App makes killing Palestinians as easy as ordering pizzas - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15142944
ckaihatsu wrote: I make a distinction between the *people* of a country, and the nation-state *entity* itself, in the contexts of nationalism and geopolitics.


Really? That distinction is a pure demagoguery in style of the old Bundist revolutioners of 1915 in Russia. It might work with many, but not with me.

You should know that such distinction cannot possibly exist in the context of defensible sovereignty. People are 'of the country'. People make up the country. If such country can persist, as Israel does, then there is no distinction can be made. Logic simple does not allow it.

However, an old school Marxist-Leninist made a business claiming exactly what you are claiming and just look where it got them!


ckaihatsu wrote:It's not like Jews *spontaneously* self-organized the State of Israel -- it was *carved out* for them by Britain, as a *colonial* project.


You are a fan of revisionist history, are you? Your effort to delegitimize Israel will not work, as it cannot be supported by facts as we know them. I'll make it simple for you, - nobody cares 'who' or 'what' carved the State of Israel, - be it Britain or UN or Jesus himself. It is not relevant any longer.

Do you know what is relevant? What is relevant is the ability of Israel to project power in the context of modern world, - nothing else. Perhaps your rhetoric would have worked in 1948, when the Arabs tried push the Jews into the sea, and the world at large waited to see what would would happen and who would win. At the time, your rhetoric would have fallen on ears willing to listen, but after the war of 1967 and definitely after 1973, all you can do is spit, but no longer bite.

Don't you understand that there is no argument to be had regarding legitimacy of a sovereign state that is a regional superpower. Don't you understand that if you say anything like this in a polite company of well-meaning, educated and informed people, they will laugh at you and think you simpleton.

You do need to find another argument, and let the Bundist approach die.

ckaihatsu wrote:The Palestinians were there *before* Israel, just as the Native Americans were there before the United States.


No they were not. Not that it matters.

History records Jewish majority in Jerusalem for example at nearly all times in the history except 13th century if memory serves, but you can google this to make sure. Jews have always lived where Israel is today. I hope that you will not dispute that the Jews do predate Muslims in the Land. OK?

ckaihatsu wrote:I'm not for pan-Arabism for its own sake. It would have to be a stepping-stone to *socialism*, for the reasons you're giving, empirically. In other words no country can really be a 'liberated' island in an overall global sea of capitalism.


So, I was right, - Marxism-Leninism at all costs! It is a failed ideology, as history has shown. Why do you grab on to it?

The flavour of Socialism that you desire can't exist in the context of developed economy, - that is developed enough in order to compete successfully. Look at China, grasping for straws, building an impressive economic gains on the backs of the impoverished people, while brainwashing them into the sense of duty, just like the old USSR did.

They even created a rich class, so that they can show their perceived benevolence. It is just a matter of time for China to follow USSR. When they come to the crashing end of their economic reality, they will try go to war, which hopefully we will avoid as we did with USSR.

This is your socialism in action, - a very temporary pretentious success with no long term prospects.

ckaihatsu wrote:You conveniently forgot to mention that those 'lands' were acquired through Western *militarism* and genocide. Your politics so far can be summed-up as 'Might makes right'.


My politics? I am not saying anything new, - it is politics the world. Yes, the land is often acquired through military expansion. Let me give you a distinction here, keeping the ill-gotten lands is not possible in the context of modern political climate. The World will eventually force you to either give it back or to find a formula for compensation.

So, - what does that tell you in relation to Israel? I hope you already see it, - Israel's gains are not ill-gotten. The world is in no mood to force Israel to change its policy. The US gave necessary recognition to Golan and Jerusalem. Area C is next. We are done. Israel is integrated into both European and US economy. Forcing Israel to change is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Your sentiments are at least 60 years too late.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Resistance is futile', huh?


Yes, it is... and only on Star Trek.

ckaihatsu wrote:Would you have supported the *Nazis* if you were there when they were winning?

What are / should-be the requirements to get a passport, according to you?


No, I would not have supported the Nazies. Never. Nobody should and most did not. Please note that the Nazis did not win, they barely lasted 11 years. The world rose up and did them in. They could never win and it was known in 1939.

The best they could do is to stall behind defensive lines and either wait for the nuclear weapons or try to force and agreement. The agreement could have happened but even then only temporary. Want to know why? Because the economy of the World would never support a superpower like Nazie Germany. And if superpower status could not be achieved then the war would settle this as the war did.

The Nazies were never winning, - they had a temporary success. Again the economy would be a decisive factor in the decision to annihilate them.

However, I must question why do you bring this up? Israel has nothing to do with the nazies, nothing at all. Israel simply does not want to have citizens who are the enemy of the state. No country would want that.

PLease understand that you can't have it both ways, - you can't fault Israel for not giving Palestinian Arabs citizenship, while advocating for the right of said Arabs to work towards the demise of Israel.

Logic is your friend...use it if you can.
#15143057
QatzelOk wrote:I like how this post "explains" European violence in Palestine by starting recorded history in 1967.

This makes it appear that Israel *always existed* rather than acknowledging its formation by European terror groups using WW2 arms, leading to the ethnic-cleansing (ongoing) of millions of human beings.

It's like hearing about a child getting killed by your pizza deliverer, and then worrying out loud that your pizza might not be hot when it arrives. You are overly pizza-centric to the point of being a carb-and-cheese-crazed monster.

