Israeli ground invasion of Gaza-What a day!!

[nlroma1o]

Since you understand who the Ashkenazi are and where they are from, and you know that they comprise about 48% of the population of Israel, with the largest group being the Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews which make up 50.2% of the Israeli population. How is Aves' statement that most of the people who populated Israel were from Europe inaccurate? Sephardic Jews are also from Spain and Portugal coupled with the Ashkenazi I don't think it is inaccurate to say that most people in Israel now are more European in descent than they are Semitic.

***None taken, we are all more alike than we are different, for some reason that is easier to see once Brindza raises his hand on Saturday or Stone plugs in his amp.***

I think your numbers are off Redbar. The Mizrahi make up 60% of Israel. The rest is split between Ashkenazi and Sephardic. So Aves was incorrect, i noted that in a post above.

 

[Emcee77]

My point was that Israel has always been there, and the Jewish people have always lived there. Eddy was making it sound like Judaism was created somewhere in Eastern Europe, and then after WWII, they just decided that little spec of land over by Syria and Jordan is the perfect place for the UN to give to them.

I would disagree with that characterization of Eddy's post. I thought he was just saying that Jews weren't the ONLY ones who lived there. Which is true. For the vast majority of the last 1500 years, not only have there been Arabs and other Muslims in Palestine, there has been Muslim, not Jewish, hegemony in Palestine. No doubt some of these Arabs feel that the land became theirs in that millennium and a half. Who wouldn't? I'm not giving back my house because it happens to stand on land that used to be an Indian reservation (true...my neighbor says that growing up she used to find arrowheads in the nearby park.)

This is what makes the matter so complicated, maybe impossibly complicated. Again, I don't mean to take a side, but I also don't want to see the matter oversimplified.

I think your numbers are off Redbar. The Mizrahi make up 60% of Israel. The rest is split between Ashkenazi and Sephardic. So Aves was incorrect, i noted that in a post above.

Why do you say so? I'm no expert on Israeli demographics but I had read figures along the lines of what Redbar quoted.

But I'm not sure why it matters anyway.

 

[BobbyMac]

Wait, what?

The Jews were there in biblical times, but from classical antiquity all the way through World War II Palestine was controlled by some outside political power. Basically from the beginning of Islam, it was controlled by one Muslim overlord or another. Since time immemorial there have been "Arabs" (the meaning of the term has changed throughout history but I'll use it for lack of a better term) living in Palestine. Those are the people Eddy is referring to. Israel was kind of "just invented" after WWII. There wasn't a Jewish state before that, at least not for centuries.

Not taking anyone's side, just hoping the sides can understand each other a little better.

I'll add to this Emcee77:

Where is the homeland for the Orthodox Christians of Turkey? How about the homeland for the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon....or the Antioch Greek Orthodox in Syria... the Chaldean Catholics of Iraq...the Christians of Jordan? (another made up country from WWII). Switching gears, how about the Zoroastrian Persians in Iran and the Hindu's in Bangladesh, two more British WWII mock-ups.

It would seem to me that the Muslims are good at taking but not giving. Unless that giving is oppression. Seems to me if the power was in the other hand, the Jews wouldn't have it quite as good. Here, they are finally unable to take something and there are some that are sympathetic.

That being said, I think a 1500 sq mile strip of land (larger than Rhode Island) that starts at Ashdod on the coast, goes east to Hebron and back west to the border of Gaza and Egypt. That would be fair.

If they initiate skirmishes along the border... Israel should be free to take final counter measures.



.

 

[nlroma1o]

I would disagree with that characterization of Eddy's post. I thought he was just saying that Jews weren't the ONLY ones who lived there. Which is true. For the vast majority of the last 1500 years, not only have there been Arabs and other Muslims in Palestine, there has been Muslim, not Jewish, hegemony in Palestine. No doubt some of these Arabs feel that the land became theirs in that millennium and a half. Who wouldn't? I'm not giving back my house because it happens to stand on land that used to be an Indian reservation (true...my neighbor says that growing up she used to find arrowheads in the nearby park.)

This is what makes the matter so complicated, maybe impossibly complicated. Again, I don't mean to take a side, but I also don't want to see the matter oversimplified.

