Israel

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, TexArcher said:

Um, forcibly moving an entire ethnic group somewhere else is ethnic cleansing, isn't it?

Yes.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, sidis said:

i think this line appropriately applies to anyone trying to distill anything related to israel and palestine to anything simple and one-sided.  just a reminder...

 

This video is great. I love the late stage Jewish commandos’ chest hair poking out. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's not how it works.

Semantics. 

2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Um, forcibly moving an entire ethnic group somewhere else is ethnic cleansing, isn't it?

Not if they’re moved non-violently. 

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

You replied to my post that said that I didn't want us embroiled in "the whole shootin' match of the MidEast."

You quoted me not the title of the thread, and you know it. Save your facile retorts for facile reasoning.

Just take the loss and move on. Or keep scrambling. I don't much care. Have a nice evening.

I only took issue with the oil / gasoline / truck comments on an Israel thread 2 days after an attack in Israel, which has no oil. Maybe it has some tangential relevance (Israel’s call for Chevron to cease gas delivery to Gaza), but it’s not on top of mind today. I’m not scrambling in the least; I just don’t like conflating topics and honestly didn’t know if you knew Israel had no oil. 

[tokamak 6432]

8 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Um, forcibly moving an entire ethnic group somewhere else is ethnic cleansing, isn't it?

Ethnic tidying up

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Ethnic tidying up

Ethnic straightening up before company comes over.

[InkaUtexas 26007]

7 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

Semantics. 

Not if they’re moved non-violently. 

I only took issue with the oil / gasoline / truck comments on an Israel thread 2 days after an attack in Israel, which has no oil. Maybe it has some tangential relevance (Israel’s call for Chevron to cease gas delivery to Gaza), but it’s not on top of mind today. I’m not scrambling in the least; I just don’t like conflating topics and honestly didn’t know if you knew Israel had no oil. 

1- yes it is. I don't think a lot of the Palestinians are going to want to leave their homeland, no matter how shitty conditions are. Bosnians did not want to leave Sarajevo. 

2- Israel does have off shore gas deposits. Chevron was told to stop operations offshore. These alone have caused some international bickering (who controls what) between them and Lebanon. 

[Guest]

Call it whatever you want, but if a people cannot not indiscriminately fire rockets at residential Israeli neighborhoods after Hamas is eradicated (and it will be eradicated with its leaders absolutely murdered), then get ‘em out. I’m not a tit for tat guy* but how many times have Jews been “ethnically tidied up” for non-violent reasons?  Countless. 

*Despite many on here labeling Gaza an apartheid state, Israel is most certainly not tit for tat either. Or Gaza and Lebanon would’ve been William T Sherman’ed long ago. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

1- yes it is. I don't think a lot of the Palestinians are going to want to leave their homeland, no matter how shitty conditions are. Bosnians did not want to leave Sarajevo. 

2- Israel does have off shore gas deposits. Chevron was told to stop operations offshore. These alone have caused some international bickering (who controls what) between them and Lebanon. 

1. Tough shit. Their elected leadership has made it impossible for them to be tolerated as countrymen or neighbors. They either actively make war on Israel or are complicit in it. That is why I continually use the word semantics. 

2. Very very little. Roma was trying to make a broader Middle East oil point that conflates two very different reasons for US region involvement. One is oil, which is less important now (but will be of growing import as US shale inevitably declines) and the second is Israel, which has nothing to do with oil.  

[chainsaw 9872]

4 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

*Despite many on here labeling Gaza an apartheid state, Israel is most certainly not tit for tat either. Or Gaza and Lebanon would’ve been William T Sherman’ed long ago. 

You got evidence for that or is that just your feelings?

[Guest]

Just now, chainsaw said:

You got evidence for that or is that just your feelings?

Like do I have access to classified IDF material weighing a decision to raze Gaza in ‘06 or southern Lebanon in ‘89?  No, no evidence. Just my feeling. Israel has shown great restraint. Restraint we wouldn’t have shown if Mexico or Canada were launching fucking attacks into San Diego, El Paso, Detroit or Buffalo. 