:lol: :D

Israel has always existed and always will En shallah
#15143081
Metoo wrote:
Should be? Isn't it nice that you can enjoy a freedom to express yourself from the comfort of your coach and simply say, - let those Jews if Israel simply be denied the right to self-determination, just because their presents in the Middle East does not suit my fancy. Who cares about the Jewish history, right? Great position to be in.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I make a distinction between the *people* of a country, and the nation-state *entity* itself, in the contexts of nationalism and geopolitics.



Metoo wrote:
Really? That distinction is a pure demagoguery in style of the old Bundist revolutioners of 1915 in Russia. It might work with many, but not with me.

You should know that such distinction cannot possibly exist in the context of defensible sovereignty. People are 'of the country'. People make up the country. If such country can persist, as Israel does, then there is no distinction can be made. Logic simple does not allow it.

However, an old school Marxist-Leninist made a business claiming exactly what you are claiming and just look where it got them!



Well, I happen to *agree* that there's a real dichotomy between the people and their rulers -- goes for the U.S., goes for Israel, etc. Do you really think that the ruling elites are there to represent the people's interests? If so police brutality would have been eliminated *decades* ago.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's not like Jews *spontaneously* self-organized the State of Israel -- it was *carved out* for them by Britain, as a *colonial* project.



Metoo wrote:
You are a fan of revisionist history, are you? Your effort to delegitimize Israel will not work, as it cannot be supported by facts as we know them. I'll make it simple for you, - nobody cares 'who' or 'what' carved the State of Israel, - be it Britain or UN or Jesus himself. It is not relevant any longer.

Do you know what is relevant? What is relevant is the ability of Israel to project power in the context of modern world, - nothing else. Perhaps your rhetoric would have worked in 1948, when the Arabs tried push the Jews into the sea, and the world at large waited to see what would would happen and who would win. At the time, your rhetoric would have fallen on ears willing to listen, but after the war of 1967 and definitely after 1973, all you can do is spit, but no longer bite.

Don't you understand that there is no argument to be had regarding legitimacy of a sovereign state that is a regional superpower. Don't you understand that if you say anything like this in a polite company of well-meaning, educated and informed people, they will laugh at you and think you simpleton.

You do need to find another argument, and let the Bundist approach die.



It's not 'revisionist' history, it's *history*. Your opinions have no bearing on it -- Israel *is* illegitimate, and *should* be de-recognized, and its nuclear weapons seized, and the Palestinian people freed. There could be a non-adventurist / non-imperialist secular state there, like post-apartheid South Africa. Go ahead and pander to polite company all you like.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The Palestinians were there *before* Israel, just as the Native Americans were there before the United States.



Metoo wrote:
No they were not. Not that it matters.

History records Jewish majority in Jerusalem for example at nearly all times in the history except 13th century if memory serves, but you can google this to make sure. Jews have always lived where Israel is today. I hope that you will not dispute that the Jews do predate Muslims in the Land. OK?



Go ahead and Google it yourself and bring that info here, to bolster *your* argument. The Palestinians *were* there.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm not for pan-Arabism for its own sake. It would have to be a stepping-stone to *socialism*, for the reasons you're giving, empirically. In other words no country can really be a 'liberated' island in an overall global sea of capitalism.



Metoo wrote:
So, I was right, - Marxism-Leninism at all costs! It is a failed ideology, as history has shown. Why do you grab on to it?



I'm not a Stalinist. Look at what I just said -- at most national liberation could be a *strategy*, on the path to workers-of-the-world socialism. Someone who's willing to settle for *less* -- just one country -- would be a *Stalinist*.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



Metoo wrote:
The flavour of Socialism that you desire can't exist in the context of developed economy, - that is developed enough in order to compete successfully.



*Real* socialism doesn't *require* competition, because there would be no private property, and thus no competing private interests.


Metoo wrote:
Look at China, grasping for straws, building an impressive economic gains on the backs of the impoverished people, while brainwashing them into the sense of duty, just like the old USSR did.

They even created a rich class, so that they can show their perceived benevolence. It is just a matter of time for China to follow USSR. When they come to the crashing end of their economic reality, they will try go to war, which hopefully we will avoid as we did with USSR.

This is your socialism in action, - a very temporary pretentious success with no long term prospects.



The very existence of the class relations that you describe is proof that China is *not* socialism -- it's *Stalinism*, yes, like the former USSR.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You conveniently forgot to mention that those 'lands' were acquired through Western *militarism* and genocide. Your politics so far can be summed-up as 'Might makes right'.



Metoo wrote:
My politics? I am not saying anything new, - it is politics the world. Yes, the land is often acquired through military expansion. Let me give you a distinction here, keeping the ill-gotten lands is not possible in the context of modern political climate. The World will eventually force you to either give it back or to find a formula for compensation.

So, - what does that tell you in relation to Israel? I hope you already see it, - Israel's gains are not ill-gotten. The world is in no mood to force Israel to change its policy. The US gave necessary recognition to Golan and Jerusalem. Area C is next. We are done. Israel is integrated into both European and US economy. Forcing Israel to change is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Your sentiments are at least 60 years too late.



Haha -- hilarious. Israel's existence is somehow 'justified', according to you.

So *groupthink* makes right, then, in your book.


---


Metoo wrote:
The only way to have them is either to ask the ruling power for them, while offering a compromise that the ruling power would agree too or fight and win them. There is no other choice.



ckaihatsu wrote:
'Resistance is futile', huh?



Metoo wrote:
Yes, it is... and only on Star Trek.



Any opinions on the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War, or the Civil Rights Movement?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you have supported the *Nazis* if you were there when they were winning?

What are / should-be the requirements to get a passport, according to you?



