All arguing aside, this is israel.

originally posted by: violence=answer
a reply to: smithjustinb


You conveniently left out half of the story.... Why did they go there? How did they get there? Whose land was it before? Who did they pay taxes to to be able to live there?

I haven't left out anything. I provided a link about the History of Israel which will take you back to the beginning. You are free to read it in its entirety.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: buster2010

You mean the history you fail to grasp? What happened in 1200 BC has nothing to do with what is going on now.

Bull crap. It has everything to do with it to the Israelis. You are pretending that the Israelis didn't occupy that land before Palestinians and you're just wrong.

Yes the Jews did occupy the land a couple thousand years ago. Are you saying that the land still belongs to them because of that? A person would have to be crazy to support such an idea. The land has been Arabs hands for the last thousand years the Jews/Zionist have no rightful claim to the land. Also the Christians occupied the land before the Arabs why do you overlook that fact?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: buster2010

You mean the history you fail to grasp? What happened in 1200 BC has nothing to do with what is going on now.

Bull crap. It has everything to do with it to the Israelis. You are pretending that the Israelis didn't occupy that land before Palestinians and you're just wrong.

Yes the Jews did occupy the land a couple thousand years ago. Are you saying that the land still belongs to them because of that? A person would have to be crazy to support such an idea. The land has been Arabs hands for the last thousand years the Jews/Zionist have no rightful claim to the land. Also the Christians occupied the land before the Arabs why do you overlook that fact?

C'mon, Buster. Land changes hands. Force ... Purchase ... whatevahs ... it happens. In this case it changed hands as the world recognized Israel as a state. Why do you have such a problem with that? Your 'opinion' (as forceful as you want to make it) is Never going to change that simple fact. Force, trade, or purchase effects change.

Sorry, but your side is losing, and stands to lose even more ground. Maybe you oughta go on over there and tell them that their strategy sucks. That launching more rockets (an act of violence) is not doing anything but swaying popular opinion against their recognition. I'm at a point right now where I'd cheer if the Ps were driven westward into the ocean, and eastward into Jordan ... just to see the end of hostilities.

But no ... the Ps are gonna screw around until the Arabs forget the lessons they learned the hard way in '67. Eventually, Israel will be goaded into taking out Syria for the benefit of the US. Then there'll be even more wailing and self-flagellation.

People are so funny.

originally posted by: buster2010

Yes the Jews did occupy the land a couple thousand years ago. Are you saying that the land still belongs to them because of that? A person would have to be crazy to support such an idea. The land has been Arabs hands for the last thousand years the Jews/Zionist have no rightful claim to the land. Also the Christians occupied the land before the Arabs why do you overlook that fact?

Land has always belonged to those with enough military strength to conquer it. It doesn't matter how much time has passed. The Palestinians have no more claim to the land than the Israelis except the Israelis are the only people who ever established claim to the land in a peaceful manner. But somehow they are the aggressors here?

Its not a question of why am I for Israel. Its a question of why are you not. When the ones who are contesting Israel have the same Ideology that got America involved in the Middle Eastern wars that it is involved in. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Why is it not yours? Are you an enemy of America?

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: smithjustinb

My ancestry extends into parts of Europe and elsewhere, this does not give me the right to go back there and take land by force. If I did then I would expect a defensive retaliation at my invasion.

The Jews have never stopped considering Israel their homeland. Even after they were conquered 1000 years later after Israel was founded.

The lack of consideration you show to me with my heritage speaks volumes to the lack of consideration that is being show to the Palestinians.

a reply to: charles1952

I repeat that this sensational charge has insufficient evidence to support it.

That's because you didn't watch the video, which is loaded with evidence. The man is talking about peace, about establishing Israel as a country with two "nations" in it. He cites other countries as well. But you won't know that, because you didn't watch it and think you know all about it without bothering.

As for "true conversation" - your choice of adjectives describing me, along with commenting on a video you didn't watch - shot that possibility all to hell.

You're right, you don't know me. And you can't have a true conversation about something you haven't bothered to hear/learn about.