[chainsaw 9872]

Just now, Porterhouse said:

Like do I have access to classified IDF material weighing a decision to raze Gaza in ‘06 or southern Lebanon in ‘89?  No, no evidence. Just my feeling. Israel has shown great restraint. Restraint we wouldn’t have shown if Mexico or Canada were launching fucking attacks into San Diego, El Paso, Detroit or Buffalo. 

What about the part where you claimed it's not an apartheid state

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What about the part where you claimed it's not an apartheid state

Because it’s not. I’ve addressed that countless times. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

39 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

I never advocated ethnic cleansing, but I’d be fine with their forcible removal if they can’t live side by side with Israel without trying to kill them. The rest is just semantics. 

Too bad you and your ilk can’t do the same with your fellow countrymen.  

[chainsaw 9872]

1 minute ago, Porterhouse said:

Because it’s not. I’ve addressed that countless times. 

That's certainly.....an opinion.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

Porterhouse is a grade A piece of shit who believes in fairy tales, and thinks anyone who disagrees with his worldview should be marginalized.  Has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, he’s just a piece of shit.  I suggest ignoring him because death threats tend to get you banned.  

[G650 14268]

I have to say, this is some breathtaking stupidity

[wildcat09 29355]

16 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

1. Tough shit. Their elected leadership has made it impossible for them to be tolerated as countrymen or neighbors. They either actively make war on Israel or are complicit in it. That is why I continually use the word semantics. 

2. Very very little. Roma was trying to make a broader Middle East oil point that conflates two very different reasons for US region involvement. One is oil, which is less important now (but will be of growing import as US shale inevitably declines) and the second is Israel, which has nothing to do with oil.  

Half of the people living in Gaza right now weren't even born or were literal infants the last time Palestinians had an election.

[Brisketexan 105161]

How about we agree on a few premises that we might have discussed before the events of this weekend (and I know that not everyone here will agree with them, but I’d bet a majority would).

1. Israel has a right to exist.
2. Jews have a right to exist without being targeted for extermination.
3. The Palestinian people have a right to exist.
4. That Palestinian “right to exist” means more than merely “continuing to draw breath” – it should mean a life with basic human rights, decent living conditions, and the ability to enjoy peaceful freedom.  And yes, it means having land in which they can have those things.
5. Israel has behaved mighty shittily: the settlements, the recent right-wing shenanigans, etc. ad nauseum.
6. Palestinians have behaved plenty shittily, targeting civilians within Israel and jews elsewhere in the world.

I’m not even touching the multiple stupid-ass wars of extermination that the Palestinians and Arab nations launched against Israel.  Let’s keep this simple, and post-1967 in terms of conduct and principles to evaluate.

Okay.  So we agree on those six premises. 

Cool.  How do we get there (premises 1-4)?  Most reasonable conversation, and the Oslo accords, pointed the same way: a two state solution.  And again, for the sake of finding some measure of consensus on a premise, let’s agree that the Oslo accords were wildly imperfect and ultimately counterproductive. 

But let’s pitch some end-games here, to see if they are even possible.

1. Israel within its borders as of the 1949 armistice.  Palestinian state in the West Bank.  Jerusalem as a city under UN control.
2. Israel within its 1948 borders.  Give everything else back, Palestinian state in the areas deemed “arab state” in 1948.
3. Israel within its borders after the 1982 treaty with Egypt.  Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with the ability to freely move between them.

Let’s just ask the main question: would the Palestinians and their leadership (and importantly their backers) ever accept ANY these, and let Israel be?  Every single person on this board knows the answer is NO. 

The Palestinian position is pretty unambiguous: full right of return (even though the Palestinians and arab states started disastrous war after disastrous war and lost fucking land out the ass, which is how wars fucking go).  And honestly…..the end of the State of Israel.  The Palestinian position will never accept the existence of Israel.

So, knowing those truths….WTF is Israel supposed to do?  I ask that in all sincerity – WTF are they supposed to do?  Set aside Israel’s shittiness of its settlement policy, the cheap right-wing provocations under Bibi’s regime….imagine that Israel had acted with a soft hand since 1982.  Do you think the Palestinian position would be anything other than “cool….exterminate the jews, end Israel, give all land to the Palestinian people?”

There is no compromise.  So WTF do they do with that?