Metoo wrote:
No, I would not have supported the Nazies. Never. Nobody should and most did not. Please note that the Nazis did not win, they barely lasted 11 years. The world rose up and did them in. They could never win and it was known in 1939.

The best they could do is to stall behind defensive lines and either wait for the nuclear weapons or try to force and agreement. The agreement could have happened but even then only temporary. Want to know why? Because the economy of the World would never support a superpower like Nazie Germany. And if superpower status could not be achieved then the war would settle this as the war did.

The Nazies were never winning, - they had a temporary success. Again the economy would be a decisive factor in the decision to annihilate them.

However, I must question why do you bring this up? Israel has nothing to do with the nazies, nothing at all. Israel simply does not want to have citizens who are the enemy of the state. No country would want that.

PLease understand that you can't have it both ways, - you can't fault Israel for not giving Palestinian Arabs citizenship, while advocating for the right of said Arabs to work towards the demise of Israel.

Logic is your friend...use it if you can.



There are solid parallels between the Palestinians, and blacks in the U.S. -- both had circumstances *forced* on them, against their better interests, and yet the histories are that of both resistance *and* nationalism / assimilation.

You may not be full-throttled 'Might makes right', but you *are* about prevailing *groupthink*, maybe along the lines of NATO or something. Any position on Ukraine?
#15143196
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, I happen to *agree* that there's a real dichotomy between the people and their rulers -- goes for the U.S., goes for Israel, etc. Do you really think that the ruling elites are there to represent the people's interests? If so police brutality would have been eliminated *decades* ago.

Also, if the leaders of this national entities really care about their civilian populations and their right to have opinions, why do their medias lie so much?

That the leaders of all these nations lie to their populations in order to "trick them" into approving of certain state actions... indicates that these states DEPEND on the ignorance and lack of curiosity of the majority of "their" citizens.

That the state itself MANUFACTURES ignorance (in the form of official state propaganda), and that the state can sell itself to multinational corporations (which have no democratic mandate whatsoever) means that the state is not governing for the people. The state (corporations) is using the people to dominate the world.

The people in this corporate-state formula are soldiers, and not citizens or human beings.

Thus, the state-sponsored quest to design apps to control people or punish people, rather than re-ordering our social systems to make people's lives truly better and truly free.
#15143214
QatzelOk wrote:
Also, if the leaders of this national entities really care about their civilian populations and their right to have opinions, why do their medias lie so much?

That the leaders of all these nations lie to their populations in order to "trick them" into approving of certain state actions... indicates that these states DEPEND on the ignorance and lack of curiosity of the majority of "their" citizens.

That the state itself MANUFACTURES ignorance (in the form of official state propaganda), and that the state can sell itself to multinational corporations (which have no democratic mandate whatsoever) means that the state is not governing for the people. The state (corporations) is using the people to dominate the world.

The people in this corporate-state formula are soldiers, and not citizens or human beings.

Thus, the state-sponsored quest to design apps to control people or punish people, rather than re-ordering our social systems to make people's lives truly better and truly free.



Yup.


QatzelOk wrote:
soldiers



I'd argue 'peasants', meaning that most people are fully *disregarded* by the government and its nationalist / geopolitical politics -- it's also in line with my 'neofeudalism' or 'global medievalism' theory.
#15143615
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not 'revisionist' history, it's *history*. Your opinions have no bearing on it -- Israel *is* illegitimate, and *should* be de-recognized, and its nuclear weapons seized, and the Palestinian people freed. There could be a non-adventurist / non-imperialist secular state there, like post-apartheid South Africa. Go ahead and pander to polite company all you like.

Go ahead and Google it yourself and bring that info here, to bolster *your* argument. The Palestinians *were* there.


" The Arab Palestinian conflict is one of the newest conflicts around. It began in 1968 when Arafat created a Palestinian nation while in USSR (Russian Federation today) and together they amended the PLO charter. There was no such thing as a Palestinian people until 1968. The only Palestinians were Jews. This is well documented. Arab countries often boycotted Palestinian exports because the were Jewish. If you do not accept that there were no Palestinians between 1948 and 1968, then you only have to listen to what Arab leaders themselves say, including members of the PLO.

OK, so now a bunch of Arabs called themselves Palestinians, a name bestowed on Jews for two millennia, which is basically the same as the Muslim migrants to Sweden calling themselves Vikings. They then demand a country of their own. On what grounds? Because they said so.
On what territory? Ah, interesting issue here. Historically, many Arabs are migrants, having arrived during the British mandate looking for work in Jewish enterprises and have little history here (including Saeb Erekat, Mahmud Abbas and many others).

Legally? No. The only legal document is the 1922 League of Nations British Mandate which created an Arab Palestinian state now known as Jordan on 78% of the area East of the Jordan river and a Jewish State from the river to the sea. This was ratified by the UN in their charter. UN 181 (although illegal under international law) recommended partitioning the Jewish State into Arab and Jewish sections. This was rejected by the Arab countries (there were no Palestinians back then) and was accepted by the Jews. However international law requires that both sides agree, so the resolution is invalid and null and void. So the only legal issue is the League of Nations and the UN Charter. So legally - nothing.

Furthermore, Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria for 19 years as an occupied territory, recognised only by Britain and Pakistan. Not even the UN recognised it. Occupied territory from … Israeli territory as defined by international law. They even changed the name to the area and called it the West Bank, although for 4000 years it had been known as Judea and Samaria.
Now along come some terrorist groups, none of whom had any claims to the Jewish section and define that they want to liberate Palestine, from the Jews, not the Jordanians. They then create a representative which they called the Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO. What do they do? They relinquish all claims to the area occupied by Jordan and Egypt!! Article 24 of their charter. So what land?

