Are They Leftists? Pragmatists? Self Hating? None Of The Above. They Are Just Fools

[takeo]

Aliyah

Well, they can perceive what they want in Egypt, but the fact is that Egypt could not defeat Israel in this War (or the 67 war) even when combined with Syrian forces. Egypt only recognized Israel because they realized they could not defeat Israel and then Sadat made gestures to Israel (first) and Israel accepted.

Actually the Camp David peacedeal was achieved under heavy American pressure and insentives to both parties, as is the case today and during the early 90 s.

And, you can keep on throwing out the term "occupied territories" all you want, but here are the facts:

1) There was know "Palestinian people" before 1967.

I'm not even going into that, been there, done that. Fact is there was clearly an Arab majority in what is now Israel and the occupied territories before 1948. And today there is still a large Arab majority in theoccupied territories, and they are not israeli citizens and don't want to be part of Israel .

2) As there was no "Palestinian people" or sovereign "Palestine", even to this day, the "West Bank" is not "Palestinian" land. What it is is land that was liberated from Jordan, who occupied it from 1948-1967 (and did not let a single Jew live there during that period). Those who want to claim to be "objective" in this conflict have no choice but to admit that, at the very most, it is "disputed" territory, but it is not and has never been "Palestinian" territory.

The international community has never accepted Israeli claims on that land, and the big majority in those lands call themselves Palestinians and are certainly not Israeli and don't accept Israeli claims on the land they inhabit.

3) Before 1948, the British (not "Palestinians") had sovereignty over "Palestine" and before the British the Turks has sovereignty over all of "Palestine". (Neither of whom, by the way, wanted it back)

as they had over India, etc. what's your point exactly?

The "occupied territory" claim is a farce and historically inaccurate

.

it isn't. The 1967 Israeli military conquest of these lands have never been accepted, not by any country nor by the people living there. So there's no other word to describe the situation.

The "Palestinians" have been used as an excuse for continued war against Israel.

the palestinians fight for their freedom, not a single people would accept the situation they're in right now. And if Israel doesn't want other nations to use the palestinians in their quest against Israel (Iran for example) than it should make peace with the palestinians, and end the occupation, give them their independence (that's what they want), and give in to international demands.

If the Arabs TRULY cared about their brothers then they would have taken them into their countries (as they have hundreds times more land than Israel) and assimilated them, just like tiny Israel did for all the Jewish refugees from the holocaust and from Arab countries.

So what you are saying is that palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Israel and the Westbank? People who have lived there for many generations? They don't want that, and you can't force them. It's not realistic and you know it. Once again even in the Balfour declaration it was clearly stated that the rights of the indigenous people should not be violated, and the 181 resolution already mentioned a twostate solution. Palestinians rejected that in 1948 but now they are willing to accept it. But radicals on the other side are now obstructing such a situation.

I do give you this Takeo, you make me laugh When you were here 10 years ago (and hence, became an "expert" on the Israel/Arab conflict), did you meet any Gaza "extremists" or did you just run to meet Gush Shalom activists. Because the residents of Gaza covered all ends of the political spectrum, as well as religious beliefs. Most residents of Gaza were simple, hardworking families who were there because they could afford the homes, loved the beach, worked in agriculture, etc.

Why did they have to live in Gaza? Isn't there a beach or opportunities in Israel? Why did they have to live in a warzone that doesn't belong to Israel?
And your arguments make no sense. These people have no connection to Gaza whatsoever. However millions of palestinians originate in what's now Israel, they too want a hardworking life, work in agriculture, enjoy the beach, and enjoy the better economic opportunities in Israel. But they can't return. So why do you think people who have no connection to Gaza whatsoever have the right to live there, while people who have lived for many generations in what's now Israel can't return? It doesn't make much sense.

I can also tell you from meeting these "extremists" up close that their lives were devestated from this EXPULSION.

You think palestinian lifes haven't been devastated? Not only the 100000'q who have been ethnically cleansed but equally the millions living in Westbank under israeli occupation.

We are not just talking about houses being destroyed, but their livelihoods. Your problem, Takeo, is you don't see any Jew living over the "green line" as a person, but an "obstacle to peace" and, hence, deserving everything coming to him, being it expulsion or terrorism.

But it's part of the choice they made. They choose to live in a warzone. They could have stayed in Israel and lead a peaceful normal life as any Israeli. Palestinians didn't choose. They always lived there for many generations, and they have nowhere to go.
Which brings me to the senselessness of the whole colonial project, why should Israeli live amidst millions of palestinians in difficult warlike situations if it's not for pure ideological reasons, eventough they have no family connection to that land? Are you denying that most (not all) choose to live in occupied territories for pure ideological reasons?