Edited October 9, 2023 by Brisketexan

[956 Worldwide 34728]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Some (not all) of this speaks to me, from Dallas Goldtooth, the guy who plays William Knifeman in Rez Dogs. 

So what’s amazing about this whole thing is that Hamas units achieved this massive operational surprise and were able to destroy a lot of Israeli military equipment.  They could have done a lot more. If that’s what they did, and captured Israeli soldiers and security forces and announced they were being held and treated as POWs— they’d have some significant sympathy from a lot of quarters.

But instead they got distracted and chased down women in the desert and pillaged and murdered. A cavalry breakthrough that got distracted by looting the baggage train. 
 

And that’s not decolonization. Celebrating dancing on tanks was one video, another is a sobbing woman, her pants soaked with blood, being yanked by her hair from a truck and displayed as a trophy. Celebrating the one and not acknowledging the other is disingenuous at best. That’s the most charitable. 
 

When Hamas tells you who they are, believe them. 

[Hefeweizen 5328]

On 10/8/2023 at 1:14 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

We would fucking end them with Lee Greenwood blaring in the background.

Is there anything we do without that music blasting?

 

I think the best summary I’ve seen is that this was a Comanche raid.  Because basically all Hamas lacked was stealing the fancy women’s clothes and having the Texas rangers chase after them.  I think the fate of the Comanche is theirs too.

[chainsaw 9872]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, knowing those truths….WTF is Israel supposed to do?  I ask that in all sincerity – WTF are they supposed to do?

I answer in all sincerity: not crimes against humanity.

[Deej 76846]

4 hours ago, C-Man said:

Mia Khalifa enters the chat: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12610939/mia-khalifa-tweet-israel.html

She's only 30?!?!

 

[David Dennison 18937]

I'm starting to think Porterhouse doesn't know the history of how Israel became a nation-state.

[Brisketexan 105161]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I answer in all sincerity: not crimes against humanity.

Cool.  So don't do that.  What should they DO?

When faced with an opposing side that will settle for nothing less than ending your existence as a state and a people....where do you go with that? 

And I ask this as someone who literally handles disputes for a living, and has for the majority of my life on earth.  And I gotta tell ya, the worst disputes....the ones that end up turning out horrifically for EVERYONE, even the ultimate "winner" (because yes, that's the ultimate outcome -- battle to the end, one side 100% wins, one side 100% loses), are this kind of dispute.  The kind where no compromise, no partial measures, nothing less than total victory/total defeat are acceptable outcomes (and it only takes ONE SIDE to feel that way).  There is never a good ending.

Will the Palestinian cause EVER allow for any ending but the apocalyptic one?  From what I see....no, they will not.  And it's maddening and infuriating.  In spite of all of their good arguments, in spite of having angles to play....they really won't budge off of "all or nothing," refusing to accept that in that circumstance, "nothing" is a very strong possible outcome for you.

[David Dennison 18937]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, knowing those truths….WTF is Israel supposed to do?  I ask that in all sincerity – WTF are they supposed to do?  Set aside Israel’s shittiness of its settlement policy, the cheap right-wing provocations under Bibi’s regime….imagine that Israel had acted with a soft hand since 1982.  Do you think the Palestinian position would be anything other than “cool….exterminate the jews, end Israel, give all land to the Palestinian people?”

There is no compromise.  So WTF do they do with that?

What about this? Annex the occupied territories and grant Palestinians in those territories Israeli citizenship.

 

[Bullneck 19184]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

I'm not optimistic. Complete destruction of Hamas, I think, would be a necessary precondition. Israel giving up any territorial claims to the West Bank would also be helpful, but I'm not optimistic on that front either. Both peoples have to feel safe and secure in their own homeland. For me, that means going back to the 1967 borders. Over time, the Palestinians might accept that, but the Israelis haven't given that a chance. And, if you read the article I posted above, it shows their leadership is bound and determined to take the whole thing.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-1967-border-the-quot-green-line-quot

[Brisketexan 105161]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What about this? Annex the occupied territories and grant Palestinians in those territories Israeli citizenship.

 

Cool.  Let's say we do that.

Within 10 years of that happening, would Israel still exist, much less exist as a place that is a safe haven for jews?

Remember that whole "exterminate all jews wherever they are found" bit?  That ain't going away.