In 1968, they now claim the land that they originally did not want as their historic homeland!!! Ironic? Well, the world bought into it. Why? Propaganda, - and you are a victim of it!
OK, so now they are demanding an area which Jordan claims was theirs, having occupied it for 19 years. So in 1980, Jordan relinquished all claim to the area. Now they can demand it. Problem is, it was never theirs.

The newly created Palestinians have never negotiated and never compromised. They want all of something that isn’t theirs. But is it just about an area known as the West Bank? Nope, they have decided on a Right of Return, which they have no right to and a return to where? Basically, it is an issue that they want all of Israel. They show it in their symbols, their stamps and everything.
One side is calling for the eradication of the other, and the other side says we have nowhere to go, we are staying put. Unless there is a change in leadership by the Arabs with a side willing to negotiate, there will be no peace. Israelis tried to give them self-government - Gaza is a good example. The West Bank could have been another area, but Abbas controls it like any other dictator.
You ask what is it they want? This stamp shows what they want:

Instead of negotiating or abiding by agreements they signed, they embark on their narrative which they keep changing and go to the UN where they have an automatic majority. They even disregarded our 4000 years of proven Jewish history in Jerusalem and Hebron.

I hope you see how bankrupt your narrative really is and how brainwashed you really are."
#15144037
Metoo wrote:
" The Arab Palestinian conflict is one of the newest conflicts around. It began in 1968 when Arafat created a Palestinian nation while in USSR (Russian Federation today) and together they amended the PLO charter. There was no such thing as a Palestinian people until 1968. The only Palestinians were Jews. This is well documented. Arab countries often boycotted Palestinian exports because the were Jewish. If you do not accept that there were no Palestinians between 1948 and 1968, then you only have to listen to what Arab leaders themselves say, including members of the PLO.

OK, so now a bunch of Arabs called themselves Palestinians, a name bestowed on Jews for two millennia, which is basically the same as the Muslim migrants to Sweden calling themselves Vikings. They then demand a country of their own. On what grounds? Because they said so.
On what territory? Ah, interesting issue here. Historically, many Arabs are migrants, having arrived during the British mandate looking for work in Jewish enterprises and have little history here (including Saeb Erekat, Mahmud Abbas and many others).

Legally? No. The only legal document is the 1922 League of Nations British Mandate which created an Arab Palestinian state now known as Jordan on 78% of the area East of the Jordan river and a Jewish State from the river to the sea. This was ratified by the UN in their charter. UN 181 (although illegal under international law) recommended partitioning the Jewish State into Arab and Jewish sections. This was rejected by the Arab countries (there were no Palestinians back then) and was accepted by the Jews. However international law requires that both sides agree, so the resolution is invalid and null and void. So the only legal issue is the League of Nations and the UN Charter. So legally - nothing.

Furthermore, Jordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria for 19 years as an occupied territory, recognised only by Britain and Pakistan. Not even the UN recognised it. Occupied territory from … Israeli territory as defined by international law. They even changed the name to the area and called it the West Bank, although for 4000 years it had been known as Judea and Samaria.
Now along come some terrorist groups, none of whom had any claims to the Jewish section and define that they want to liberate Palestine, from the Jews, not the Jordanians. They then create a representative which they called the Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO. What do they do? They relinquish all claims to the area occupied by Jordan and Egypt!! Article 24 of their charter. So what land?

In 1968, they now claim the land that they originally did not want as their historic homeland!!! Ironic? Well, the world bought into it. Why? Propaganda, - and you are a victim of it!
OK, so now they are demanding an area which Jordan claims was theirs, having occupied it for 19 years. So in 1980, Jordan relinquished all claim to the area. Now they can demand it. Problem is, it was never theirs.

The newly created Palestinians have never negotiated and never compromised. They want all of something that isn’t theirs. But is it just about an area known as the West Bank? Nope, they have decided on a Right of Return, which they have no right to and a return to where? Basically, it is an issue that they want all of Israel. They show it in their symbols, their stamps and everything.
One side is calling for the eradication of the other, and the other side says we have nowhere to go, we are staying put. Unless there is a change in leadership by the Arabs with a side willing to negotiate, there will be no peace. Israelis tried to give them self-government - Gaza is a good example. The West Bank could have been another area, but Abbas controls it like any other dictator.
You ask what is it they want? This stamp shows what they want:

Instead of negotiating or abiding by agreements they signed, they embark on their narrative which they keep changing and go to the UN where they have an automatic majority. They even disregarded our 4000 years of proven Jewish history in Jerusalem and Hebron.

I hope you see how bankrupt your narrative really is and how brainwashed you really are."



This is all bullshit, and you keep piling it up.

Here's the facts:



The Palestinian people (Arabic: الشعب الفلسطيني‎, ash-sha‘b al-Filasṭīnī), also referred to as Palestinians (Arabic: الفلسطينيون‎, al-Filasṭīniyyūn; Hebrew: פָלַסְטִינִים‎) or Palestinian Arabs (Arabic: الفلسطينيين العرب‎, al-Filasṭīniyyīn al-ʿarab), are an ethnonational group[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] comprising the modern descendants of the peoples who have lived in Palestine continuously over the centuries and who today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab;[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] including those ethnic Jews and Samaritans who fit this definition.

