for wiping out the whole family of the Hamas person(s)? After all they are helping Hamas shoot rockets at civilians.

Your second paragraph are your words and fantasy not mine. Any unnatural early death is tragic, and I think I mentioned previously in the thread that I can empathize that his loved ones' grief is just a real as Palestinians grieving their sons and daughters killed.

I did actually answer the other part of your question but it got deleted because of the site's limit on nested quotes software...really irritating. Unless one composes off line I don't know how to retrieve a post.

The essence of my reply was: Hamas are not occupying someone else's land. They are resisting an Israeli army of occupation.

The bully is different from the victim.

Google images; Palestinian children dead.

I think you will get the picture.

The fact that Hamas does not occupy someone else's land does not imply a free pass with regards to all of their actions.

Their indiscriminate rocket attacks are definitely not permitted, so are terrorist attacks against civilians, suicide bombings and executions of fellow Palestinians.

Resistance to an occupation cannot be used as a blanket excuse for any vile deed. This holds for current topic as well.

[Morch]

Any killing of innocents is terrorism.

Did you Google images: Palestinian children killed? Were they delivering food to armed soldiers of occupation? Do you approve of their killing ...yes or no.

In many of my posts I have promoted passive resistance as a far more effective means of achieving a just peace agreement for the Palestinians than violence. Leave that to the Israelis and shame them before the world in the international and social media.

And, of course, you demand to reserve the right of deciding who is innocent. Which applying the "logic" apparent in your posts would apply only to Palestinians. Israelis, one twisted way or another, could always be somehow tied to the occupation (and therefore, according to the same "logic", fair game).

Why do you compare children to a teen? Why not compare teen to teen? Why not compare Palestinians teens assisting those committing violence against Israelis?

In many of your posts you have claimed to promote passive resistance (not that many instances of it exist for you to promote), and in many others, like on this here topic, you justify violence (provided it is one directional). If passive resistance is so much more effective, why then is it not the main component of the Palestinian activities against the Israeli occupation? Would save you quite a bit of jumping through moral hoops.

Seems like the Palestinians are not buying wholesale into your Western ways, and prefer emulating Israel and the accepted ways of the neighborhood. Accepting that the Palestinians are often engaged in vile violence, does not justify all of Israel's actions, and does not deal a mortal blow to the Palestinian cause. Rather, it is wholesale denial of any wrongdoing which diminishes both the prospects of reaching a middle ground, and the prospects of the future Palestinian State being a viable civilian society. One of the Israeli left's slogans is that the Occupation Corrupts. If this is true (and it is), then the same could be said about a society rising from a reality in which all violence is excused and no accountability exits.