We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → You support Israel? I DO
| 879 | 90765 |
I just feel the morals and ethics of the middle east aren't right compared to any western country.
- 879 Replies
And that their wont be in the situation to do these things, if the Israel treated them good.
Yeah, I can picture it now...
"General, the Palestinians just blew up another bus, killing dozens!"
"This calls for immediate action! Call off the blockade, take out checkpoints, and just allow them to romp free throughout the land!"
Wait, I have a better idea, how about the Pals stop killing civilians, crying about how "It's so unfair" when Israel launches a strike in return, and just negotiate a better deal without pre-conditions! Is that really hard?
They wont do these things to start with, if the Israelis treated them better.
They wont do these things to start with, if the Israelis treated them better.
The Israelis aren't going to pay anything for no guarantees. If the Palestinians managed to behave for once, than things would be better for them. However you cannot expect Israel to give the Palestinians everything that they want, only to be stabbed in the back later.
By giving them a good deal to negotiate, will also make them behave good. Right now Israelis dont give them any reason to behave good.
By giving them a good deal to negotiate, will also make them behave good. Right now Israelis dont give them any reason to behave good.
Have you ever heard of the Camp David summits? I suggest you read about them. Also, when the Palestinians demand that the only way to go to the negotiating table is to recognize borders and give them Jerusalem as the capital, what makes Israel want to negotiate? Like I said, don't go to the table with conditions, and you might just get what you want!
stabbed in the back
I can write a whole book on this one.(Now this can be called anti semitism )
Israel = jews(unlike this,as its a fact not a comment)
You cant expect someone to talk to you from a lower position after you invade their house.
Directly from the article that you linked which "roves" Israel is just so very evil.
The article I posted also mentioned...............
Israel's assault on Gaza has exacted the bloodiest toll of civilian lives yet, when the bombing of UN schools being used as refugee centres and of housing killed more than 50 people, including an entire family of seven young children.
I'm getting a little exasperated trying to explain that I think both sides are equally to blame and that posting an article showing how one side is bad doesn't mean I support the other.
Last time I checked, ultra Orthodox Jews don't blow themselves up in pizza restaurants or honor those who do.
Quote from article:
''Religious Jews tend to be more dismissive of Arabs than their secular compatriots are. Politicians aligned with them promote laws allowing Jews to ban Arabs from living among them. Polls suggest that a high percentage of religious Jews would deny non-Jews the vote.''
And you still say that all Israeli Jews are tolerant? The article furthermore gives examples of discrimination against women.
And you still say that all Israeli Jews are tolerant? The article furthermore gives examples of discrimination against women.
When did I make the claim that all Israeli Jews are tolerant? Those Jews who would deny rights to women and Arabs are thankfully in the minority, and the majority would give full rights to all people.
posting an article showing how one side is bad doesn't mean I support the other.
I'm not exactly getting the sense that you are supportive of the Israeli side, other than their right to exist. You earlier posted that you would have them go back to the 1948 lines, before wars of Arab aggression led to circumstances where Israel was able to legally gain more territory. Under your plan, you would allow Palestinians to swamp Israeli demographics, taking away its chief redeeming quality-the fact that it is a Jewish country, and that it is a Jewish homeland. Under your plan, you would have Israel give up more, simply because they have more power in this situation. That doesn't exactly sound like the stance of someone who supports Israel.
When did I make the claim that all Israeli Jews are tolerant? Those Jews who would deny rights to women and Arabs are thankfully in the minority, and the majority would give full rights to all people.
Actually you did somewhere, or something about condemning radical Islam when such a phenomenon has occurred in your own back yard. Oh and no, the number of secular Jews is on the wane, and the religious ones comprise 40% of the ruling coalition and 40% of army officers and combat soldiers. With their birth rate more than double of religious Jews, there will likely be a future trend here.
I'm not exactly getting the sense that you are supportive of the Israeli side, other than their right to exist. You earlier posted that you would have them go back to the 1948 lines, before wars of Arab aggression led to circumstances where Israel was able to legally gain more territory. Under your plan, you would allow Palestinians to swamp Israeli demographics, taking away its chief redeeming quality-the fact that it is a Jewish country, and that it is a Jewish homeland. Under your plan, you would have Israel give up more, simply because they have more power in this situation. That doesn't exactly sound like the stance of someone who supports Israel.
Perhaps you should stop being so narrowminded and think that Israel has got to exist in such a current state to exist. I mentioned the 1948 borders, but knowing that is extremely unlikely, 1967 borders will be fine, and the Palestinians have stated so. Furthermore, didn't you say that Israel doesn't need to have an official Jewish religion to exist if you're worried so much about the swamping of Palestinians unless you're going back on your word now?
Furthermore, I have never stated the reason for Israel to give up more land simply because it has more power. Give up such a daft notion of me ever stating that; my basis for Israel giving up land is that such land rightfully belongs to the Palestinians under the Partition.
Lastly as I have mentioned earlier, to ensure a smooth transition UN troops can be placed at borders and UN advisors sent in to organize the Pal state in exchange for the land, and perhaps in exchange for a seat in the UN.
Perhaps you should stop being so narrowminded and think that Israel has got to exist in such a current state to exist.
I never said that they did. I just said that I am opposed to going back to the pre-1967 lines because those are indefensible. I think that land swaps are a great idea! I think the Palestinians should have their own state! However, it cannot come at the expense of the safety of Israel.
Furthermore, didn't you say that Israel doesn't need to have an official Jewish religion to exist if you're worried so much about the swamping of Palestinians unless you're going back on your word now?