Despite various wars and exoduses (such as that of 1948), roughly one half of the world's Palestinian population continues to reside in historic Palestine, the area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Israel.[46] In this combined area, as of 2005, Palestinians constituted 49% of all inhabitants,[47] encompassing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.865 million),[48] the majority of the population of the West Bank (approximately 2,785,000 versus about 600,000 Jewish Israeli citizens, which includes about 200,000 in East Jerusalem) and almost 21% of the population of Israel proper as Arab citizens of Israel.[49][50] Many are Palestinian refugees or internally displaced Palestinians, including more than a million in the Gaza Strip,[51] about 750,000 in the West Bank[52] and about 250,000 in Israel proper. Of the Palestinian population who live abroad, known as the Palestinian diaspora, more than half are stateless, lacking citizenship in any country.[53] Between 2.1 and 3.24 million of the diaspora population live as refugees in neighboring Jordan,[54][55] over 1 million live between Syria and Lebanon and about 750,000 live in Saudi Arabia, with Chile's half a million representing the largest concentration outside the Middle East.

Palestinian Christians and Muslims constituted 90% of the population of Palestine in 1919, just before the third wave of Jewish immigration under the post-WW1 British Mandatory Authority,[56][57] opposition to which spurred the consolidation of a unified national identity, fragmented as it was by regional, class, religious and family differences.[58][59] The history of the Palestinian national identity is a disputed issue amongst scholars.[60][61] "Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by Palestinian Arabs from the late 19th century, albeit in a limited way until World War I.[42][43] The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and creation of Mandatory Palestine replaced Ottoman citizen with Palestinian citizenship, solidifying a national identity. After the creation of the State of Israel, the exodus of 1948 and more so after the exodus of 1967, the term evolved into a sense of a shared future in the form of aspirations for a significantly-reduced Palestinian state.[42] Palestinian identity encompasses the heritage of all ages from biblical times up to the Ottoman period.[62]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians
#15144160
Telling it like it is, and keeping us safe, Metoo wrote:...the world bought into it. Why? Propaganda, - and you are a victim of it!...

If *we* are victims of lies (propaganda), who is producing the bulk of the progaganda that is victimizing *us?*

How many commercial media platforms are owned by Palestinians?

Where do they get the money to influence our politicians so much?
#15144190
ckaihatsu,

I read your post (19th Dec.). Still thinking , what was it you were trying to say? So...you talked about who were those people who called themselves Palestinians, ok, - many were...Golda Meer had a Palestinian Passport. So, what....?

I do not think your narrative is pertinent to the subject matter in this thread. You are saying that Israel must be dissolved, LOL! So, if you want to dissolve it, what does it mater who a Palestinian person is or was?

Unless of course you are under impression that only certain people can be citizens of that new state that in you illusionary view will replace Israel. Well, - who are those people?

Anyway, you are supporting the the side that lost, - yes, lost and keeps loosing more with every year passing. The events of the past few months decisively shown that Palestinian Arab narrative, as authored by Arafat and promoted by Abbas, is dead, and with it your narrative.

Get this, -Jews have returned. The only way anyone can change this, is by direct combat. Jews have managed to build a regional superpower. Those are the facts. If you advocate for a fight, it is fine. If you advocate for a peaceful change to the ethnic make up of Israel, - it is fine too. Go...convince people! Methinks, you will not go very far.

I know it because your predecessors, - Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky, as well as far less talented Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Brezhnev, etc... only managed to to convince people while repressing them. Their message has not endured, and neither does or will yours.
#15144254
Metoo wrote:Get this, -Jews have returned. The only way anyone can change this, is by direct combat. Jews have managed to build a regional superpower. Those are the facts. If you advocate for a fight, it is fine. ...

What you are saying here is that your Invading, land-stealing gang will continue to steal land and treat others with incredible disrespect until they are stopped by a military event. By violence. Otherwise, you will never change course.

By saying this, you are acknowledging what Sheldon Addelson is rumored to have said about "Iran."That they "only understand violence." When he says this, he means that he can only convince other people with violence because it's the only language he speaks to others.

Lots of dictators have said this in the past, that they were a superior breed than the group(s) they were stealing from. That God said that they could steal everything from everyone else.

And many of these theiving dictators are removed by the people they are supposedly representing. A invasion isn't always necessary if the rot is advanced within the state itself.
#15144375
QatzelOk wrote:What you are saying here is that your Invading, land-stealing gang will continue to steal land and treat others with incredible disrespect until they are stopped by a military event. By violence. Otherwise, you will never change course.


Let us not indulge in demagoguery, ok? You are, as all demagogies, speaking out laud and mixing up many issues together, so that no answer can be given. One thing at a time, ok?

So…” invading…”. Depends on you perspective and which History you subscribe too. Do you agree? Civilised people usually solve problems like this by the process we call voting. Yes, collect the votes to see what the majority favour. Even by this process, the majority of nations on this planet favour the existence of Israel.

Next…” land stealing…” Land theft, like all thefts, presumes the proof of prior ownership. Your Palestinian Arab friends do not have one. I would say, in their defence, that the Palestinian Arabs could not possibly have such proof in the context of the Western jurisprudence. Perhaps in the context of Ottoman Empire jurisprudence, if you can possibly even define such concept, they might have had one.

With this in mind, there is no land theft, by any standard or measure. You, as a demagogue, would resort to screaming ‘bloody murder’ in order to prove your point, but the ‘murder’ has not happened no matter how laud you scream. Your Palestinian Arab friends are welcome to try their case in court, any court that claims jurisdiction in such matters. Israel would welcome the opportunity to decisively crush the court case, as Israel has by far a better legal standing in this matter. Here is the question for you to ponder, - why Palestinian Authority never tried that approach? Don’t struggle, - I’ll answer it for you, - they know they will lose, lose big and in a legal sense irreversible!

