[Buzz62]

Young man...you are blind.
OK...c'est la vie.

After all...it's not your neck on the line...is it...

[wat0n]

:lol:

Young man...you are blind.
OK...c'est la vie.

After all...it's not your neck on the line...is it...

No, my relatives' necks on the other hand are.

I don't see how your neck is on the line or how you can show that global public opinion has become more hostile towards Israel in recent years. It seems it has been hostile for several years now, and with little effect on the ground.

[Buzz62]

No, my relatives' necks on the other hand are.

Indeed.
And I wonder...do you think maybe they are a little more willing to engage in the give and take of peaceful negotiations than you are?
Do you think the excuses are as important to them, as they are to you?

I don't see how your neck is on the line or how you can show that global public opinion has become more hostile towards Israel in recent years. It seems it has been hostile for several years now, and with little effect on the ground.

Look and the numbers for those nations that actually count.
Negativity in the USA and Europe grows steadily.
Who's gonna have Israel's back once the negativity is far outstripping the positive?
Ghana?

This is a typical example of "caught between a rock and a hard place" wat0n.
It won't be long before Israel stands alone.

My neck is not on the line...directly.
Your family's is.
With the existing trends in mind, don't you think it's past time to quit making excuses...and start making peace?

[wat0n]

Indeed.
And I wonder...do you think maybe they are a little more willing to engage in the give and take of peaceful negotiations than you are?
Do you think the excuses are as important to them, as they are to you?

They are willing to leave the West Bank just like I am if that's what you ask, though last time I checked Israel offered to talk and the PA rejected it. Not that it matters all too much since the Palestinians don't have a single voice Israel can talk to.

Seriously, when you say Israel should talk to the Palestinians who is it supposed to talk to? The PA? Hamas? Who?

Look and the numbers for those nations that actually count.
Negativity in the USA and Europe grows steadily.
Who's gonna have Israel's back once the negativity is far outstripping the positive?
Ghana?

This is a typical example of "caught between a rock and a hard place" wat0n.
It won't be long before Israel stands alone.

My neck is not on the line...directly.
Your family's is.
With the existing trends in mind, don't you think it's past time to quit making excuses...and start making peace?

I look at the data and don't see a trend on neither positive nor negative opinions on Israel. For instance for the US the mostly negative figure was 35% (2012), 32% (2013), 36% (2014). You'll have to show me a longer series to convince me, but with such few data points I cannot see a trend in the US.

Something similar applies to the European countries that are included for the 3 years.

[QatzelOk]

A) There were factually less violence against Arabic Jews than European Jews up until the emergence of modern Zionism.

B) The reason the hostility between us emerged was not specifically our Judaism or the relations with Arabic jews , but rather the alien nature of modern Zionism.

Zionism is another word for "European Jews should colonize warm countries." It's the 100% Jewish version of European colonization.

When groups of Jewish-only settlers actually started arriving by the boatload in Palestine in the late 19th Century, Arab nations - all of whom have always had Jewish minorities - freaked out. They all got scared of losing their homes to these well-connected Euros. In the middle of the 20th Century, following one of Europe's many bloody wars, PALESTINE's destruction proved worried Arabs had been right.

This created hell for North African Jews, the majority of whom had no interest in Zionism. And it was one of the reasons for all the independence movements in Africa that started in the late 50s. Everyone in Africa started worrying that "well connected victims from Europe" would come and brutally ethnic-cleanse them.

[abu afak]

Zionism is another word for "European Jews should colonize warm countries." It's the 100% Jewish version of European colonization.

When groups of Jewish-Only settlers actually started arriving by the boatload in Palestine in the late 19th Century...

Not the case.
The Arab population of 'Palestine' grew strongly and in every decade throughout the period of Zionist settlement/increase: 1880-1948.
Indeed, Arab population grew Twice as fast in the areas OF Zionist settlement.
They flocked in for jobs just as they have in present day, or at least until the 2000/second intifada.
Even in the New (post 67) large Main settlements, They make up a Large part of the workforce.

