Zionist Real Estate Agents
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/20/09
Early in the year 2003 prominent Israeli politicians (Ariel Sharron most notably,) came together in opposition to the state’s policy concerning occupied Arab territory. Ariel announced his fervent belief that the occupation must end, breaking off from main stream political entities in the Jewish state and forming a new party which began to take steps towards the creation of a sovereign, independent Palestinian-Arab state.

By 2005 Ariel Sharron had succeeded in gathering the necessary support to take steps towards a Two-State solution on the land for peace premise laid out by UN resolution 242. Later that year Israeli military installations in Gaza were dismantled, but the state’s police forces began a massive border crossing. Their targets, however, were not Arabic terror cells, mujahedeen, or resistance fighters. Instead, they set their sights on the Jewish settlers.

What ensued was an intense bout of violence that pent Zionist determination against the IDF’s martial discipline and dragged innocent civilians into the fray. Nearly ten thousand Jews were ethnically cleansed, driven from the occupied Arab territory, and forced to move. Meanwhile, Israeli police in Gaza began dismantling illegal settlements and forcing yet more Jewish settlers out of the occupied Arab territory.

Typically, this event is described in a positive light by pro-Israel political activists while anti-Israel activists predictably question Israel’s motives. (I have said this before and I will say it again. Israel could walk around handing out free blow-jobs and pizza to the Palestinians and people would claim it was part of a Zionist conspiracy to gain international sympathy.)

Until recently I have seen this as an inadequate step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction because it did at least return Gaza to its rightful owners. It is inadequate because it did not relieve restrictions on air-space or water travel and because the dismantling of settlements in the Westbank that occurred at the same was not comprehensive enough to make a notable difference. Of course, these programs had been under way before the 2006 election of Hamas, the illegal abduction of Gilad Shalit, and the subsequent colonial-style punishment of Gaza as a whole. (Operation Summer Rains was an illegal military retaliation for Hamas abduction of Gilad that resulted in the current humanitarian crises in Gaza by utterly obliterating the regions ability to self-sustain. They targeted industry and infrastructure in a terroristic fashion, hoping to teach the Arabs in the area that aggression against Israel was not worth the cost.)

However, I have recently begun to do some more research concerning how the Jewish settlers attained their illegal property in the first place. Although the settler’s cause has been abandoned in Gaza, Israel’s action in 2005 caused a spike in Zionist migration into East Jerusalem and the Westbank. The Zionists say that they fear the Israeli government will eventually return East Jerusalem--but they have a plan.

The theory is that if the Arabs want to govern the territory with a dominantly Arab-Muslim characteristic (we know that they do,) then they need to maintain a majority population in that region. If the Jews manage to become the majority, the Arabs will be forced to make a controversial decision.

They can allow the territory to have a dominantly Judeo-Hebraic culture…but of course the PLO is not willing to make this concession because the political backlash among its own people would be devastating.

Another solution would be to enact South-Africa style apartheid and submit the majority to a minority rule. This, however, is problematic because the Zionists intend to play martyrs. If they engage in peaceful disobedience and force the hands of the Arabs (as Ghandi did with the British, the communists did in Vietnam, Martin Luther did in the United States) they will become the victims.

Conversely, they can attempt to ethnically cleanse Westbank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem of its Jewish inhabitants…but then you run into the Ghandi card once again. If the Arabs attempt an ethnic cleansing of the Jews, the Zionists will once again become the victim and the Arabs will risk international political backlash.

So, the Arabs of course expect Israel to turn on the Zionists…ah, but this is where things get tangled for the Jewish state. The same rules that apply to the Arabs apply to Israel.

Their options are finite, and all of them grim. On the one hand, they can allow the Jews to stay with protection…but that’s essentially what they’re doing now, and we see how that’s still working.

On the other hand, they can wash their hands of it and withdraw their protection…but the Arabs aren’t satisfied with this because that leaves the Zionist problem to them. If Israel withdraws without removing the settlers then the Arabs have to either enact apartheid, ethnically cleanse the region, or give up their Islamic culture in that territory. This simply won’t accomplish anything except anarchy and violence that will reflect poorly on everybody and help nobody.