In case you prefer reading:
Israel Is Committing Genocide in the Gaza Ghetto

Israeli calls for Palestinian blood ring at fever pitch

The Heart of the Problem With Israel: The Mass Expulsion of the Palestinian People

a reply to: charles1952

Charles,
I have been thinking over your critique.

I want to explain why I used the words I did.
The video was a pretty hard-hitting piece about atrocities that Israel has, and continues to, commit against Palestinians. It covered the history of Israel's existence, and explained precisely what the politics are behind the apparent chaos.

What I find "unconscionable" and "shameful" has nothing to do with sex with cats (and that's a rather flippant comparison anyway) when innocent civilians TRAPPED in Gaza are being killed daily. Failing to even find out how even this one Israeli sees things but blindly supporting Israel is, in my opinion, unconscionable.

I am no big fan of Hamas, nor of Israel - but slaughter is unconscionable - and anyone who says words to the effect of "meh. Didn't watch it. Israel's fine and above reproach" without even looking at the information does shock me.
I'm neither a Jew, nor a Muslim, nor a Christian for that matter - but the world over there is on fire now, people are dying every day in unspeakable, barbaric assaults - and it's not "okay". A LOT of it is retaliation against things that the West imposed on the area after WW2, and the West (and especially USA and England) are therefore at least partially responsible.

Am I hysterical? No. I live thousands of miles and an ocean away from there - but the slaughter if innocents is WRONG, no matter who's doing it or what their 'explanation' is. Would I be if I were there? I'd probably get busy protecting my family before I allowed myself to melt-down.

Closed-minded? Nope. That's why I watched it. Judgmental? Yes - I judge people who are killing innocents as savages.
Palestine has no standing army - never has had. Israel's army and military are state-of-the-art. The Palestinians are imprisoned - treated like sub-humans - not given adequate water or travel privileges - and have been stripped of their dignity. When a vegetable farmer has to load up his donkey cart with his family and evacuate his neighborhood (to go WHERE?) because bombs are landing on it and killing people, well - that IS unconscionable.

So - bottom line, dismissing the speaker out of hand and then commenting on him without hearing him out indicates indifference, or complacence and permissiveness toward Israel - and THAT is, in my heart and mind - unconscionable.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Dear BuzzyWigs,

All right, you've won me over. All I ask of you is to go back to my post and reread it to see I never criticized you. I made a definite point of saying I was not criticizing you, but the way you sounded. Anyway, enough self-defense.

I began watching the video carefully, and taking a note now and then.

The speaker began by saying he was not going to offer a balanced presentation, because that is not possible. Those are technical, slick, lawyer words. If he's saying that there is more evidence on one side than the other, then he is correct, but nothing is "balanced" in that way.

But if he's saying it in the sense of "I'll say factual things for and against each side, with an explanation of how each side sees it." Then he's clearly wrong. A "balanced" presentation is possible, and he does his audience a disservice by refusing to give it.

But that's not the only place that he's, at best, misleading. He claims that Netanyahu's speech to the United Nation's ( 4 or 5 days before) opened with the double standard of the right of return for the Jews, but not for the Palestinians. But Peled is factually wrong. There is nothing in Netanyahu's speech, beginning, middle, or end, that discusses "right of return."

Then Peled claims that Netanyahu thinks he has a claim on the land, because of being descendants of King David. But Peled is factually wrong. There is nothing in Netanyahu's speech making such a claim. Read the speech yourself, or watch the video.

www.algemeiner.com...

Peled also says that there is no evidence that King David even existed outside of the Bible, which is useless as a historical document (that's false too, ask an archaeologist). But Peled is factually wrong. Remember the Quoran, which Peled should be a little familiar with, recognizes David as a key player. You can find David (as Dawud) in the Quoran as a highly important figure, a major prophet sent by God to guide the Israelites. They also say that David was made God's "viceregent on earth."

Peled goes on to talk about the city of Silwan, 50,000 people who had their homes destroyed and were evicted.

An entire town is being kicked out of their homes and forced into exile through violence in order to prove that King David existed in a place called Silwan.