"One always finds in Palestine Arabs who have been in the country only a few weeks or a few months...Since they are themselves strangers in a strange land, they are the loudest to cry: 'Out with the Jews!...Amongst them are to be found representatives of every Arab country: Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan and Iraq."
- Ladislas Farago, Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Putnam 1937) p17


"So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have Crowded Into the country and multiplied till their population has increased More than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
- Winston Churchill - 1939

There was displacement mainly because of the 1948 War the Arabs started. Even then most (not all) left at the urging of Arab leaders and "The flail of War" (Morris).
`

[pugsville]

The Development of the Coastal region of the Levant was ongoing through the early 20th century in other regions than just Palestine, with a revival of trade , development of ports. This coastal region was where most of development in the Levant including Palestine was happening. Both Jews and Palestinians were attracted to the growing cities and it's a independent of Jewish immigration.

Zionist immigration was not a Jobs bonanza for local Palestinians. There was a Zionists principle of "Jewish labour" while imperfectly and spasmodically applied to was a factor, and as the depression hit it was applied more fully. The Mandate also employed Jews on a active discriminatory basis (while paying them higher wages) so clearly without Zionist immigration there would have been more Jobs for Palestinians. All the major concessions/monopolies were granted to the Zionists such as electricity or exploiting the dead sea minerals. By Political manipulation. Also the Zionists successfully lobbied the Mandate to impose trade duties to protect Zionist business, many Zionists business were thus supported/subsidized by higher prices for the population.

The growth of the Palestinians population throughout the mandate period is well documented and almost entirely to natural growth. There was no massive recent immigration by Arabs into Palestine. The Figures are clear and these repeated claims are just rubbish.

"There was displacement mainly because of the 1948 War the Arabs started"
How did the Palestinians start the war? the War was started by the Zionists unilaterally imposing their rule on Palestine.

"even then most (not all) left at the urging of Arab leaders "
almost none left at the urging of Arab leaders and in fact mostly teh leaders urged them to stay. This is a great historical lie.

"and "The flail of War" (Morris). "
Significant numbers were expelled, and their inability to return was and is siolely the fault of the Israeli Government.

[LehmanB]

growth rate of Arabs in Israel was the highest in the region. And is still today.
There is a constant migration of Arabs in the middle east- a circulation. Millions are moving to the Persian Gulf, to big cities, and hundreds of thousands were immigrating to Israel these last decades.
There are documents of King Ali in Egypt settling Arabs in Israel in the mid 19th centuary.
There are differences between Arabs- the Gazans are half Egyptians and have family ties with them. The Arabs in northern Israel are more levantin- Syrian like Arabs.
There was a growth of 10% of Arabs around Jewish settlements in the beginning of the 20th centuray. Was it all entirely internal Israely shifting of population near labour places?
Jews supplied and are supplying large labour oppertunities. the 'Jewish' labour never worked out, and as a resault- Arabs were sticking and are, to Jewish places.
The common knowledge is there is a wide immigration- some Arabs are telling that, the public is.
There were no borders in the region- it was all one district- a continue of Syria.

If after 1993- hundreds of thousands of Arabs were immigrating to Israel from Jordan, and 300,000 palestinians were expelled from the gulf countries in 1991, many came into Jordan, where half a million Arabs got citizenship between 1967 and today (mainly from the WB) and moving to proper Israel.. the grothrate of Arabs in Israel is the highest in the world, and it includes that immigration. And similar gaps were before the independency of Israel.
The Brits have doccumanted only that- that between 1921-1932 45,000 Arabs immigrated to "Palestine". And they estimate it by 100,000. This is the single doccument I have found.
I really don't know how you find it false and disseminated to tell there was immigration.
you might tell that 100,000 from a million is nothing.
I can tripple the 100,000 since were talking of 50 years and not 10 years of countring. And see how it all make sense. Some portion of the Arabs in Israel are.. middle easterners, who havent lived here for more than 3 generations.

[yoyoman2]

Pretty obvious, I have noticed that Orange was loosing customers to other companies alot more lately in the last few years in Israel.