Israel can also ethnically cleanse the regions as they did with Gaza in 2005…but, now we run into a whole new mess.

First off, the settlers in occupied Arab territory intentionally marry early and create large families by having many children. In other words, many of the settlers are completely innocent. They were born into the Westbank and it is the only home they have ever known. To remove them would be a violation of their rights, and the Israeli government does not have the legal jurisdiction to do so.
But, that’s not actually the major problem. Most of these children are too young to own significant properties and can probably be left alone. The real issue is the Zionist Real Estate agencies.

Islamic authorities have issued a fatwa which forbids Palestinian-Arabs (the fatwa only applies to ethnically Palestinian Muslims,) from selling land to ethnic Jews. However, Zionist Real Estate companies pay inflated sums equivalent to 10 or 15 times the property’s real value. They also find other ways to bribe Palestinians into legally handing over their claims. One example that comes to mind: a Zionist real estate Agent paid to fully educate one Palestinian couple’s children in fine Israeli institutes. On another occasion they negotiated to get a Palestinian man a job in America, where he took his family and lives today.

Israel is helpless to stop these companies because what they are doing is, while morally abhorrent, completely legal. They are within their rights, and if a Palestinian agrees to sell his property that’s his own decision.

The Zionist organizations have other, dirtier tricks. By Israeli law if an individual can prove that his family had the last legal right to a property that individual inherits said property. So, it works like this:

Grandpa Chaim owns a house in the Westbank in 1946. In 1948 he is drafted by the Israeli militia to fight off the Arabs and abandons his property. Chaim settles down in Tel Aviv. A nice Arab couple pays the local city for the home, which is now unoccupied. Ah, but the city doesn’t have the legal right to sell it. Chaim has the legal right to sell it.

Fast forward many years, and it’s now 2007. A Zionist real estate agency spends massive amounts of money to research the history of individual properties. They discover Chaim has legal rights to the house. Chaim is dead. Legally, his surviving heirs have the right to the house. The real estate agency then contacts all the heirs and PAYS one of them to take the property battle to the court.

The heir, having the legal documentation and all the legal and financial support of the Zionist cause, wins. He has the legal rights to the property and Israel is powerless to stop him without violating its own legal system. Ah, but this Jew doesn’t want the property. The Zionist Real Estate agency then BUYS the house and sells it to a Zionist settler.

The process is disgusting. It puts people out of their homes…but everybody is technically within their rights. It’s technically peaceful. It’s technically legal and Israel, once again, must violate the rights of its own citizens and its own legal system to interfere. But of course no agency in the Israeli government has the jurisdiction to do so.

It gets better. Many Arabs have attempted to do this same thing, and a lot have actually succeeded in the Israeli courts. In fact, Palestinians in Westbank are starting to rely almost entirely on the Israeli police forces in the Westbank for their battles against the Zionist settlers because the Arabic authorities are powerless to stop them….but, in the violence of 1948 most of the Arabic families didn’t take their deeds. They left all of their belongings and fled. In their fear they abandoned any documented proof of a legal right to their property.

The Jewish families in Westbank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem during that time were also driven from their homes, but when Israel won the war they were able to reclaim their belongings. Even during the violence many had more time to collect their belongings because the Zionist militias and Jewish self defence groups provided buffers that delayed Arabic militants.

In 1948 over 700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes. At this same time, not counting the Jews in Westbank and East Jerusalem, some 800,000 Jews were expulsed from Arab nations throughout the Greater Middle East. In order to make room for Jewish refugees Israel refused to return to facilitate the return of Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed unless the Arabs agreed to do the same for the Jews…but they knew the Arabs would not do so because that would lose their respective organizations the support of their own people.

So that’s how it is. The Zionists now have a legal right to their illegal settlements, and what is Israel to do?