And then you lament about how we get an "allergic reaction whenever we see your name".

because I don't agree to colonisation, oppression of palestinians and occupation, because I believe that palestinians should have the same rights as Israeli?

Your constant use of the word "colonialist" is just a code word for you getting hormones when Jews are kicked out of their homes, but if even one arab gets kicked out of his home, you have a fit.

nonsense of course. You can see in my post "takeo's peaceplan" that I think colonists (that's what they are, or can anyone proove that they lived there for many generations, or that any country accept this as part of Israel?) should be able to stay, and their rights should be garanteed, IF they accept palestinian laws and become palestinian nationals. Palestinians who choose to live in Israel should become Israeli nationals and respect Israeli laws. That's the only right way in my eyes. But you only want rights for Israeli, and want to expulse palestinians.

Another problem of yours Takeo is that you consider anyone an "extremist" whose views do not jive with Gush Shalom.

no, for example I don't think Olmert is an extremist, nor is Livni, altough their views certainly do not jive with Gush Shalom. Everyone calling for Eretz Israel and expulsion of Palestinians is, in my eyes, an extremist, and I stick to that.

If that is the case, then I guess 94% of Israeli Jews, at the current time, are "extremist", as only 6% of Israeli Jews consider Obama's policies pro-Israel (according to a recent poll by the Smith Institue, mentioned in the Jerusalem Post recently).

but the majority of Israeli, according to polls, support a two state solution, which means they are no extremists. Many Israeli I talked to also don't support the colonisation project in the occupied territories.

[Aliyah1995]

Takeo-

I'm not even going into that, been there, done that. Fact is there was clearly an Arab majority in what is now Israel and the occupied territories before 1948. And today there is still a large Arab majority in theoccupied territories, and they are not israeli citizens and don't want to be part of Israel .

Which is why they were offered their own state in the British Mandate of "Palestine", which was significantly bigger than the proposed Jewish State. The arabs overwhelmingly said "no" and voted with their weapons. And, that is great that they don't want to be part of Israel. Let them be part of Jordan or Syria or Egypt or New Zealand.

The international community has never accepted Israeli claims on that land, and the big majority in those lands call themselves Palestinians and are certainly not Israeli and don't accept Israeli claims on the land they inhabit.

Yes, a prime example of how the so-called "Palestinians" are being used as a pawn to destroy Israel in phases. If one REALLY wants to use the word "Palestinian" and incorporate it FULL meaning, then a "Palestinian" would be any resident of the British Mandate of Palestine, whether Arab, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria do not have a monopoly on being a "Palestinian" if you want to get right down to it. So are the Jews who have lived here since before 1948. And so what, if the Arabs are the majority. By using this logic, then Israel should have never been founded.

.

it isn't. The 1967 Israeli military conquest of these lands have never been accepted, not by any country nor by the people living there. So there's no other word to describe the situation.

What about the Jordan military conquest from 1948-1967, when Jews were displaced from these lands and NOT a single Jew was allowed to live in them? Where was the rest of the world's morality back then? The silence was quite defeaning. Liberated territory. There's no other word to describe the situation.

the palestinians fight for their freedom, not a single people would accept the situation they're in right now. And if Israel doesn't want other nations to use the palestinians in their quest against Israel (Iran for example) than it should make peace with the palestinians, and end the occupation, give them their independence (that's what they want), and give in to international demands.

I agree that the situation is intolerable. These "Palestinians" should be pleading to the UN, ask them to take them out of these so-called "refugee camps" where they have been allowed to fester and be integrated into one of the many Arab countries surrounding us, just like the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab countries where into Israel. This is what will guarantee peace. Not willfully prolonging the war, which is what people like you, the EU, the UN, and even some well-meaning, but ill-advised people in the States are doing.

So what you are saying is that palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Israel and the Westbank? People who have lived there for many generations? They don't want that, and you can't force them. It's not realistic and you know it. Once again even in the Balfour declaration it was clearly stated that the rights of the indigenous people should not be violated, and the 181 resolution already mentioned a twostate solution. Palestinians rejected that in 1948 but now they are willing to accept it. But radicals on the other side are now obstructing such a situation.

First of all, many of them have not been living in the "Westbank" or even Israel for many generations. Many of these so-called refugee camps were set up quite recently. It would certainly be great if the Arabs could be integrated into their countries, just like the Jews were into Israel, especially Jordan, which is about 80% "Palestinian". However, for those that insist on staying here, they should accept Jordanian citizenship, while the Jews living here would continue to be Israeli citizens. Most likely, that is more realistic, but not the ideal.