What you may have here is a possibility of a disputed land, not stolen land. Well, - back to the table as civilised people usually do, but, you see, your friends the Palestinian Arabs, are not civilised enough, as they consistently refused to negotiate the deal. I hope you will not ask for the prove here, even ‘your history’ would agree with me.

Finally, - “…until they are stopped by a military event. By violence. Otherwise, you will never change course…” In short, - yes!

On this planet, when everything else fail, nation-states resort to exactly that, - violence. Its been like this since the days of dinosaurs and it is enshrined in International Law. All Western nations, and that includes Israel, have well articulated doctrines, both political and military. Some people, perhaps even you, call those things ‘red lines’. Simply put, you cross them, you die!

So, - why are being so indignant? Perhaps a history lesson in a ‘political science class’ is in order for you, don’t you think?

QatzelOk wrote:…you are acknowledging what Sheldon Addelson is rumored to have said about "Iran."That they "only understand violence." When he says this, he means that he can only convince other people with violence because it's the only language he speaks to others.


Yes, exactly that! Actually, I am not surprised that you are making this point. All demagogues do, especially the impotent ones, those who can’t get what they want unless their opponent is first persuaded to disarm. As Lenin aptly put it, - “we will give the West the rope on which the West will hang itself.” And then he called the West “useful idiots”. Sounds familiar?

I do not know, nor do I care what Mr. Adelson said, but I agree that there are many situations where the force of violence is the only approach. When it comes to Iran, we still do not know how this confrontation will play out, but there is a possibility of a military clash. We will see…

So, to your point, you can’t have it both ways, - you can’t berate Israel for trying to survive, while criticizing the way it is trying to survive. Israel will never become a “useful idiot” no matter how many traps you set out here. On a personal note, it is clear to me that you have never been in uniform while holding a weapon in a combat zone, but I have, twice. My perspective is formed by that experience, - talk is cheap when the threat level is existential. ‘Bad people’ do not talk, they fight, and there is only one way to deal with them, as Mr. Adelson said and you quoted, and I agreed.

QatzelOk wrote:Lots of dictators have said in the past, that they were a superior breed than the group(s) they were stealing from. That God said that they could steal everything from everyone else.


Yes, I know. Indeed, dictators came …and many, but not all, went. However, you are misguided with your assertions. Israel has no dictators. It is a democratic state. Whatever, Israel does, it is done therefore, by consent of the populace. Again, your demagoguery will not serve you here, as I see it what it is worth – a fluff!

QatzelOk wrote:And many of these the living dictators are removed by the people they are supposedly representing. A invasion isn't always necessary if the rot is advanced within the state itself.


Well, in a way, I agree. I do hope that Arab dictators are removed by the people they oppress. We all will benefit from the emergence of the Western style democracy in the Middle East. Israel will benefit by finally having peace on the terms Israel can live with, and also Palestinian Arabs will finally realise that they have been lied to by their leaders and people like you for all too long.

Alternatively, make no mistake about it, - Israel will resort to an unbelievable violence if need be. And no amount of subterfuge in the form of ‘Lenin-like’ pronouncements will deter Israel from wiping out everybody who stand in Israel’s way. To put it simply, - it is very dangerous to play chicken with a superpower, you may get fried and eaten.
#15144383
Metoo wrote:
ckaihatsu,

I read your post (19th Dec.). Still thinking , what was it you were trying to say? So...you talked about who were those people who called themselves Palestinians, ok, - many were...Golda Meer had a Palestinian Passport. So, what....?

I do not think your narrative is pertinent to the subject matter in this thread. You are saying that Israel must be dissolved, LOL! So, if you want to dissolve it, what does it mater who a Palestinian person is or was?

Unless of course you are under impression that only certain people can be citizens of that new state that in you illusionary view will replace Israel. Well, - who are those people?

Anyway, you are supporting the the side that lost, - yes, lost and keeps loosing more with every year passing. The events of the past few months decisively shown that Palestinian Arab narrative, as authored by Arafat and promoted by Abbas, is dead, and with it your narrative.

Get this, -Jews have returned. The only way anyone can change this, is by direct combat. Jews have managed to build a regional superpower. Those are the facts. If you advocate for a fight, it is fine. If you advocate for a peaceful change to the ethnic make up of Israel, - it is fine too. Go...convince people! Methinks, you will not go very far.

I know it because your predecessors, - Mr. Lenin and Mr. Trotsky, as well as far less talented Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Brezhnev, etc... only managed to to convince people while repressing them. Their message has not endured, and neither does or will yours.



It's not a 'narrative' -- you're trying to imply *subjectivity* on my part, when I went to the authoritativeness of *Wikipedia*, for my source. You're still trying to pass off your conflation of Israeli settlers / land-grabbers, with the indigenous Palestinians (Arabs) themselves.

Why can't Israel be *secular*, and post-apartheid? Simple. All the geopolitical wrangling can't substitute for this, which both South Africa and the U.S. accomplished, to varying but definitive extents -- *desegregation*, basically.

And now you're conflating the Bolsheviks with the Stalinists -- learn some history if you're going to refer to it. Those were distinctly different stages in that country.
#15144392
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not a 'narrative' -- you're trying to imply *subjectivity* on my part, when I went to the authoritativeness of *Wikipedia*, for my source. You're still trying to pass off your conflation of Israeli settlers / land-grabbers, with the indigenous Palestinians (Arabs) themselves.