The solutions all seem grim. We can adopt the fascist ideology. We can violate the rights of the individuals for the great good. We can hit them with fire hoses and drive them out like we did in Gaza….but that didn’t go over well at all.
Posted 12/20/09
My feeling is that both ethnics aren't looking beyond each other ethnicity, and as long as they're at it they won't treat each other as who they really are; people. And as long as any solution that's only respecting individuals due to their ethnicity, it'll only further solidify the ethnic prejudices among these people toward each other.

More seriously, I'm thinking that these prejudices were raised as distractions, or served as excuses for what's actually a civil unrest within that region. As we can clearly see, all measures of civil legislation are being used by these people to turn themselves against each other.

At any rate, something is preventing these people to act civilly among themselves. And whatever that something is, apparently it's been working so well that no feasible solution will work unless that issue is finally resolved.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/18/10

DomFortress wrote:

My feeling is that both ethnics aren't looking beyond each other ethnicity, and as long as they're at it they won't treat each other as who they really are; people. And as long as any solution that's only respecting individuals due to their ethnicity, it'll only further solidify the ethnic prejudices among these people toward each other.

More seriously, I'm thinking that these prejudices were raised as distractions, or served as excuses for what's actually a civil unrest within that region. As we can clearly see, all measures of civil legislation are being used by these people to turn themselves against each other.

At any rate, something is preventing these people to act civilly among themselves. And whatever that something is, apparently it's been working so well that no feasible solution will work unless that issue is finally resolved.


There are many factors contributing to the inability of the groups in question to obtain peace in the holy land. I’ll list what I think the top three are:

3. Religion: The Muslims built the Mosque al-Aqsa on the ruins of a Jewish temple and subjected the Jews to second-class citizenship for thousands of years.

Since the 1967 war Israel has repeatedly offered to return most of the territory it claimed in the counter-offensive operation. They have offered return the Westbank as well, even took steps towards doing that. The Arabs refused the offer because…it did not include the mosque al-Aqsa territory. Israel has never offered to return the territory around the mosque al-Aqsa, not once.

Some people like to pretend religion isn’t one of the major contributing factors. But the current “uprising,” against Israel isn’t called the “Westbank Intifada.” No, it’s the “al-Aqsa Intifada.” Hamas’ anti-Semitic television station isn’t named after land, it’s named after the al-Aqsa mosque. We don’t have a “Gaza Brigade,” we have an “al-Aqsa Brigade.” It’s about religious claims. Has been since the crusades.

2. The UN, Oil, and America: I made a youtube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKx40St6WgI

1.People don’t want to admit they’re wrong and are more interested in determining who’s right than what’s true. That one’s self explanatory. Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, John Hagee, and Alan Dershowitz would all be out of a job if this wasn’t true. (as would, for that matter, all of the hosts on Faux, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and every other political activist.)
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 2/18/10 , edited 2/18/10
I'm surprised that you say Ariel Sharron is actually interested in a solution, actually I think he was one of the worst Zionist leaders. Before he was the president he was in charge of expansion of the occupied territories and he himself doubled the number of settlements in Gaza and the Westbank, and he even explained that the purpose was so that the Palestinians could never return and they could keep the land. This was just a part of the Zionist strategy, they know the settlements and occupation are illegal, so in case anyone ever hints at the idea of following the law, they put in as much settlers as possible. And like you said, now there are many innocent families that have been there all their lives, no Israeli Prime Minister would be willing to remove them now, it would cause civil war. And what he did during his presidency was just horrible, he had some of the worst policies and flat out said Israel has the right to do whatever it wants.

And the wall is another step for the Zionists, it goes around all their settlements and leaves little pockets of isolated Palestinians, basically some sort of physical border separating them. So a two-state solution now is almost impossible, I think even a one-state solution might be more possible. Removing the settlers is clearly not an option now, so the only real solution I can see is a one-state solution. But we really can't expect any solution with Israel's continued tyranny, there needs to be an entire cultural revolution among people in Israel to end the atrocities.
Posted 2/18/10

SeraphAlford wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

My feeling is that both ethnics aren't looking beyond each other ethnicity, and as long as they're at it they won't treat each other as who they really are; people. And as long as any solution that's only respecting individuals due to their ethnicity, it'll only further solidify the ethnic prejudices among these people toward each other.