But Peled is factually wrong. No, the entire town has not been emptied and the people sent into exile. And Proving King David existed was not the purpose of the excavations. There have been many excavations, going back to 1867. It has two purposes, archaeology and tourism.

Peled points to the uneven distribution of population and territory under the United Nations plan. It was uneven, no question. Also no question that it was expected to be the place were millions of Jewish refugees from World War II were to find a new home, meaning there would be many more Jews than Palestinians. But was the land division the real issue?

The Arab Higher Committee for Palestine rejected the UNSCOP Plan. Their argument, as related in UNSCOP records, centered on what they perceived as a lack of any historically-based legal or moral rationale for the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. The Arab population seems to have agreed with the Committee’s stance, generally opposing what they saw as an unjust division of territory. They saw no reason why the future immigration of Jewish European displaced persons should factor into the UNSCOP calculation of the most appropriate territorial division.(emphasis added)

www.cjpme.org...

Even then, the big objection was to the creation of a Jewish state.

Peled goes on to claim that Israel started on a "massive campaign of ethnic cleansing" the day the partition went into effect. But Peled is factually wrong.

The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. At other places, Arab snipers skirmished Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa.

Irgun and Lehi followed their strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus-stops. As on 30 December, in Haifa, when members of the clandestine militant Zionist group, Irgun, threw two bombs at a crowd of Arab workers who were queueing in front of a refinery, killing 6 of them and injuring 42. An angry crowd massacred 39 Jewish people in revenge, until British soldiers reestablished calm.

According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.

According to the Arab League general Safwat:

"Despite the fact that skirmishes and battles have begun, the Jews at this stage are still trying to contain the fighting to as narrow a sphere as possible in the hope that partition will be implemented and a Jewish government formed; they hope that if the fighting remains limited, the Arabs will acquiesce in the fait accompli. This can be seen from the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first."(Emphasis added.)

en.wikipedia.org...

And all of these erroneous statements come in the first ten minute of his talk.

Now, can we have our reasonable discussion?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

All right, Charles, let's begin a reasonable conversation.

Anthropologists have also noticed that the steps by which David gained power according to the Bible were similar to the careers of other Middle Eastern despots. One scholar has compared David's ascent to power with that of Ibn Saud, the founding king of Saudi Arabia. He could also be compared to other, more recent and more infamous Middle Eastern dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Both were clever politicians and military commanders. Both led outlaw bands that rivaled the ruling family. Both eventually replaced their rivals, leaving a trail of dead bodies behind. Both gained and retained power through military force.

This comparison may seem offensive at first. But it must be remembered that David and Saddam are culturally much closer to each other than either is to Westerners. They share outlooks about politics, society, and perhaps even religion that are quite different from those that prevail in the West. The concepts of elective democracy and frequent, peaceful transition of power were unheard of in David's day and are still foreign to much of the Middle East today. Rulers have always been installed for life. Comparisons between David and modern Middle Eastern rulers help to isolate the motives for his actions and suggest some of the personality traits that led him to achieve what he did.

Was There a King David? which is CHAPTER ONE
of King David A Biography
By STEVEN L. McKENZIE
Oxford University Press

Interesting chapter. It does conclude that King David's existence can't be "proven" - and it is the Bible which is the primary reference to him - chunks of inscriptions written in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew are "vague" to us...rather like shorthand notes that a student makes up while sitting in a fast-moving lecture. Which brings us to "The Bible" as a historical record, which, in my opinion, it is not.

I am a Westerner, and as mentioned in the chapter cited above, Western methods of take-over are quite different to the style of Middle Eastern warlords and kings. They expect violence - and apparently perhaps only violent means of victory hold any sway over them. If this is the case, then it seems nearly hopeless to me that they will EVER adapt to peaceable transfers of power/land. That is a cultural thing, then, going back thousands of years.

Today on the ground in what is called Israel, the fight is uneven. Because Israel is backed by Western "colonizers" and power-brokers, the indigenous tribes and people are also "indignant". Have you happened to read "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" by Lawrence Wright?