I'm sure that thier services would be much needed as a high-end telecom company, in, say Saudi arabia.
There are enough Israeli telecoms, so it won't really budge us.

[pugsville]

During the Mandate there was a general internal shift in the Palestinian population towards the reviving coast, this was the case even when there was no Jewish settlement and happened in Levant coastline outside the mandate of Palestine without Jewish settlement.

"The Brits have doccumanted only that- that between 1921-1932 45,000 Arabs immigrated to "Palestine". And they estimate it by 100,000. This is the single doccument I have found.
I really don't know how you find it false and disseminated to tell there was immigration.
you might tell that 100,000 from a million is nothing"

Documentation please provide it.

Have you got anything to documentation that Jewish immigration actually provided Jobs for the Palestinian population?

[yoyoman2]

During the Mandate there was a general internal shift in the Palestinian population towards the reviving coast, this was the case even when there was no Jewish settlement and happened in Levant coastline outside the mandate of Palestine without Jewish settlement.

"The Brits have doccumanted only that- that between 1921-1932 45,000 Arabs immigrated to "Palestine". And they estimate it by 100,000. This is the single doccument I have found.
I really don't know how you find it false and disseminated to tell there was immigration.
you might tell that 100,000 from a million is nothing"

Documentation please provide it.

Have you got anything to documentation that Jewish immigration actually provided Jobs for the Palestinian population?

Some Jews did provide jobs to Arabs, although alot of settlers wanted to tend and work the land themselfs.

I'm sure that you would be able to find the sources you need from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah#Fi ... .931903.29

[pugsville]

In Agriculture the Net result of Jewish immigration was less jobs. Jewish settlers often had the capital and used less labour intensive labour farming, where they did not throw all the native population off the land. Clearly without Jewish immigration there would have been many more Jobs for Palestinians in farming.

The draining of marsh land was granted to the Zionists as a government concession it would have happened anyway as there were Palestinians trying to get the same concession which like ALL mandate government concessions was granted to Zionists through political lobbying. The Biggest capital investment was the development of Jaffa harbour which the Zionists insisted on preferential Jewish employment and higher Jewish wages, without Jewish immigration this development would have happened with greater Palestinian access to Jobs.

The Zionists also lobbied successfully for tariffs to protect various Jewish enterprises, which resulted in higher prices to the entire population.

[wat0n]

Lol at pugsville demanding documentation but providing none.

In any event, the whole process of Jewish settlement in the Mandate was pretty complex and the British followed an inconsistent policy. The problem was also augmented by the fact that Ottoman law was often vague and, in some cases, simply ignored the traditional property system of the fellahin.

[Harmattan]

The moral demands on Israel: A clear majority (71%) of the Jewish public agrees with the assertion that “The countries of the world make demands for moral behavior on Israel that they do not make on other countries that are in situations of conflict.” In other words, we again find the widespread sense in the Jewish public that “The whole world is against us.” Here we found a majority of the voters for all the parties, though it is highest among voters for Yesh Atid and Jewish Home (about 80%) and smallest among Meretz (50%) voters.

Of course: we do expect barbarian Muslim countries to behave like barbarians and we know that we cannot halt this.

But Israeli are different, they are supposed to be our allies, they are supposed to have a similar culture and values to us. And they do actually: their colonialism and imperialism is typical from the western barbarian behaviors in the XIXth century, except that we are now in the XXIth one.

The Awakener is right about what could the actual impact of a boycott on Israeli politics be: The electorate is likely to turn further to the right as a response, and it may as well begin in Yesh Atid.

Maybe Israeli would lean more on the right side. Yet, should a large-scale embargo take place, you would be forced to submit whether you like it or not.

Do delinquents become even more angry and prone to violate the law right after being arrested by force by a policeman? Of course. Should we remove policemen?

So according to you, there are no fundamental issues that might explain why Israel is still occupying the West Bank or its policy towards Gaza such as the possibility that certain Palestinian elements would launch attacks against Israelis just like Hezbollah did after Israel left Lebanon in 2000?