More seriously, I'm thinking that these prejudices were raised as distractions, or served as excuses for what's actually a civil unrest within that region. As we can clearly see, all measures of civil legislation are being used by these people to turn themselves against each other.

At any rate, something is preventing these people to act civilly among themselves. And whatever that something is, apparently it's been working so well that no feasible solution will work unless that issue is finally resolved.


There are many factors contributing to the inability of the groups in question to obtain peace in the holy land. I’ll list what I think the top three are:

3. Religion: The Muslims built the Mosque al-Aqsa on the ruins of a Jewish temple and subjected the Jews to second-class citizenship for thousands of years.

Since the 1967 war Israel has repeatedly offered to return most of the territory it claimed in the counter-offensive operation. They have offered return the Westbank as well, even took steps towards doing that. The Arabs refused the offer because…it did not include the mosque al-Aqsa territory. Israel has never offered to return the territory around the mosque al-Aqsa, not once.

Some people like to pretend religion isn’t one of the major contributing factors. But the current “uprising,” against Israel isn’t called the “Westbank Intifada.” No, it’s the “al-Aqsa Intifada.” Hamas’ anti-Semitic television station isn’t named after land, it’s named after the al-Aqsa mosque. We don’t have a “Gaza Brigade,” we have an “al-Aqsa Brigade.” It’s about religious claims. Has been since the crusades.

2. The UN, Oil, and America: I made a youtube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKx40St6WgI

1.People don’t want to admit they’re wrong and are more interested in determining who’s right than what’s true. That one’s self explanatory. Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, John Hagee, and Alan Dershowitz would all be out of a job if this wasn’t true. (as would, for that matter, all of the hosts on Faux, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and every other political activist.)
Your Numero Uno is very interesting, and I think it's in the core of how we define ourselves not based on our actions, but rather with our feelings instead. Because the truth is we condemn ourselves for being wrong, while we reward ourselves for being right. It's as if we wouldn't know for ourselves right from wrong, and the proof is how we pass on judgment and annotation with our language system.

And when we come down to it, isn't that the mainstream religions are all about? Each is a language Institution of ideology based on moral values. It's also how such dangerous meme persisting to exist and reproduce, by them establishing a society based on their belief system shaped by their standards and values.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 2/18/10

SeraphAlford wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

My feeling is that both ethnics aren't looking beyond each other ethnicity, and as long as they're at it they won't treat each other as who they really are; people. And as long as any solution that's only respecting individuals due to their ethnicity, it'll only further solidify the ethnic prejudices among these people toward each other.

More seriously, I'm thinking that these prejudices were raised as distractions, or served as excuses for what's actually a civil unrest within that region. As we can clearly see, all measures of civil legislation are being used by these people to turn themselves against each other.

At any rate, something is preventing these people to act civilly among themselves. And whatever that something is, apparently it's been working so well that no feasible solution will work unless that issue is finally resolved.


There are many factors contributing to the inability of the groups in question to obtain peace in the holy land. I’ll list what I think the top three are:

3. Religion: The Muslims built the Mosque al-Aqsa on the ruins of a Jewish temple and subjected the Jews to second-class citizenship for thousands of years.

Since the 1967 war Israel has repeatedly offered to return most of the territory it claimed in the counter-offensive operation. They have offered return the Westbank as well, even took steps towards doing that. The Arabs refused the offer because…it did not include the mosque al-Aqsa territory. Israel has never offered to return the territory around the mosque al-Aqsa, not once.