So, your proposal would accomplish genocide of the jews.  Doesn't seem like a good path forward to me.  I dunno.  I heard around here that we're supposed to frown on genocide.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How about we agree on a few premises that we might have discussed before the events of this weekend (and I know that not everyone here will agree with them, but I’d bet a majority would).

1. Israel has a right to exist.
2. Jews have a right to exist without being targeted for extermination.
3. The Palestinian people have a right to exist.
4. That Palestinian “right to exist” means more than merely “continuing to draw breath” – it should mean a life with basic human rights, decent living conditions, and the ability to enjoy peaceful freedom.  And yes, it means having land in which they can have those things.
5. Israel has behaved mighty shittily: the settlements, the recent right-wing shenanigans, etc. ad nauseum.
6. Palestinians have behaved plenty shittily, targeting civilians within Israel and jews elsewhere in the world.

I’m not even touching the multiple stupid-ass wars of extermination that the Palestinians and Arab nations launched against Israel.  Let’s keep this simple, and post-1967 in terms of conduct and principles to evaluate.

Okay.  So we agree on those six premises. 

Cool.  How do we get there (premises 1-4)?  Most reasonable conversation, and the Oslo accords, pointed the same way: a two state solution.  And again, for the sake of finding some measure of consensus on a premise, let’s agree that the Oslo accords were wildly imperfect and ultimately counterproductive. 

But let’s pitch some end-games here, to see if they are even possible.

1. Israel within its borders as of the 1949 armistice.  Palestinian state in the West Bank.  Jerusalem as a city under UN control.
2. Israel within its 1948 borders.  Give everything else back, Palestinian state in the areas deemed “arab state” in 1948.
3. Israel within its borders after the 1982 treaty with Egypt.  Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with the ability to freely move between them.

Let’s just ask the main question: would the Palestinians and their leadership (and importantly their backers) ever accept ANY these, and let Israel be?  Every single person on this board knows the answer is NO. 

The Palestinian position is pretty unambiguous: full right of return (even though the Palestinians and arab states started disastrous war after disastrous war and lost fucking land out the ass, which is how wars fucking go).  And honestly…..the end of the State of Israel.  The Palestinian position will never accept the existence of Israel.

So, knowing those truths….WTF is Israel supposed to do?  I ask that in all sincerity – WTF are they supposed to do?  Set aside Israel’s shittiness of its settlement policy, the cheap right-wing provocations under Bibi’s regime….imagine that Israel had acted with a soft hand since 1982.  Do you think the Palestinian position would be anything other than “cool….exterminate the jews, end Israel, give all land to the Palestinian people?”

There is no compromise.  So WTF do they do with that?

This is a well thought out post (kudos Brisket) and I am curious how many on this board respond to it.  What is the choice of Israel currently?  I don't have the answers, but I am pretty sure all Israeli citizens packing up and moving to the US isn't probably going to happen so then what's next for Israel and the region to do.  Those that brought up the native Americans in the US, while of course not the same thing, but what would happen if one of the tribes in Oklahoma decided they want their land back and started firing rockets into Texas and killed a thousand people.  What would the US government do?    

[Deej 76846]

1 hour ago, tokamak said:

Ethnic tidying up

They should consult Marie Kondo. 

[RomaVicta 29940]

54 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

2. Very very little. Roma was trying to make a broader Middle East oil point that conflates two very different reasons for US region involvement. One is oil, which is less important now (but will be of growing import as US shale inevitably declines) and the second is Israel, which has nothing to do with oil.  

Rather than paraphrase me, quote me. And look up "conflate." 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  Let's say we do that.

Within 10 years of that happening, would Israel still exist, much less exist as a place that is a safe haven for jews?

Remember that whole "exterminate all jews wherever they are found" bit?  That ain't going away.

So, your proposal would accomplish genocide of the jews.  Doesn't seem like a good path forward to me.  I dunno.  I heard around here that we're supposed to frown on genocide.  

Yeah, Jews would do really well in a country with 80% Muslims.  

[David Dennison 18937]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  Let's say we do that.

Within 10 years of that happening, would Israel still exist, much less exist as a place that is a safe haven for jews?

Remember that whole "exterminate all jews wherever they are found" bit?  That ain't going away.