Oh! They resist to their colonization, domination, incarceration, impoverishment, racial-based population displacement? How dare they, you're damn entitled to bomb those fuckers and butcher their children! As long as they refuse to submit Israel will put a death toll of a thousands of kids every year, this should teach them!

Btw, didn't your god killed all Egyptian children until Egypt submitted? This seems to legitimate this terrorism from Israeli and Arabs.

No, they aren't reasonable and don't abide by international law.

I do not know the exact situation but it may be possible since international "law" does not exist and is actually just what the West finds suitable.
However colonization, domination, mass murders, racial-based population displacement and mass racial discrimination are certainly unethical by any sane standard.

[wat0n]

Of course: we do expect barbarian Muslim countries to behave like barbarians and we know that we cannot halt this.

Why? You are in effect saying that double-standards should in fact be considered acceptable when it comes to humanitarian issues.

But Israeli are different, they are supposed to be our allies, they are supposed to have a similar culture and values to us. And they do actually: their colonialism and imperialism is typical from the western barbarian behaviors in the XIXth century, except that we are now in the XXIth one.

Which country should be taken as the role model to follow? What about France, which enabled the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda 21 years ago?

Maybe Israeli would lean more on the right side. Yet, should a large-scale embargo take place, you would be forced to submit whether you like it or not.

Do delinquents become even more angry and prone to violate the law right after being arrested by force by a policeman? Of course. Should we remove policemen?

What about applying the same law to everyone for starters? The fact that they are applied hypocritically, one for Muslims and France itself and another for Jews, leads one to conclude that maybe such laws are illegitimate to begin with.

Oh! They resist to their colonization, domination, incarceration, impoverishment, racial-based population displacement? How dare they, you're damn entitled to bomb those fuckers and butcher their children! As long as they refuse to submit Israel will put a death toll of a thousands of kids every year, this should teach them!

Israel wasn't doing any of that to the Lebanese after it withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, yet Hezbollah kept fighting it. Facts, like demography, aren't your strong suit.

Not that you care about objective facts, anyway, since you clearly said you don't think both sides should be treated equally, based on the ethnicity and religion of those involved. Hence stupid, unsubstantiated comments such as:

Btw, didn't your god killed all Egyptian children until Egypt submitted? This seems to legitimate this terrorism from Israeli and Arabs.

I do not know the exact situation but it may be possible since international "law" does not exist and is actually just what the West finds suitable.
However colonization, domination, mass murders, racial-based population displacement and mass racial discrimination are certainly unethical by any sane standard.

Indeed, which is why anyone would consider your advocacy for different standards based on the racial, or more properly, ethno-religious origin of those involved deeply unethical and disturbing even more so when claiming some vague moral superiority and anti-racism in the process.

[Harmattan]

You are in effect saying that double-standards should in fact be considered acceptable when it comes to humanitarian issues.

What if a man killed a woman somewhere in India?
What if your brother killed a woman?

Would you have an equal reaction for both?

Also, we cannot force barbarian countries to change: we can force them to stop one thing in particular but they will remain barbarians who will behave like barbarians in the end. And all of barbarian countries will think they are damn right.

Which country should be taken as the role model to follow?

If you want to take a model, yes, modern France, or Spain, or Germany, or UK, or about every other Western country are models for Israel. By a great margin.

Are you really trying to argue the idea that Israel, a country that kills thousands of innocents every year, continue its territorial conquest, massively relocate people based on racial grounds while enforcing racial laws, and enclose most of Arabs in giant detention camps (Ghaza, Ramallah, etc), is no worse than other Western countries? No being gifted with reason can believe this.

What about France, which enabled the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda 21 years ago?

a) France have had public and private military contracts with Rwanda for decades before the genocide.
b) Public and big private contracts were all canceled two days after the genocide started, at a time it was only suspected and not confirmed.
c) In the following weeks all remaining private contracts were terminated and illegal smuggling (not specific to France) was fought and halted.
d) Then, later, when the FPR started to commit mass slaughters (they killed 7M people), we resumed shippings to help one evil fight the other.