Some people like to pretend religion isn’t one of the major contributing factors. But the current “uprising,” against Israel isn’t called the “Westbank Intifada.” No, it’s the “al-Aqsa Intifada.” Hamas’ anti-Semitic television station isn’t named after land, it’s named after the al-Aqsa mosque. We don’t have a “Gaza Brigade,” we have an “al-Aqsa Brigade.” It’s about religious claims. Has been since the crusades.

2. The UN, Oil, and America: I made a youtube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKx40St6WgI

1.People don’t want to admit they’re wrong and are more interested in determining who’s right than what’s true. That one’s self explanatory. Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, John Hagee, and Alan Dershowitz would all be out of a job if this wasn’t true. (as would, for that matter, all of the hosts on Faux, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and every other political activist.)


This entire conflict is all about ignorance. People don't know what the facts are.

I've looked at Ilan Pappe's (prominent Jewish historian and scholar) book, "the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," and he explains that Israel started a brutal ethnic cleansing a month before any Arab soldiers even started coming. All the events of the ethnic cleansing were described in detail. Now from what I've studied, that's what I accept. But you, and many other people, have a different version of what happened.

That's the problem right there, no one can agree on the basic facts, so it's like we're talking about two different conflicts.

The whole conflict is simple to me, one group of people is brutally oppressing another, and the world can't do anything because the US is backing the oppressor. All the other religious, ethnic and historical issues are factors, but no more than they are in Britain's oppression in Ireland. Yes there's a history, yes some racists/religious extremists are on both sides, but it's overall just the oppression of a group of people by a tyrannical force.

The only reason anyone disagrees is because they have a different version of the facts. For me, the facts that you can't dispute (Israel's terrorism, law breaking, ethnic cleansing, brutality, evil occupation) are enough for me to have that view, but with the facts that people have varying opinions on, it's insane to me that this is even a difficult issue for some people. An amazing propaganda system and a scary level of ignorance could only get people's mentalities like this.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/18/10

Yei wrote:

I'm surprised that you say Ariel Sharron is actually interested in a solution, actually I think he was one of the worst Zionist leaders. Before he was the president he was in charge of expansion of the occupied territories and he himself doubled the number of settlements in Gaza and the Westbank, and he even explained that the purpose was so that the Palestinians could never return and they could keep the land. This was just a part of the Zionist strategy, they know the settlements and occupation are illegal, so in case anyone ever hints at the idea of following the law, they put in as much settlers as possible. And like you said, now there are many innocent families that have been there all their lives, no Israeli Prime Minister would be willing to remove them now, it would cause civil war. And what he did during his presidency was just horrible, he had some of the worst policies and flat out said Israel has the right to do whatever it wants.

And the wall is another step for the Zionists, it goes around all their settlements and leaves little pockets of isolated Palestinians, basically some sort of physical border separating them. So a two-state solution now is almost impossible, I think even a one-state solution might be more possible. Removing the settlers is clearly not an option now, so the only real solution I can see is a one-state solution. But we really can't expect any solution with Israel's continued tyranny, there needs to be an entire cultural revolution among people in Israel to end the atrocities.


During his time as a member of Likud, Ariel Sharon unquestioningly supported that political party’s agenda. By the time he was elected as Prime Minister in 2001, however, he was already planning his unilateral disengagement of Palestinian territories. After the Road Map for Peace was put out, he defected from Likud and founded the Kadima.

The Kadima is a moderate-leftist political party dedicated to diplomatic steps towards peace, the disengagement of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, returning Israel’s borders to their legal parameter, and the eventual establishment of an independent/sovereign Palestinian state.

In terms of the wall, it’s a defensive structure. It serves legitimate security purposes. The settlements may be illegal, but the settlers are still Israelis and Israel is still obliged to protect its citizens. Failing to do so would likely create the same civil war of which you speak.

I do not, however, think that a wise approach to dismantling the settlements would create a civil war. It would result in riots on a large scale, but it could be done without all out anarchy. Israel would simply have to do it bit-by-bit. The first step is to halt the construction of new settlements. After that it’s a matter of systematically removing the settlements, and ruling in favor of the Palestinians in court cases and what not. It would just have to be slowly.