You are not Jewish, so I don't expect you to understand this concept. That place, is our, for lack of a better term, homeland. Every single Jew has a connection to that land-Eretz Yisrael-as that is where our ancestors lived. I am not going back on my word that Israel doesn't have to have an official Jewish religion, however it has to remain primarily Jewish in concept, because that is literally all we have.
my basis for Israel giving up land is that such land rightfully belongs to the Palestinians under the Partition.
And my basis for the Israelis not needing to give it back is because the Palestinians and Arabs got beaten at their own game. If you go to a casino in Las Vegas, and you lose money in a card came, or on a toss of the dice, and then you demand that money back because you "didn't know the consequences of losing," they will laugh at you so hard, they will hardly be able to breathe.
Lastly as I have mentioned earlier, to ensure a smooth transition UN troops can be placed at borders and UN advisors sent in to organize the Pal state in exchange for the land, and perhaps in exchange for a seat in the UN.
I am all for that, but tell me, which country, completely neutral to this conflict, will supply the troops? Not the Arab countries, not Israel, not the US. Which country would you have supply the blue-helmets?
I never said that they did. I just said that I am opposed to going back to the pre-1967 lines because those are indefensible. I think that land swaps are a great idea! I think the Palestinians should have their own state! However, it cannot come at the expense of the safety of Israel.
Then that's good, great to clarify.
I am not going back on my word that Israel doesn't have to have an official Jewish religion, however it has to remain primarily Jewish in concept, because that is literally all we have.
I am not a Jew, but that doesn't negate any such feeling of a homeland for me; I might be Singaporean, but China is still where I occasionally look to in a wider concept or a world stage. Furthermore, such a statement is paradoxical, although the religion isn't ''official'', to have a Jewish character of Israel is essentially supporting the fact that Judaism has to be the religion of the majority, more or less ''official'' and sanctioned.
And my basis for the Israelis not needing to give it back is because the Palestinians and Arabs got beaten at their own game. If you go to a casino in Las Vegas, and you lose money in a card came, or on a toss of the dice, and then you demand that money back because you "didn't know the consequences of losing," they will laugh at you so hard, they will hardly be able to breathe.
I think I have already stated quite clearly that you can no longer march into someone elses' land and claim it as your own, even if you are invaded. Furthermore, the children of those combatants shouldn't be punished, in fact, only a small minority of Palestinians actually fought in the war, the rest should not be punished by the actions of the few.
I am all for that, but tell me, which country, completely neutral to this conflict, will supply the troops? Not the Arab countries, not Israel, not the US. Which country would you have supply the blue-helmets?
So now we can't have a state simply because of a technical issue of some organization? Do some background research, you would find many nations that would supply troops in exchange for the money. 113 countries have already contributed near 90,000 troops, it isn't going to be hard to find some. Additionally, an economic motive appeals to the developing countries. The rate of reimbursement by the UN for troop contributing countries per peacekeeper per month include: $1,028 for pay and allowances; $303 supplementary pay for specialists; $68 for personal clothing, gear and equipment; and $5 for personal weaponry.
Top ten contributors:
Bangladesh (10,736), Pakistan (10,691), India (8,935), Nigeria (5,709), Egypt (5,458), Nepal (5,044), Jordan (3,826), Ghana (3,647), Rwanda (3,635), Uruguay (2,489).
Take out those potentially hostile Muslim troops so that it doesn't conflict their nation's policies and you're still left with a VERY sizeable number.
This is just a feeble and floppy reason to base on not letting a Palestinian state come into existence if you ask me.
You are not Jewish, so I don't expect you to understand this concept. That place, is our, for lack of a better term, homeland. Every single Jew has a connection to that land-Eretz Yisrael-as that is where our ancestors lived. I am not going back on my word that Israel doesn't have to have an official Jewish religion, however it has to remain primarily Jewish in concept, because that is literally all we have.
You call me racist on pointing that out, talk about hypocrisy.
again can you give me a good reason for the establishment of Israel?
You call me racist on pointing that out, talk about hypocrisy.
again can you give me a good reason for the establishment of Israel?
That wasn't racist so much as being rooted to one's culture. Racism entails attacking other races and saying that a Jew is better than other races. He was just pointing out that I am not Jewish, hence I won't understand the issue. Which is rather eye rolling, because if that's the case, we can never comment on books because we aren't professional critics, we can never comment on food because we don't really understand the finer points of gastronomy, we can never comment on Palestinians because we aren't Muslim and we don't live in refugee camps.
I certainly don't have the same fear of Arabs attacking my homeland, or I certainly don't understand what it is to be a Jew, but I can objectively point out why such a piece of land that both sides want should be partitioned, why peace and negotiations are the better option, and why both sides are at fault.
That wasn't racist so much as being rooted to one's culture. Racism entails attacking other races and saying that a Jew is better than other races. He was just pointing out that I am not Jewish, hence I won't understand the issue. Which is rather eye rolling, because if that's the case, we can never comment on books because we aren't professional critics, we can never comment on food because we don't really understand the finer points of gastronomy, we can never comment on Palestinians because we aren't Muslim and we don't live in refugee camps.
Actually that was the same point I given a few pages back
If there was no jews, there would not be Israel so<
Israel = jews
And he called me anti-semitist and racist on that and now he is giving the same point.
Only top ten UN Peace core contributers makeup more than 50000(I just add thousand figures)
troops.
And he called me anti-semitist and racist on that and now he is giving the same point.
Only top ten UN Peace core contributers makeup more than 50000(I just add thousand figures)
troops.
That would have to be reduced, given that half of them are from Muslim nations and it would be best to get neutral parties in the UN suits.
You must be logged in to post a reply!