Won all sorts of (Western) awards for journalism - yet is also suspect in its "slant." I read it a few years ago.
More recently, I read Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars, and now am reading his
Blackwater
The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army
By Jeremy Scahill
Nation Books, Avalon Publishing
New York, 2007
link to a review that says:

Most specifically – and what should be disturbing to liberals who are understandably urging humanitarian intervention in Africa – is this:

Sudan has become a pet cause of many of the right-wing Christian forces Blackwater is in bed with, not the least of which is Christian Freedom International—on whose small nine-member board both Erik Prince and his lobbyist Paul Behrends sit. Christian Freedom, founded by a consortium of well-connected Republican evangelicals, has been accused of using its "humanitarian aid" designation as a cover for missionary activities.

What Scahill rightly calls this "repackaging mercenaries as peacekeepers" is going on through presentations to government officials – both in this country and to officials in such places as Jordan – under the beloved conservative banner of privatization, efficiency and incredible lobbying efforts (the same lobbyists, in fact, who are threaded throughout the Abramoff scandal). The author has done an amazing job in laying out the sheer vastness and ambition of Blackwater and similar companies, but a reader is left with many questions –

Like you, I too look into author 'slants', and admit that I'd never heard of Peled, but found his argument quite compelling.
So - which of the stories we have been told are true?

Perhaps none of them. I find that deeply disturbing, but in general I can't help but put responsibility squarely on religious differences, warfare, and territorial disputes that unfortunately humanity can not seem to overcome.

It is, in my opinion, prudent to hear from both sides - and realize that neither is necessarily TRUTH. And in my search for it, I am dismayed that meanwhile, casualties mount daily. Violence begets more violence. Throwing bigger bombs does nothing to solve problems - it merely destroys.

Do I support Israel? No.
Do I support Hamas? No.
Blackwater? Not a chance.
Al-Qaeda? Of course not.
The US military/industrial complex (including privatization of armed forces)? No.
The agenda of Christian Evangelicals to usher in Armageddon? Nope.

Peace and diplomacy? Yes. Idealistic fantasy it may be, but that, Charles, is what is in my heart and mind.

Regards,
Buzzy

a reply to: smithjustinb

What kind of consideration do you give your own heritage? It does come across that Israel is one part of who you are, but what about the other parts that have migrated mixed and matched over the years. 1000 years ago is about 40 generations if the average age for having kids is 25. Looking at you full make up and history has thousands of ancestors, many that are shared all around the world with other cultures and places. What makes Israel so important that any other histories must be ignored? Is is just all you have been taught and know or is there some other reason that makes Israel stand out amongst all others?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Dear BuzzyWigs,

What a wonderful post, thank you.

I am happy to agree with you that King David (If he existed) and basically all of the people from the beginning of time to (some point unknown to me) had no other concept for land transfer than to rush in with swords and take it. But I would maintain that has changed, at least in part. The Louisiana Purchase from France, and Seward's Folly which bought Alaska from Russia are signs that a different idea came into being.

But that is not to say that violent taking of land passed into the forgotten past. I do think that acquiring land in that way is not as accepted as it was. Russia-Ukraine seems to be worrying people as much for the violence in taking land as for the fear of Russian expansionism.

Does this apply to the Mid-east today? As far as I can tell, Israel has won territory as a result of defeating attacking armies, and that much of the conquered territory has been given back, such as the Sinai peninsula. I'm having trouble believing the idea that Israel wants to take land from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, or Syria. If anything, they seem to desire to keep the Palestinians under control. It may be harsh, military control, I don't know their hearts, but they've had many chances to keep land they won in wars, and they turned away from it.

I don't have much trouble believing that the other countries in the area want Israel to not exist as a Jewish State. In fact, I don't think any of them will say that Israel is currently a Jewish State, although their own countries are Islamic Republics, or whatever name they choose to use.

All of that to get to the one crucial point of your post.

Peace and diplomacy? Yes. Idealistic fantasy it may be, but that, Charles, is what is in my heart and mind.