I still think that Israel should just renounce the citizenship of all Israelis who want to live in Palestinian territory. But that itself is a complicated process that would piss off the public to no end.
Posted 2/18/10
tl;dr jews hate arabs, and vice vesura this will never change until they both kill each other off the face planet, but yeah...
Posted 2/18/10

Yei wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

My feeling is that both ethnics aren't looking beyond each other ethnicity, and as long as they're at it they won't treat each other as who they really are; people. And as long as any solution that's only respecting individuals due to their ethnicity, it'll only further solidify the ethnic prejudices among these people toward each other.

More seriously, I'm thinking that these prejudices were raised as distractions, or served as excuses for what's actually a civil unrest within that region. As we can clearly see, all measures of civil legislation are being used by these people to turn themselves against each other.

At any rate, something is preventing these people to act civilly among themselves. And whatever that something is, apparently it's been working so well that no feasible solution will work unless that issue is finally resolved.


There are many factors contributing to the inability of the groups in question to obtain peace in the holy land. I’ll list what I think the top three are:

3. Religion: The Muslims built the Mosque al-Aqsa on the ruins of a Jewish temple and subjected the Jews to second-class citizenship for thousands of years.

Since the 1967 war Israel has repeatedly offered to return most of the territory it claimed in the counter-offensive operation. They have offered return the Westbank as well, even took steps towards doing that. The Arabs refused the offer because…it did not include the mosque al-Aqsa territory. Israel has never offered to return the territory around the mosque al-Aqsa, not once.

Some people like to pretend religion isn’t one of the major contributing factors. But the current “uprising,” against Israel isn’t called the “Westbank Intifada.” No, it’s the “al-Aqsa Intifada.” Hamas’ anti-Semitic television station isn’t named after land, it’s named after the al-Aqsa mosque. We don’t have a “Gaza Brigade,” we have an “al-Aqsa Brigade.” It’s about religious claims. Has been since the crusades.

2. The UN, Oil, and America: I made a youtube video about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKx40St6WgI

1.People don’t want to admit they’re wrong and are more interested in determining who’s right than what’s true. That one’s self explanatory. Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, John Hagee, and Alan Dershowitz would all be out of a job if this wasn’t true. (as would, for that matter, all of the hosts on Faux, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and every other political activist.)


This entire conflict is all about ignorance. People don't know what the facts are.

I've looked at Ilan Pappe's (prominent Jewish historian and scholar) book, "the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," and he explains that Israel started a brutal ethnic cleansing a month before any Arab soldiers even started coming. All the events of the ethnic cleansing were described in detail. Now from what I've studied, that's what I accept. But you, and many other people, have a different version of what happened.

That's the problem right there, no one can agree on the basic facts, so it's like we're talking about two different conflicts.

The whole conflict is simple to me, one group of people is brutally oppressing another, and the world can't do anything because the US is backing the oppressor. All the other religious, ethnic and historical issues are factors, but no more than they are in Britain's oppression in Ireland. Yes there's a history, yes some racists/religious extremists are on both sides, but it's overall just the oppression of a group of people by a tyrannical force.

The only reason anyone disagrees is because they have a different version of the facts. For me, the facts that you can't dispute (Israel's terrorism, law breaking, ethnic cleansing, brutality, evil occupation) are enough for me to have that view, but with the facts that people have varying opinions on, it's insane to me that this is even a difficult issue for some people. An amazing propaganda system and a scary level of ignorance could only get people's mentalities like this.
You make that sounds like it's a problem. Yet to a functionalist even a society operating under extreme propaganda and total ignorance has its function; social solidarity.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/18/10 , edited 2/18/10

Yei wrote:

I've looked at Ilan Pappe's (prominent Jewish historian and scholar) book, "the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," and he explains that Israel started a brutal ethnic cleansing a month before any Arab soldiers even started coming. All the events of the ethnic cleansing were described in detail. Now from what I've studied, that's what I accept. But you, and many other people, have a different version of what happened.