Our only crime is to not have foresaw the future and been omniscient, and a general lack of caution. At this rate the most honest arm dealer in the world should be considered responsible for all sot of crimes.

[wat0n]

What if a man killed a woman somewhere in India?
What if your brother killed a woman?

Would you have an equal reaction for both?

Certainly not, though one's emotions should not be above any laws or moral principles. Certainly, we can agree that killing women under the exact same circumstances isn't more moral when your relatives do it. Right?

Also, we cannot force barbarian countries to change: we can force them to stop one thing in particular but they will remain barbarians who will behave like barbarians in the end. And all of barbarian countries will think they are damn right.

Even taking this at face value - and I don't agree with it, Europe itself was barbaric relative to much of the world at one stage after all -, how do you legitimise stopping that one thing if standards aren't applied equally?

If you want to take a model, yes, modern France, or Spain, or Germany, or UK, or about every other Western country are models for Israel. By a great margin.

Are you really trying to argue the idea that Israel, a country that kills thousands of innocents every year, continue its territorial conquest, massively relocate people based on racial grounds while enforcing racial laws, and enclose most of Arabs in giant detention camps (Ghaza, Ramallah, etc), is no worse than other Western countries? No being gifted with reason can believe this.

Well, have you ever considered that Western countries don't fight similar conflicts because they did much worse on that front in the not-so-distant past? As Rich said, Western, Central and Eastern European countries did what you mention at a much bigger scale after WWII by forcibly and deliberately removing ethnic Germans from Central and Eastern Europe with the explicit goal of fostering stability by their physical removal at the very same time Israel was founded.

a) France have had public and private military contracts with Rwanda for decades before the genocide.
b) Public and big private contracts were all canceled two days after the genocide started, at a time it was only suspected and not confirmed.
c) In the following weeks all remaining private contracts were terminated and illegal smuggling (not specific to France) was fought and halted.
d) Then, later, when the FPR started to commit mass slaughters (they killed 7M people), we resumed shippings to help one evil fight the other.

Our only crime is to not have foresaw the future and been omniscient, and a general lack of caution. At this rate the most honest arm dealer in the world should be considered responsible for all sot of crimes.

So blocking the UN's efforts to send UNAMIR II and then looking to the other side in the Zone Turquoise don't count?

[Harmattan]

Certainly not, though one's emotions should not be above any laws or moral principles. Certainly, we can agree that killing women under the exact same circumstances isn't more moral when your relatives do it. Right?

We are not creating an international legal system here.

We are talking about the realities of international affairs where discretionary measures are the norm and where anything but realpolitik would be foolish: we're just not going to waste time and diplomatic relations if there is no hope of success in the end.

There is no central authority in this world, no international law/police/govt, and this is fine for me.

Even taking this at face value - and I don't agree with it, Europe itself was barbaric relative to much of the world at one stage after all -, how do you legitimise stopping that one thing if standards aren't applied equally?

This barbarian age was ended a long time ago. Now it's time for more regions in the world to come to civilization. Israel is an excellent candidate.

Our past mistakes do not entitle you to commit crimes.

So blocking the UN's efforts to send UNAMIR II and then looking to the other side in the Zone Turquoise don't count?

UNAMIR II: We did not veto it and it was passed. But everyone knew that this humanitarian operation was doomed to fail and member countries refused to send men and means, and the operation was severely underhanded and useless. On the other hand the French Turquoise operation was the only serious peacemaking and humanitarian effort in the country.

Turquoise: Right from the start we found ourselves stuck between two armies slaughtering each other and we refused to support one or the other, and it was of course out of question to seize the country and rule it by force - especially under a two-months UN mandate. So the whole region was on fire and there were fights between the two armies all the time and civilian slaughters. It is easy after that to come and say that on this day civilians were butchered, but on a guerrilla battlefield you rarely know what is really happening, whether they are fighting armed forces or civilians. And information is especially lacking when you are operating in a guerrilla zone disputed by the belligerents and you are limiting the amount of force you use because you do not want to rule the region and lose your neutrality.