I felt his post was written in a way that neglected the fact that the Jews have a history in the region. At one point in history, yes, a massive number of Jews were driven from that land, but they weren't completely removed. It's absurd to think that they weren't there when the Muslims took over 1500 years ago. Whether he knows that or not, i dont know, he wont answer back to my posts. But both sides will argue they each have the right to be there for all of eternity. 1500 years ago, the Muslims had the bigger stick. Its just this time, Israel has the bigger stick.

 

[BobbyMac]

Since you understand who the Ashkenazi are and where they are from, and you know that they comprise about 48% of the population of Israel, with the largest group being the Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews which make up 50.2% of the Israeli population. How is Aves' statement that most of the people who populated Israel were from Europe inaccurate? Sephardic Jews are also from Spain and Portugal coupled with the Ashkenazi I don't think it is inaccurate to say that most people in Israel now are more European in descent than they are Semitic.

***None taken, we are all more alike than we are different, for some reason that is easier to see once Brindza raises his hand on Saturday or Stone plugs in his amp.***

All the people you listed are Caucasian. This is an ethno-religious conflict, not a race problem.

In the true Mediterranean spirt, I extend to you the following olive branch... ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkUl3UH1Zsg

.

 

[nlroma1o]

I would disagree with that characterization of Eddy's post. I thought he was just saying that Jews weren't the ONLY ones who lived there. Which is true. For the vast majority of the last 1500 years, not only have there been Arabs and other Muslims in Palestine, there has been Muslim, not Jewish, hegemony in Palestine. No doubt some of these Arabs feel that the land became theirs in that millennium and a half. Who wouldn't? I'm not giving back my house because it happens to stand on land that used to be an Indian reservation (true...my neighbor says that growing up she used to find arrowheads in the nearby park.)

This is what makes the matter so complicated, maybe impossibly complicated. Again, I don't mean to take a side, but I also don't want to see the matter oversimplified.



Why do you say so? I'm no expert on Israeli demographics but I had read figures along the lines of what Redbar quoted.

But I'm not sure why it matters anyway.

I'm looking for where i found that number. Just a moment. And it matters, because Aves was arguing that the majority of Jews are from Europe. And because they are from Europe they are imperialists and simply war hungry. And i think subtly he was insinuating that these European Jews have no right to be there in the first place.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Dude..... where do you think the Jews came from.... The Jews have been there since biblical times..... Israel wasnt just invented in 1948....

I'll have what he's having.

 

[nlroma1o]

I'll have what he's having.

Hahaha knowledge is power bro

 

[EddytoNow]

From the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian:

"Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.

Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel."

So, yes, Israel was created in 1948 by outside forces more concerned with their own interests than the interests of the native population. And, yes, a substantial number of Jewish refugees were transplanted to the area upon the creation of the new state. I am unaware of any similar transplanting of Arabs/Muslims to the area by the colonial powers. So my argument that the Israeli state was created in 1948 is verified by our own State Department. I have never argued that every single Israeli came from somewhere else. However, a very substantial number did come from other countries and a new state was created in 1948 to give them someplace to live.

 

[AvesEvo]

This is from Ayelet Shaked, a well known member of parliament and it is about as a disgusting thing as I have ever heard.

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," Shaked said, adding, "They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.

Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

 

[kmoose]

Borders that were established in 1948 by outside forces (including the USA) and expanded since with military aggression and the continued settlement of contested land. The insistence of the Israelis to build settlements (an indication that they plan to expand their borders) on land that historically belonged to someone else is a key point in the conflict.

If you want to talk about protecting land or protecting borders, you are backing the wrong side in this conflict. The land was taken from the Palestinians, who were too weak and disorganized at the time to resist. They are now fighting back to regain what was rightfully there's before it was taken following World War II.

Since you like to compare this situation with others. Here's a scenario for you. Someone takes your home and property by force. You are left homeless. Do you have the right to fight to regain possession of the home that at one time belonged to you? Based upon your previous logic, you are just out of luck. If you try to regain possession of your own home, you are a terrorist. You should just accept the fact that your home was taken by another. The Palestinians and, in particular, groups like Hamas would argue otherwise. They would argue that they have every right to do whatever is necessary to regain what they previously held as their historic homeland.

If this is about regaining their historic homeland, then why are the Palestinians not warring with Syria, within whose borders a LARGE part of their traditional homeland lies?

 

[BobD]

I bet we can resolve this conflict

 

[Irish8248]

This is from Ayelet Shaked, a well known member of parliament and it is about as a disgusting thing as I have ever heard.