That is the goal of any sane person and I agree with you completely. Now, let's see if it is an "idealistic fantasy." If it is, the only reasonable thing to do is find something that isn't a fantasy.

The only way to get a lasting agreement is to provide one that each side is prepared to abide by for the foreseeable future. If the agreement is forced upon them, they will find ways to break it. If the agreement is seen as providing less benefit than breaking it would bring, then the agreement will be broken.

What are the issues getting in the way of agreement? I don't know what the various countries' diplomats are thinking, but it seems that Israel demands defensible borders. Not a border making the country nine miles wide.

Their other issue seems to be the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Israel says "Ain't gonna happen" for a couple of reasons. Somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 left the Palestinian area for a variety of reasons. Now there are over four million in the Palestine areas alone, with no idea how many live outside of Palestine. Also 23.6% of Israel's population is non-Jewish Arabs. If you add just the non-Jewish Arabs in Palestine to Israel's population, you'll instantly get a 50-50 split. Add a few more from other countries, and Israel ceases to exist, becoming the Islamic Republic of whatever name the Arabs choose.

One other thing the Israeli's would like would be a cease fire. The rockets fired from Palestine have been declared illegal under international law by Human Rights Watch and under the Geneva Convention as modified in 1977. The Qassam rockets, and others, have forced half of the population of Israel into shelters. Israel wanted a cease fire and accepted Egypt's proposal. Whoever is running Palestine rejected it and kept shooting.

The Arab side insists on the right of return for anyone who claims a Palestinian ancestor. Also, their widely spread speeches (which may be simply rhetorical) call for the destruction of Israel.

I am not trying to prove who is right and who is wrong. I'm trying to point out the difficulty in relying on Diplomacy as a solution. There has to be some acceptable compromise. I don't see one on right of return. If Israel said, "OK, we'll allow 20,000 a year," I'm as close to certain as I ever have been that that would be rejected. The Arab states would say, rightly in my opinion, "Either we have a right of return or we don't, none of this where you can pick and choose the number."

Well, can we remove the Palestinians to safety? No Arab country is offering the Palestinians citizenship. I doubt they would take four million immigrants? Can we persuade the rockets, suicide bombers, etc. to stop? I don't see how. Their very purpose seems to be to turn Israel Islamic. I don't know how to get that fervor to die down.

Will Palestinians ever get a nuke? Maybe even a small one from North Korea, or a dirty bomb from Iran? Nobody knows, but nobody is prepared to bet civilian lives that it won't happen. Many Palestinians relish the idea of becoming martyrs. That might not, in itself, be bad, but what if they say "It doesn't matter if our country is destroyed in retaliation. We can, in one blow, rid the world of the "Little Satan."

What are your ideas on diplomacy in this situation?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

My ideas for diplomacy are that the two opposing forces sit down and talk. No one aside from themselves can "broker" it.

This brings to mind a book by Robert Wright that I read a couple of years ago:

Non-Zero; The Logic of Human Destiny

(see the link for excerpts, or search for a pdf of the whole thing --- but I think it's important reading).

In it he discusses the two ways that groups of differing views come to cooperate.
They can be "pushed together" by a common threat (for purposes of this discussion it would be like every other nation ostracizing BOTH Israel and Palestine until they work it out)....or being "pulled together" by a common goal.

In this case, they MUST come to an agreement between themselves. I don't think anyone can swoop in from some outside area (like Israel crying "MOM!" when they get upset at their neighbors) to TELL them how to solve it. That works with school children - teaching them social skills and cooperation - but it does not work for grown, angry adults...unless they BOTH want to make the RELATIONSHIP work. This is classic "relationship counseling."

When Bibi got up and walked out of the UN Assembly a few years back when Ahmadinejad stood up to speak, that gesture said VOLUMES about Israel's "la-la-la-I-won't-listen-to-you-I-hate-you" attitude.

In his book, Nonzero, Robert Wright traces this integration to ongoing evolution of non-zero-sumness leading to greater interdependence and greater social complexity. Non-zero-sum is a term from game theory that means having overlapping interests as opposed to the competing interests of zero-sum games. A tennis match is a zero-sum game where only one side can win. In a non-zero-sum game, either both win (positive game) or both lose (negative game).
Wright attributes greater social integration to technologies that pull us together and to common threats that push us together.