Why did they have to live in Gaza? Isn't there a beach or opportunities in Israel? Why did they have to live in a warzone that doesn't belong to Israel?
And your arguments make no sense. These people have no connection to Gaza whatsoever. However millions of palestinians originate in what's now Israel, they too want a hardworking life, work in agriculture, enjoy the beach, and enjoy the better economic opportunities in Israel. But they can't return. So why do you think people who have no connection to Gaza whatsoever have the right to live there, while people who have lived for many generations in what's now Israel can't return? It doesn't make much sense.

Another example of how you are hardly "balanced" in this conflict. So you are saying NO Jews have a historical connection to Gaza? Well, I have news for you. Many of those families who moved to Gaza were returning there from before 1948. I refuse to continue having this discussion with someone who denies Jewish connection to Gaza. It is pointless.

You think palestinian lifes haven't been devastated? Not only the 100000'q who have been ethnically cleansed but equally the millions living in Westbank under israeli occupation.

They have been devastated allright, by their corrupt leadership who wants to continue using them as pawns, by the UN who built makeshift "refugee camps" for them and allowed them to fester there.

But it's part of the choice they made. They choose to live in a warzone. They could have stayed in Israel and lead a peaceful normal life as any Israeli. Palestinians didn't choose. They always lived there for many generations, and they have nowhere to go.

Again, many were returning to where they were ethnically cleansed from before 1948. And once again, many "Palestinians" did not live here for many generations. And they have many places to go- Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The Jews from the Arab countries who were expelled did not choose either, but they left (many times with nothing but the clothes on their backs and leaving large houses behind) and came to Israel.

Which brings me to the senselessness of the whole colonial project, why should Israeli live amidst millions of palestinians in difficult warlike situations if it's not for pure ideological reasons, eventough they have no family connection to that land? Are you denying that most (not all) choose to live in occupied territories for pure ideological reasons?

Are you denying any Jewish connection the Judea and Samaria? Again, there is no point in this conversation continuing if you continue this one-sided BS propaganda.

because I don't agree to colonisation, oppression of palestinians and occupation, because I believe that palestinians should have the same rights as Israeli?

All Israeli citizens (Jewish, Arab, or otherwise) should have the same rights and the "Palestinians" should have equal rights in whatever countries they become citizens in, whether Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, or Japan.

nonsense of course. You can see in my post "takeo's peaceplan" that I think colonists (that's what they are, or can anyone proove that they lived there for many generations, or that any country accept this as part of Israel?) should be able to stay, and their rights should be garanteed, IF they accept palestinian laws and become palestinian nationals. Palestinians who choose to live in Israel should become Israeli nationals and respect Israeli laws. That's the only right way in my eyes. But you only want rights for Israeli, and want to expulse palestinians.

Once, again denying any Jewish connection to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, so a non-starter.

no, for example I don't think Olmert is an extremist, nor is Livni, altough their views certainly do not jive with Gush Shalom. Everyone calling for Eretz Israel and expulsion of Palestinians is, in my eyes, an extremist, and I stick to that.

Congratulations

but the majority of Israeli, according to polls, support a two state solution, which means they are no extremists. Many Israeli I talked to also don't support the colonisation project in the occupied territories.

Even the overwhelming majority of those Israeli who support the "two state solution", do not expect to give up most the so-called "settlements", certainly not the big blocs that are a short commute from Jerusalem- like Gush Etzion, Maaleh Adumim, Har Homa (which is actually in Jerusalem and often falsely referred to as being over the "green line", which it is not), etc. In fact, about 80% of the so-called "settlements" are expected to remain under Israeli sovereigny according to the Geneva Initiative, which was iniated by ultra-dove Yossi Beillin and the European Union.

A "two state" solution in the eyes of even most left-wing Israelis does NOT mean Israel returning to the 1949 armistic lines, even if that is what Takeo would like to see.

[Kachah]

I like this neologism takeo is sporting here: Westbank.
It is not a bank of a river, nor it is a euphemism for the historically correct names Judaea and Shomron which are the taboo for the lefties to use.
It is an old beautiful country of Westbank where proud and noble Palestinian people used to live for millenia until ugly Zionists came from far away and stole their land. Thus spake takeo, and so it was written.
Behold! The new legend is born!
You are wasting your time, Aliyah. Takeo is credulous and gullible by choice, it is incurable.

[Reffo]

And then you lament about how we get an "allergic reaction whenever we see your name"

And another reason is that he is part of the crowd that fits the description of my first post on this thread, (namely Gush Shalom): Click Here To See Post #1

your first post is false as I already pointed out.

It is? Then I presume that Gush Shalom:

1. Does not want to give in give in on the settlements issue?
2. Does not want to give in regarding the holy places issue?
3. Does not want to give in on East Jerusalem?
4. Does not want to overlook their incitement against us?
5. Does want to force them to give up their so called right of return?
6. Does insist that they should recognize Israel as the Jewish state?
7. Does insist that they should agree to a demilitarisation of their new state?

You gotta laugh Which is it Takeo?