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," Shaked said, adding, "They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.

Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

I get what you're trying to prove, but when you compare the political culture we see in America, it's not that far off. Politics::hyperbole . I don't think it's that drastic when you're constantly being attacked and pressured by neighboring COUNTRIES. Not to say is appropriate but when you view it in context the hatred is real, without a doubt, but id be more inclined to agree with you if these comments were made publicly, consistently, and at every center stage opportunity.

I apologize I forget who said it, but I completely agree with the poster who said the US is the only thing holding Israel back from demonstrating it's full power. It won't happen much longer IMO, especially if we elect "anti-Israel" Presidents (note not intended to divert into past present and future presidents). Just saying, if were only thing holding them back then eventually they will act on their own

 

[irish1958]

Borders that were established in 1948 by outside forces (including the USA) and expanded since with military aggression and the continued settlement of contested land. The insistence of the Israelis to build settlements (an indication that they plan to expand their borders) on land that historically belonged to someone else is a key point in the conflict.

If you want to talk about protecting land or protecting borders, you are backing the wrong side in this conflict. The land was taken from the Palestinians, who were too weak and disorganized at the time to resist. They are now fighting back to regain what was rightfully there's before it was taken following World War II.

Since you like to compare this situation with others. Here's a scenario for you. Someone takes your home and property by force. You are left homeless. Do you have the right to fight to regain possession of the home that at one time belonged to you? Based upon your previous logic, you are just out of luck. If you try to regain possession of your own home, you are a terrorist. You should just accept the fact that your home was taken by another. The Palestinians and, in particular, groups like Hamas would argue otherwise. They would argue that they have every right to do whatever is necessary to regain what they previously held as their historic homeland.

So then we should give the land back to the Indians?
We stole Texas and most of our South West from Mexico. I guess we should give that back. Of course, they stole it from the Indians. If you steal something, how long must it be before it is yours to keep?

 

[Irish8248]

So then we should give the land back to the Indians?
We stole Texas and most of our South West from Mexico. I guess we should give that back. Of course, they stole it from the Indians. If you steal something, how long must it be before it is yours to keep?

Adverse possession is typically 10 years, 20 if you follow common law lol

 

[AvesEvo]

So then we should give the land back to the Indians?
We stole Texas and most of our South West from Mexico. I guess we should give that back. Of course, they stole it from the Indians. If you steal something, how long must it be before it is yours to keep?

Zionists are doing it to the Palestinians in the West Bank as we speak!

 

[nlroma1o]

Zionists are doing it to the Palestinians in the West Bank as we speak!

You show back up without responding to anyone's posts, and several people including mysel have addressed you. And all you do is cite some out of context quote from an Israeli diplomat. Get The Fuk Out Troll!!! Your blanket statements prove that you have zero grasp of the situation and you're doing nothin but spewing complete rubbish.

 

[magogian]

This is from Ayelet Shaked, a well known member of parliament and it is about as a disgusting thing as I have ever heard.

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," Shaked said, adding, "They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.

Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

First, here is a very simple test. When some Palestinians kidnapped and murdered those Israeli boys, many Palestinians lauded the murderers as heroes. When some Israelis retaliated and murdered the Palestinian, Israel condemned them. Tells you all you need to know.

Second, you are deceptively misquoting that Israeli politician. Here is what she actually wrote (and, to the extent it matters, she was related someone else's thoughts). Her point is that total war has been declared against Israel and Israel is entitled to respond in kind:

The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.

I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.

And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.

And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.

No one will confuse her for a peacenik. But her position isn't indefensible. And it isn't nearly bad as the constant glorification of suicide bombers and the killing of innocents that pervades Gaza and, to a lesser extent, the West Bank.

 

[Woneone]

This is from Ayelet Shaked, a well known member of parliament and it is about as a disgusting thing as I have ever heard.

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," Shaked said, adding, "They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.

Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

And here's a quote from Fathi Hamad, Hamas Interior Ministor in 2012:

“For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Basically, "Go ahead and kill everyone, we don't care. We'll use them to try to kill you."

 

[JughedJones]

I'd like to see what Americans would do if the world tried to make Northern Mexico... let's say... a Muslim state. Then, that state started bulldozing homes (with American families in them) because they were Christians.

Now imagine we didn't have the most powerful military the world has ever seen to fight these people.