We are pulled together as we create technologies that produce energy, including the food that fuels our bodies, more reliably but require many people to conduct. These technologies started simple – for example the Shoshone rabbit nets that brought otherwise independent hunters together periodically to trap a major food source. Nowadays they are very complex, involving world-wide networks of producers, middle-men, processors, and consumers who never meet each other. How many people were involved in the production, packaging, transport, and merchandizing of the food we ate last night?

“New technologies arise that permit or encourage new, richer forms of non-zero-sum interactions; then (for intelligible reasons grounded ultimately in human nature) social structures evolve that realize this rich potential – that convert non-zero-sum situations to positive sums. Thus does social complexity grow in scope and depth” (p. 5-6).

Wright describes some factors that lead to social integration – including the need to spread risks, divide up labor efficiently, manage our use of scarce resources such as water, and avoid overexploiting fish populations and arable land (p. 338).

The two main problems that have to be solved to form such a web are communication and trust. We have seen vast changes in the communication reach of ordinary people in my lifetime. We used to write letters to a few people we knew well. Now I communicate routinely with people all over the world, including people I’ve never met who read my blog. The need for trust has led to governing structures that have become increasingly interconnected.

We are pushed together by the need to deal with common threats. Over history these threats have often been warfare, invasion, and piracy. Threats are related to our economic interconnection. Wright argues that “disruptions in trade spurred the evolution of governance” (p. 121). He claims that war contains the seeds of its own demise, quoting Herbert Spencer, “From war has been gained all that it had to give…” (p. 238). I believe that we face common threats now – for example global warming – that will take global cooperation to address effectively.

What if a meteor lands in the Mediterranean sea, and a tsunami bears down on Gaza AND "Israel" - would they pull together? At this point I'm guessing no.

What if NATO or Blackwater or Russia/China told them, "STOP IT OR WE'LL NUKE/STARVE/REJECT YOU ALL!" - would THAT push them together? (And I have a LOT to say about Blackwater, which is truly evil AND has an underlying mission of spreading Christian Evangelism). (For anyone who says - do you have sources? - Yes, I do. Read Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army - even just the first 100 pages - and you will see it. The link is to the Wiki page describing it.)

I don't know. Only they know what will work. And they certainly don't want to hear it from anyone who doesn't support their side. As I said before - I'm no fan of religion - but I am able to see the grievances on both sides. The question is - what is the rest of the world supposed to do?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Bravo! Bravo (claps).

I just watched it last night and posted the link. Not a single star but immediately I was challenged. Every year when Israel goes on the offensive I have to research why so I have my facts straight. Every year I have to research why just to help me understand. However, this year, I completely understand and have finally formulated my opinion regarding the Jewish state. Anyone who can still defend this country has clearly been indoctrinated and it makes me sick to my stomach as well. I just recently won a debate with a close Christian relative on FB where she just asked to change the subject after I hammered her with fact after fact after fact. Another Christian relative jumped in to save her but that quickly ended when I revealed my source. Alison Weir. Look her up. So that's what happens when you bring a wet noodle to a gun fight.

Overnight (Western Hemisphere time), there was a suggestion for a seven-day cease-fire. Hamas would have accepted it. Israel refused. "Nope. Twelve hours only."

They're saying that "a week would give Hamas time to rearm" (with their fireworks).
And still with the 'human shields' allegation.

The actions and words of Bibi alone are enough to turn any freethinker away from Israel's agenda.
Again: I do not favor terrorism from Hamas, nor from Israel.

THE VIOLENCE NEEDS TO STOP. NOW.
Not just for twelve hours. Not even twelve days, or twelve months, or twelve years.

For twelve million years.