You went to Wikipedia! LOL! No problem. All you said that Muslim Arabs did live in Palestine in significant numbers. So? The Jews also lived there in significant numbers. So? Nobody cares about any of that. Even if it can be shown that Martians lived there for a significant time, still, it’d be totally irrelevant.

Do you really think that the right to the Land is defined by history? If that was so, then NO COUNTRY can ever exist, as those countries exist today, ANYWHERE in the world. USA would have to fold along with Canada, and all South American countries will have to disband, followed by Australia and New Zealand, etc., etc., etc...

Well, - the claim to the land maybe defined by history, but the right to the Land is defined by an ability to convince the majority in the deciding body, United Nations here and by extension the people of the planet Earth, to let a particular group to settle in the particular Land. You know what comes after, after the ‘convincing part’ that is, - comes the ability to keep and defend that Land. You know what comes after that, - hopefully a place, as a contributing member in the economy and welfare of the World. That is how it works.

If a group in question does not fulfill those requirements, then the World just might get together and force that group, that now has the Land, to change its ways. Look at South Africa and USSR as an example. Also, Iraq, Tunisia, etc. There are other countries in the pipeline, - Syria, Iran, and yes, China.

Israel, however, has qualified on all points here and so, the Jews keep the Land. Palestinian Arabs have not qualified, and so, - they have nothing, - they tried to fight and lost, they tried terrorism and lost, they tried to build an economy and the country and they also failed. They failed at everything they ever tried. Today they exist by the handout from the World and goodwill of Israeli taxpayer.

I do hope that you stop that naïve narrative about ‘land-grabbing’ or being a ‘native’ or whatever other nonsense, you might think off. The world does not care for any of that. The law (International or otherwise) does not care for any of that either. I understand that you care, but those are your emotions, and those emotions have no impact in the real world.

Finally, - Muslim Arabs are hardly indigenous to the Land in question. The Jews, with their 4000-year history in the land, and the last surviving ethnic group from before Common Era times are definitely more ‘indigenous’ then the Muslim Arabs, that ‘only’ count 1400 years in the Land.

ckaihatsu wrote:Why can't Israel be *secular*, and post-apartheid? Simple. All the geopolitical wrangling can't substitute for this, which both South Africa and the U.S. accomplished, to varying but definitive extents -- *desegregation*, basically.


Please, stop that nonsense. There is no apartheid in Israel. Non-Jewish minority are protected by law and have equal rights with Jewish majority. Also, Israel IS fundamentally secular. There are non-Jews in all spheres of public life in Israel, including high ranking Army and police officers in general rank, a Supreme Court judge and a proportionate representation in the Parliament. You are spewing pure nonsense with your comments.

ckaihatsu wrote:And now you're conflating the Bolsheviks with the Stalinists -- learn some history if you're going to refer to it. Those were distinctly different stages in that country.


Am I? Not to get too technical here, but the Bolsheviks and Stalinist, both had the same membership in the Communist Party. Their methods were a bit different, but not by much. A Red Terror of 1920s comes to mind as compared to the Stalinist purges of later years. Both movements were dictatorial in nature, as Dictatorship of Proletariat was enshrined in Lenin’s writing. What both were not, you may say, they were not Marxist. My point to you was that your views are weirdly similar to the Bundists of 1915. And you demagoguery is weirdly similar to Trotsky’s speeches.

Remember the “Useful Idiots” comment from Lenin? Well, - Israel, as a country, remembers that comment too. Your subterfuge will not work here.
#15144422
Metoo wrote:I do hope that Arab dictators are removed by the people they oppress. We all will benefit from the emergence of the Western style democracy in the Middle East. Israel will benefit by finally having peace on the terms Israel can live with, and also Palestinian Arabs will finally realise that they have been lied to by their leaders and people like you for all too long.

If you are saying that we can rely on Israel and its backers for "truth," and that Israel just wants peace under its own terms (aka "we get everything, others get nothing), and that Western Democracy is the taste that refreshes...

I guess there's no point in discussing anything since you're not serious at all. Your lies are so deep that someone in China can hear them (as they dig another metro tunnel). :lol:
#15144530
QatzelOk wrote:If you are saying that we can rely on Israel and its backers for "truth," and that Israel just wants peace under its own terms (aka "we get everything, others get nothing), and that Western Democracy is the taste that refreshes...


Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. You seem to think that you have a choice in this mater. You don’t. Your choice is limited to your opinion, to which you are absolutely entitled. However, your opinion is, at this point, very fast becoming a minority opinion. The facts on the ground are in conflict with your opinion.

Take a look at the wave of Sunni Arab nations who are lining up to cement a relationship with a Jewish State, regardless of what Israel does to the Palestinian Arabs. What does it tell you?

It should tell you that you are wrong. It should tell you that Israel has a pragmatic policy towards Palestinian problem. It should tell you that Israel is not lying to anybody, but is honestly interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and , yes, as a winner of that conflict, - a resolution on Israel’s terms.

So, - it is not just me ‘saying it’, it is also many Arab countries are ‘saying it’.

Palestinian Arabs, if they continue on the same path, will get nothing. The best they can get today is a confederation with Jordan and the part of Area A in the West Bank. If they continue to indulge in their lunacy, then they will not even get that much. Soon, when all Sunni Arab countries have embassies in Jerusalem and Iran is handled, soon after that, the Palestinian Problem will be solved forcefully and finally, resulting, as it may surprise you, in very happy end for all, Palestinians included.