So, your proposal would accomplish genocide of the jews.  Doesn't seem like a good path forward to me.  I dunno.  I heard around here that we're supposed to frown on genocide.  

So I guess we don't really believe in democracy.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So I guess we don't really believe in democracy.

Your comment is disingenuous.  Brisket mentioned a realistic scenario and all you can come up with is that comment?  

[txhorns 2409]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

So I guess we don't really believe in democracy.

Giving Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians is a guaranteed way to kill off all Jews in the region.  Yea the Jews would maintain control for awhile but all it takes is more Muslims moving in and the current Muslim population to breed at a higher rate for Muslims to take over the country.  What do you think they would do with the Jews as soon as they had majority control?

[Brisketexan 105161]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So I guess we don't really believe in democracy.

When the sizable new majority has pledged to exterminate the minority?

Yeah....in such cases, no, we do not.  The right to continue existing should not be a matter up for popular vote.  If you think that "extermination of the minority" is EVER a legitimate outcome in a democracy, then I'm happy to be on the other side of that take.

You know that would be the outcome of making Israel a heavy majority Muslim state.  Own it.  Then tell us that you are okay with it.  Because if your position is "I believe in Democracy....and that means I believe in any outcome the popular vote comes up with, including genocide of the minority population," you need to own it.  If, on the other hand, that is NOT your position, then the onus is on you to explain to us how your proposed solution will not have that result.  Show your work.

[David Dennison 18937]

2 minutes ago, txhorns said:

Giving Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians is a guaranteed way to kill off all Jews in the region.  Yea the Jews would maintain control for awhile but all it takes is more Muslims moving in and the current Muslim population to breed at a higher rate for Muslims to take over the country.  What do you think they would do with the Jews as soon as they had majority control?

Wow.

[chainsaw 9872]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So don't do that.  What should they DO?

When faced with an opposing side that will settle for nothing less than ending your existence as a state and a people....where do you go with that? 

And I ask this as someone who literally handles disputes for a living, and has for the majority of my life on earth.  And I gotta tell ya, the worst disputes....the ones that end up turning out horrifically for EVERYONE, even the ultimate "winner" (because yes, that's the ultimate outcome -- battle to the end, one side 100% wins, one side 100% loses), are this kind of dispute.  The kind where no compromise, no partial measures, nothing less than total victory/total defeat are acceptable outcomes (and it only takes ONE SIDE to feel that way).  There is never a good ending.

Will the Palestinian cause EVER allow for any ending but the apocalyptic one?  From what I see....no, they will not.  And it's maddening and infuriating.  In spite of all of their good arguments, in spite of having angles to play....they really won't budge off of "all or nothing," refusing to accept that in that circumstance, "nothing" is a very strong possible outcome for you.

Well, my intuition says to think back to the last peaceful state of affairs and revert to that. In terms of land, that might be those pre-1948 borders. In terms of governance and affairs that might be a type of reconstruction that wildly differs from the current oppressive occupation we saw under Netanyahu. Might even want to ensure that both sides' constitutions specify that the government and people lack the ability to elect fascists, authoritarians, or terrorists in the same way we ensured Japan's constitution forbade Japan from having a military.

I noticed the way you frame the issue, you are taking as a given the fact that Palestine cannot exist peacefully as neighbors with Israel, which I can't agree with. Although a cursory look at experience would seem to support that assumption, you have to take into account the fact that Palestine has never been given an opportunity to exist free from coercion, bloodshed, and oppression. They are barely permitted to live, and even that permission is subject to whim. While I'd never agree with expressions of hatred, I can't say I'm surprised that a generation of young men who have known nothing else might harbor something more than resentment.

If the boot hadn't been so weighing so heavily on these people's throats for 20-30 years, I am pretty confident those expressions of hatred would subside. And a willingness to live and let live would predominate. The "apocalyptic" rhetoric would lose its influence. In the end, people just want to have normalcy. They want a life where the worst thing that happened was an opposing quarterback racking up 75 yards of offense in less than a minute.

Improve people's material conditions, and you will see not just in Palestine but in Central America.

[Bullneck 19184]

38 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

When Hamas tells you who they are, believe them. 