But, unfortunately, the human 'race' will be long gone by that time. Because of religion, greed, barbarism, savagery, and ARMAMENTS. War is hideous. I won't be surprised if in another 50 years (if I live that long, which is very doubtful as I'm already 55) children are taught in school about the "beginning of WW3" having been ultimately the three teens killed by someone....someone unknown, and the Israelis then burning another teen alive in retaliation. (Personally I think WW3 started with the Arab Spring, 3+ years ago.)

The absurdity of this conflict blows my mind.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

An article snip from the "Times of Israel" regarding yesterday's speech spoken in Hebrew and his stance on a two-state solution.

He made explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank. He indicated that he sees Israel standing almost alone on the frontlines against vicious Islamic radicalism, while the rest of the as-yet free world does its best not to notice the march of extremism. And he more than intimated that he considers the current American, John Kerry-led diplomatic team to be, let’s be polite, naive.

Read more: Netanyahu finally speaks his mind | The Times of Israel www.timesofisrael.com...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

Netanyahu has stressed often in the past that he doesn’t want Israel to become a binational state — implying that he favors some kind of accommodation with and separation from the Palestinians. But on Friday he made explicit that this could not extend to full Palestinian sovereignty. Why? Because, given the march of Islamic extremism across the Middle East, he said, Israel simply cannot afford to give up control over the territory immediately to its east, including the eastern border — that is, the border between Israel and Jordan, and the West Bank and Jordan.

Read more: Netanyahu finally speaks his mind | The Times of Israel www.timesofisrael.com...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

His closing comments...

And in a passage that was primarily directed at Israel’s Islamist enemies, but might equally be internalized by those he plainly regards as Israel’s muddle-headed self-styled friends, he added: “Nobody should mess with us.”

Read more: Netanyahu finally speaks his mind | The Times of Israel www.timesofisrael.com...
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

o0o0h, got the news on while I type this. As of this morning when this supposed 12-hour cease fire is supposed to happen, at exactly 8 am Israel time, Bibi just bombed another Palestinian complex. What a...

I hate to say it folks but Israel set out to finish what it started this time. There are no take backs this time around. It's going to get much worse.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: buster2010
Muslims have had their land pillaged to deny otherwise is just ignorance of historical facts.

No. To deny otherwise is to look at the archaeological record going back to 1200 BCE, when Israelites first came on the scene. All historical evidence suggests that the Canaanites who were in that region originally became Israelites through a peaceful transformation, and not by conquest.

History of ancient Israel.

Educate yourself.

I really don't understand this point. The same logic can be applied to ANY conflict and land grabs predating the 19th century. In fact, you can apply that logic to ANY indigenous nation including the Mayans after the Spanish inquisition, The First Nations in Canada, and pretty much ALL of South America and the Philippines. You can apply that logic to every single war that has occurred since the beginning of stone tools and conquests of the Roman Empire. Why reset the clock for the Jews? Because GOD said they are the rightful chosen ones? If anyone can answer yes to the latter who isn't Jewish, then I have news for you. God hates you.

a reply to: FlySolo

o0o0h, got the news on while I type this. As of this morning when this supposed 12-hour cease fire is supposed to happen, at exactly 8 am Israel time, Bibi just bombed another Palestinian complex. What a...

Yeah.
What a......

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

hold on, I'm trying to back that up but I'm not finding anything. Apparently the ceasefire is still holding.

a reply to: FlySolo

Yup, here it is.

Despite the 12-hour cease-fire between Hamas and Israel set for Saturday, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has urged the Palestinians, who earlier left their homes in Gaza, to “refrain from returning.”

“The IDF shall respond if terrorists choose to exploit this time to attack IDF personnel or fire at Israeli civilians,” the military’s spokesperson also said in a statement, adding that Israel will continue “the operational activities to locate and neutralize tunnels in the Gaza Strip” during the ceasefire.


However, thousands of Palestinians ignored IDF warnings and returned to their Gaza homes to find scores of houses demolished and wreckage blocking the roads.

The residents encountered widespread destruction in the northern town of Beit Hanoun.

“Nothing is left. Everything I have is gone,” a Palestinian woman from the town told AP.

rt.com...

And CNN is reporting nothing on that.

What a [insert expletive adjective here] jerk