On the other hand the Turquoise operation allowed the creation of safe humanitarian camps, they managed to rescue civilians from ongoing slaughters here and there, and all in all it probably saved 10k-20k people.

[wat0n]

We are not creating an international legal system here.

No, you were trying to make a moral argument.

We are talking about the realities of international affairs where discretionary measures are the norm and where anything but realpolitik would be foolish: we're just not going to waste time and diplomatic relations if there is no hope of success in the end.

There is no central authority in this world, no international law/police/govt, and this is fine for me.

Then you have no reason to complain or intervene in this issue.

This barbarian age was ended a long time ago. Now it's time for more regions in the world to come to civilization. Israel is an excellent candidate.

Our past mistakes do not entitle you to commit crimes.

Crimes such as aiding genocide, like France did in 1994? Or maybe denying so, like you are doing now?

And anyway, you were saying that Muslims are "barbarians" so "it's pointless to bring civilization to them". Maybe you could actually try to civilize them since you are so concerned about spreading civilization, then it'd be much easier to end this particular conflict (and others too).

UNAMIR II: We did not veto it and it was passed. But everyone knew that this humanitarian operation was doomed to fail and member countries refused to send men and means, and the operation was severely underhanded and useless. On the other hand the French Turquoise operation was the only serious peacemaking and humanitarian effort in the country.

Useless to a great extent due to French pressure.

Turquoise: Right from the start we found ourselves stuck between two armies slaughtering each other and we refused to support one or the other, and it was of course out of question to seize the country and rule it by force - especially under a two-months UN mandate. So the whole region was on fire and there were fights between the two armies all the time and civilian slaughters. It is easy after that to come and say that on this day civilians were butchered, but on a guerrilla battlefield you rarely know what is really happening, whether they are fighting armed forces or civilians. And information is especially lacking when you are operating in a guerrilla zone disputed by the belligerents and you are limiting the amount of force you use because you do not want to rule the region and lose your neutrality.

On the other hand the Turquoise operation allowed the creation of safe humanitarian camps, they managed to rescue civilians from ongoing slaughters here and there, and all in all it probably saved 10k-20k people.

Is this why France allowed Hutu radiostations which incited killing Tutsis to keep operating within the Zone and why it didn't capture the political leaders involved in it who happened to be located there?

Spare me that bullshit.

[Harmattan]

No, you were trying to make a moral argument.

No, I was not, I was trying to explain to you why we insist on Israel, but I am not surprised you do not want to hear it.

And anyway, you were saying that Muslims are "barbarians" so "it's pointless to bring civilization to them". Maybe you could actually try to civilize them since you are so concerned about spreading civilization, then it'd be much easier to end this particular conflict (and others too).

This would take a century. By this time you would have removed all Muslim presence in Israel. We all know that Israel is trying to buy time to complete its territorial conquest.

Crimes such as aiding genocide, like France did in 1994? Or maybe denying so, like you are doing now?

How pitiful, you find yourself inventing sins to try to make Israel looks like any other country and divert the discussion.

Now, tell me, what would have been the point for us to support such great crimes? Sell weapons? But we did stop selling them. Support the Hutu? They were losing. This does not make sense.

Is this why France allowed Hutu radiostations which incited killing Tutsis to keep operating within the Zone and why it didn't capture the political leaders involved in it who happened to be located there?

Capture the political leaders? Under which law? There was no international tribunal at this time, this was not a French territory, the Hutu govt was still officially ruling and their opponents also slaughtered civilians. Besides this would have go against the UN mandate that forced us to stay neutral.

As for stopping Hutu radiostations, again let me remind you that we were not ruling the area, this was not our mission. Rescue operations and humanitarian camps were, something that no one else did.

You are blaming us for not having bossed things around and solved the conflict. But no African country wanted France to solve the conflict and restore order, and we were not allowed to do so by the UN mandate.