I heard someone on the radio today comparing them to ISIS.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

Just now, txhorns said:

Giving Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians is a guaranteed way to kill off all Jews in the region.  Yea the Jews would maintain control for awhile but all it takes is more Muslims moving in and the current Muslim population to breed at a higher rate for Muslims to take over the country.  What do you think they would do with the Jews as soon as they had majority control?

It sounds like what would happen would be....

1) The Palestinians would decide it's great to be in the majority and let everybody (jews) live happily ever after together.  OR....

2) They would kill them all at worst or force them to leave at best.

3) I guess once part 2 happened we would just say, "welp that's democracy so we have to live with what they just did to those jews"

[David Dennison 18937]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When the sizable new majority has pledged to exterminate the minority?

Yeah....in such cases, no, we do not.  The right to continue existing should not be a matter up for popular vote.  If you think that "extermination of the minority" is EVER a legitimate outcome in a democracy, then I'm happy to be on the other side of that take.

You know that would be the outcome of making Israel a heavy majority Muslim state.  Own it.  Then tell us that you are okay with it.  Because if your position is "I believe in Democracy....and that means I believe in any outcome the popular vote comes up with, including genocide of the minority population," you need to own it.  If, on the other hand, that is NOT your position, then the onus is on you to explain to us how your proposed solution will not have that result.  Show your work.

So you believe most everyday Palestinians toe the Hamas line?

Really?

 

[G650 14268]

We've gotten into some really hot takes on what Palestinians want now I see.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19121]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Porterhouse is a grade A piece of shit who believes in fairy tales, and thinks anyone who disagrees with his worldview should be marginalized.  Has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, he’s just a piece of shit.  I suggest ignoring him because death threats tend to get you banned.  

I just neg and move on.  

['stache 21824]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you believe most everyday Palestinians toe the Hamas line?

Really?

 

And those that do, maybe, just maybe, that worldview is influenced in how the last 30-50 years have played out? When the entire might of the western world says during every skirmish that they side with the occupiers that tends to shape world views.

[David Dennison 18937]

OK, so no annexing the territories because that means no more Israel. 

What about recognizing a Palestinian state? Will that work?

[Gatorubet 30254]

20 minutes ago, txhorns said:

Giving Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians is a guaranteed way to kill off all Jews in the region.  Yea the Jews would maintain control for awhile but all it takes is more Muslims moving in and the current Muslim population to breed at a higher rate for Muslims to take over the country.  What do you think they would do with the Jews as soon as they had majority control?

So - just like the Messicans talking over ‘Murica?

[Brisketexan 105161]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you believe most everyday Palestinians toe the Hamas line?

Really?

 

Toe it perfectly?  Nope.

Toe the essential elements: expel the jews from Palestine?  I don't have to believe anything.  I just have to read what they actually say they want.  Al Jazeera has done some great reporting over the years, interviewing a lot of Palestinian "man and woman on the streets" types.  Not extremists, just ordinary folks, working a variety of jobs.  Seemingly pretty normal, decent folks.  And it's a running theme in their responses: expel the jews.  This isn't a secret.  

I'm sure there are some Palestinians who do not feel that way.  I know there are.  They are the minority.

You KNOW what the outcome will be.  And how about this -- even if you didn't know it for 100% sure, if you were a jew in Israel, would you ever take the risk on the hope that "maybe what the Palestinians say they want every time they are asked isn't what they really mean?"

I take nothing away from the shit circumstances of the Palestinians.  I do not absolve Israel of its shitty treatment of them.  But it's pretty close to an undeniable conclusion: give the Palestinians control of Israel, and the jews will be expelled, if not flatly exterminated.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

 

You don’t watch Ramy?

[TwiceHorn 31509]

Here's why I don't like the "apartheid state" thing.

The occupied territories can certainly be analogized to an apartheid state.

But the population of Israel proper is 20% Arab Muslims.   They are not broadly persecuted, they have political parties that get people elected to the Knesset appointed as Cabinet officials, and more or less participate in every aspect of israeli society.  And this despite some factions openly advocating for the eradication of  Israel.

[Surly Bevo 25076]

I have nothing to add at the moment other than reading the last four or five pages has given me some strong member berries of my mid 90s run at UT reading the Firing Line.  Thanks all.