I’ve actually been reading some similar histories. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was intentional, it was pre-meditated, and it was a reaction to a plan of eradication on part of the Arabs. In terms of documented history, the Arabs officially announced their plan to ethnically cleanse the Greater Middle East of its 1,000,000 Jewish inhabitants to the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in November of 1947, before Israel even technically existed.

Heykal Pasha, spoke on behalf of “Muslim countries,” and “all the Arab states,” threatening that the establishment of a Jewish state would result in massacres and race wars against the Jews as well as anti-Semitism greater than that present in Nazi Germany. Similar remarks had been made by al-Husayni and the Arab nations were still largely aligned with the Nazi ideology.

According to the official Arab statistics, more than 850,000 Jews were uprooted by anti-Semitic brutality throughout the Muslim world in North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East--a number significantly larger than the 720,000 Palestinian Arabs displaced by the partition of Israel. The Arab nations also confiscated 100,000 square kilometers of Jewish land--four times the size of Israel.


It should also be noted that about 10-15% of those seven hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs were guided out by Palestinian-Arab leaders. Most of the remainder left not because they were pulled by Arab leaders or because they were pushed by Israeli soldiers, but because they chose to do so for fear of being caught in the cross-fire. Israel is partly responsible for this because there would not have been a conflict if it weren't for Israel being founded, but the same can be said of the Arabs to a greater degree.


The whole conflict is simple to me, one group of people is brutally oppressing another, and the world can't do anything because the US is backing the oppressor. All the other religious, ethnic and historical issues are factors, but no more than they are in Britain's oppression in Ireland. Yes there's a history, yes some racists/religious extremists are on both sides, but it's overall just the oppression of a group of people by a tyrannical force.


The whole conflict is not simple. There’s a lot to look at, a lot of hard questions to answer. You cannot simply say, for example, that Israel should acknowledge international law. Sometimes, international law endangers Israeli citizens. Now we have to ask a very complicated question. Is Israel’s obligation to uphold international law more important than its obligation to protect its own citizens? That’s only one tiny example. Another example is the question of the greater good. The question of preemptive strike. The question of security as compared to freedom. There are a million historically, philosophically, morally, and even religious ambiguous concepts that have to be considered.

Reality is like a colossal tapestry. In order to understand the pattern on the loom, you have to observe the whole warp and weft. Instead, you only care to look at facts that support your perspective because you want to be right. You are accusing Dom of something that you yourself do on a daily basis.

For example, you argue that Dead Meat is propaganda but that Sicko is legitimate, even though both do the same exact thing and take the exact same approach. The only difference is that Dead Meat focuses on Canada and Sicko focuses on America.

In terms of the Israel Palestine conflict, you’ll argue that Norman Finkelstein is too intelligent to be racist because he’s a scholar, but that all the scholars at Harvard and ever other university that has booted him for his academic dishonesty and harassing of students are narrow minded enough to remove him for disagreeing with their political opinions.

Have you ever read a book by Norman Finkelstein? They guy has absolute no interest in the truth, but you worship him. He only cares about getting people on his side. He literally argues that every scholar who disagrees with him is a liar, a moral thug, and that they plagiarize their work so you should discredit everything they have to say. This is Joan Peter, Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, EVERYONE who disagrees with him. Have you ever READ Beyond Chutzpah?

It’s not simply the oppression of a group of people by a tyrannical force. Israel is in such a position that it must oppress to avoid being oppressed because Hamas and other Palestinian authorities are aspiring oppressors.


The only reason anyone disagrees is because they have a different version of the facts. For me, the facts that you can't dispute (Israel's terrorism, law breaking, ethnic cleansing, brutality, evil occupation) are enough for me to have that view, but with the facts that people have varying opinions on, it's insane to me that this is even a difficult issue for some people. An amazing propaganda system and a scary level of ignorance could only get people's mentalities like this.