What would we do?

I bet revenge - at any cost - would be on our minds.

Let's not be naive here. We've done some horrible things and supported horrible people because of their religion. We're wrong for that.

 

[AvesEvo]

You show back up without responding to anyone's posts, and several people including mysel have addressed you. And all you do is cite some out of context quote from an Israeli diplomat. Get The Fuk Out Troll!!! Your blanket statements prove that you have zero grasp of the situation and you're doing nothin but spewing complete rubbish.

Who has addressed me? What do you want me to address?

 

[AvesEvo]

First, here is a very simple test. When some Palestinians kidnapped and murdered those Israeli boys, many Palestinians lauded the murderers as heroes. When some Israelis retaliated and murdered the Palestinian, Israel condemned them. Tells you all you need to know.

First, not Hamas nor any other Palestinian has claimed ownership for the killing of those children. Netanyahu has claimed that their is evidence that Hamas did it, but no evidence has been given. He also knew that the teens were dead on the very first day that they were missing, but instead he decided to look for them for three weeks during which time over 500 Palestinians were arrested and 200 more without charge and 6 were killed. Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy | The Electronic Intifada It was collective punishment, a war crime. It was only after three weeks of this that rockets started flying.

Hamas definitely aren't boy scouts, but their existence is in response to the systematic oppression that has been placed upon the Palestinians for three quarters of a century.

“Never in history has violence been initiated by the oppressed. How could they be the initiators, if they themselves are the result of violence? How could they be the sponsors of something whose objective inauguration called forth their existence as oppressed? There would be no oppressed had there been no prior situation of violence to establish their subjugation. Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognise others as persons - not by those who are oppressed, exploited and unrecognized.” Pedagogy of the Oppressed

It is also a joke that Hamas doesn't want peace because they broke the ceasefire that Israel agreed to. Hamas was never informed that there was a ceasefire. They were never involved in the negotiations and only heard about it through the media.

I don't know what everyone wants me to address, but tell me, and I will do it.

 

[JughedJones]

That dude is not very happy with you.

(he said 'rubbish,' he must be smart)

 

[AvesEvo]

And here's a quote from Fathi Hamad, Hamas Interior Ministor in 2012:

“For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death like you desire life.’”

Basically, "Go ahead and kill everyone, we don't care. We'll use them to try to kill you."

No, what he is saying is that they have been so oppressed and beaten that death would be a relief.

 

[AvesEvo]

First, here is a very simple test. When some Palestinians kidnapped and murdered those Israeli boys, many Palestinians lauded the murderers as heroes. When some Israelis retaliated and murdered the Palestinian, Israel condemned them. Tells you all you need to know.

Second, you are deceptively misquoting that Israeli politician. Here is what she actually wrote (and, to the extent it matters, she was related someone else's thoughts). Her point is that total war has been declared against Israel and Israel is entitled to respond in kind:



No one will confuse her for a peacenik. But her position isn't indefensible, hardly glorification. And it isn't nearly bad as the constant glorification of suicide bombers and the killing of innocents that pervades Gaza and, to a lesser extent, the West Bank.

Yes, it is indefensible. There hasn't been a suicide bomber in Israel in 6 years. What are you talking about "killing of innocence that pervades Gaza?" Last time I check 80% of the 300 Palestinians that were killed in Gaza were civilians. Now, if you want to talk about the glorification of the killing of innocents, check this out. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/w...-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html

 

[AvesEvo]

This is the history of the past month. It's kind long, but you should watch it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cpI7PPndtmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[JughedJones]

I went to university with a girl who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer in Palestine.

This is all a fucking sickness.

(yeah, she was killed by the way. and she was an American.)

It's really easy to sit here in our ivory towers and believe that we would never act out in such horrific ways. I would submit that you shouldn't judge unless your family's home and daughters were demolished by an unfathomably powerful force.
A force that you have no chance of rising up against in a traditional military fashion.

"Judge not lest ye be judged." I remember hearing that somewhere.

 

[AvesEvo]

I went to university with a girl who was run over by a Israeli bulldozer in Palestine.

Rachel Corrie?

 

[JughedJones]

Yup

I'd post a few pictures and say a few words, but...

Yeah. I think a lot about her. It's a disgusting thing we're dealing with here.

 

[AvesEvo]

Yup

I remember when I first saw her video. Absolutely shocking.