It’s not that I have a different version of the facts, entirely, so much as that I look at both sides of the fact. I acknowledge Israel’s terrorism. Unlike you, however, I also acknowledge Hamas terrorism.

Though, I suppose I understand your frustration. It’s like how we can repeatedly demonstrate that a fetus is a living human person, and dismantle any argument that the fetus is not, and people still refuse to accept the obvious truth. That people believe we should have a right to use our own personal moral and religious prejudices and let those manifest into genocide where it benefits us as an individual boggles my mind. But they do, and I don’t venture to say that abortion is a simple issue.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 2/20/10 , edited 2/20/10

SeraphAlford wrote:

During his time as a member of Likud, Ariel Sharon unquestioningly supported that political party’s agenda. By the time he was elected as Prime Minister in 2001, however, he was already planning his unilateral disengagement of Palestinian territories. After the Road Map for Peace was put out, he defected from Likud and founded the Kadima.

The Kadima is a moderate-leftist political party dedicated to diplomatic steps towards peace, the disengagement of Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory, returning Israel’s borders to their legal parameter, and the eventual establishment of an independent/sovereign Palestinian state.

In terms of the wall, it’s a defensive structure. It serves legitimate security purposes. The settlements may be illegal, but the settlers are still Israelis and Israel is still obliged to protect its citizens. Failing to do so would likely create the same civil war of which you speak.

I do not, however, think that a wise approach to dismantling the settlements would create a civil war. It would result in riots on a large scale, but it could be done without all out anarchy. Israel would simply have to do it bit-by-bit. The first step is to halt the construction of new settlements. After that it’s a matter of systematically removing the settlements, and ruling in favor of the Palestinians in court cases and what not. It would just have to be slowly.

I still think that Israel should just renounce the citizenship of all Israelis who want to live in Palestinian territory. But that itself is a complicated process that would piss off the public to no end.


Ariel Sharon, probably more than any other Israeli Prime Minister, was known to be brutal and horrible, and not interested in doing anything for Palestinians. Not just by Arabs, but by the non-ignorant world:

In 2003, The British Political Cartoon Society awarded first prize in its annual competition to Dave Brown of the Independent for this cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating an Arab baby:



His legacy was for being an extreme, brutal Zionist. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say he had any concern for Palestinians.

This man doubled the settlements in the occupied territories for the purpose of keeping those lands permanently, and making sure no refugees could come back and there would be no hope for a Palestinian state. He did a very good job.


His views were pretty clear early on.

And you're saying after he became Prime minister he suddenly changed his mind about everything, and was interested in helping the Palestinians? He may have been an extreme Zionist who couldn't care less about Arabs, but he wasn't stupid like some extreme Zionists. He wanted peace, he cared for the security of Israelis, and so he created Kadima so he could get support for plans like leaving Gaza. So the first reason was security of his people, and the second reason was made clear pretty soon. The Road Map for Peace was apparently a serious problem in his eyes.

His top aide explained Sharon's thinking to Israeli newspapers:

"Palestinian terrorism must end before a political process leading to a Palestinian state begins. Otherwise, the result would be a Palestinian state with terrorism. ... The Gaza withdrawal would allow Israel to delay negotiations, and a Palestinian state, until such time that their leadership abandons violence. The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3720176.stm


I think it's pretty obvious he never cared for anything other than protecting Israelis, and Zionist interests, he had no interest in doing anything for Palestinians.

My favourite quote of his:

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."
-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online





In terms of the wall, it’s a defensive structure. It serves legitimate security purposes. The settlements may be illegal, but the settlers are still Israelis and Israel is still obliged to protect its citizens. Failing to do so would likely create the same civil war of which you speak.


The wall is illegal, horribly violates Palestinian human rights, and it's primary purpose is not security. If it was just for security, it would be built around all the Israeli settlements. But if you actually study where it's been built, the real reasons are pretty clear; security has even been compromised in some cases.

The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories wrote a pretty clear report on it:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/summaries/200512_Under_the_Guise_of_Security.asp
You must be logged in to post.