We all have known how this will end for years. It became very clear, right after Oslo of 1993 and Arafat’s misguided behavior thereafter. There is no mystery here. Those in the 'know', knew. Which is why Israeli foreign policy has been directed towards normalization with Arab states since 1993.

You are 'living' in the past.

QatzelOk wrote:I guess there's no point in discussing anything since you're not serious at all. Your lies are so deep that someone in China can hear them (as they dig another metro tunnel)


...no problem!
#15144720
Metoo wrote:
You went to Wikipedia! LOL! No problem. All you said that Muslim Arabs did live in Palestine in significant numbers. So? The Jews also lived there in significant numbers. So? Nobody cares about any of that. Even if it can be shown that Martians lived there for a significant time, still, it’d be totally irrelevant.



'Nobody cares about any of that' -- ?

Yet you were just arguing the *Zionist* line vociferously, while ignoring *facts*, particularly this one:



Palestinian Christians and Muslims constituted 90% of the population of Palestine in 1919, just before the third wave of Jewish immigration under the post-WW1 British Mandatory Authority,[56][57]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians



Metoo wrote:
Do you really think that the right to the Land is defined by history? If that was so, then NO COUNTRY can ever exist, as those countries exist today, ANYWHERE in the world. USA would have to fold along with Canada, and all South American countries will have to disband, followed by Australia and New Zealand, etc., etc., etc...

Well, - the claim to the land maybe defined by history, but the right to the Land is defined by an ability to convince the majority in the deciding body, United Nations here and by extension the people of the planet Earth, to let a particular group to settle in the particular Land. You know what comes after, after the ‘convincing part’ that is, - comes the ability to keep and defend that Land. You know what comes after that, - hopefully a place, as a contributing member in the economy and welfare of the World. That is how it works.



So you're merely describing the post-feudalism / post-slavery bourgeois ruling class status-quo.

Why are you so complacent and *uncritical* of this class-riven status quo? (Income inequality, wealth gap, private means of mass industrial production, etc.)


Metoo wrote:
If a group in question does not fulfill those requirements, then the World just might get together and force that group, that now has the Land, to change its ways. Look at South Africa and USSR as an example. Also, Iraq, Tunisia, etc. There are other countries in the pipeline, - Syria, Iran, and yes, China.



So you're a *populist*, then -- do you think that land-reform-type reformism is *sufficient* in this day and age, in our post-feudal / post-slavery / *industrial production* age -- ?

Are you really so content to only focus on civil society / civil rights, while ignoring how socially-necessary *production* gets done?


Metoo wrote:
Israel, however, has qualified on all points here and so, the Jews keep the Land. Palestinian Arabs have not qualified, and so, - they have nothing, - they tried to fight and lost, they tried terrorism and lost, they tried to build an economy and the country and they also failed. They failed at everything they ever tried. Today they exist by the handout from the World and goodwill of Israeli taxpayer.



'Qualified' -- you're back to your original 'might-makes-right' line of thinking.


Metoo wrote:
I do hope that you stop that naïve narrative about ‘land-grabbing’ or being a ‘native’ or whatever other nonsense, you might think off. The world does not care for any of that. The law (International or otherwise) does not care for any of that either. I understand that you care, but those are your emotions, and those emotions have no impact in the real world.



It's not merely "emotions" -- I haven't *been* emotional here. I've been recounting the details of the land-grab that Britain did, through the Balfour Declaration, as part of its nationalist imperialism.


Metoo wrote:
Finally, - Muslim Arabs are hardly indigenous to the Land in question. The Jews, with their 4000-year history in the land, and the last surviving ethnic group from before Common Era times are definitely more ‘indigenous’ then the Muslim Arabs, that ‘only’ count 1400 years in the Land.



Is this the basis for your Zionist beliefs, then?


Metoo wrote:
Please, stop that nonsense. There is no apartheid in Israel. Non-Jewish minority are protected by law and have equal rights with Jewish majority. Also, Israel IS fundamentally secular. There are non-Jews in all spheres of public life in Israel, including high ranking Army and police officers in general rank, a Supreme Court judge and a proportionate representation in the Parliament. You are spewing pure nonsense with your comments.



Would you like to speak to Israel's history of political detentions and torture, then?


Metoo wrote:
Am I? Not to get too technical here, but the Bolsheviks and Stalinist, both had the same membership in the Communist Party. Their methods were a bit different, but not by much. A Red Terror of 1920s comes to mind as compared to the Stalinist purges of later years. Both movements were dictatorial in nature, as Dictatorship of Proletariat was enshrined in Lenin’s writing. What both were not, you may say, they were not Marxist. My point to you was that your views are weirdly similar to the Bundists of 1915. And you demagoguery is weirdly similar to Trotsky’s speeches.

Remember the “Useful Idiots” comment from Lenin? Well, - Israel, as a country, remembers that comment too. Your subterfuge will not work here.



Oh, okay, so are you an official of Israel, then?

Again, you're just smearing periods of history together without addressing the *politics* of each period -- you want to present a single impressionistic 'narrative' / interpretation of two distinctly different historical periods. *Here's* the distinction between the Bolshevik Revolution, and Stalin's Stalinism that followed:



The Left Opposition was a faction within the Russian Communist Party (b) from 1923 to 1927[1] headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924. Originally, the battle lines were drawn between Trotsky and his supporters who signed The Declaration of 46 in October 1923 on the one hand and a triumvirate (also known by its Russian name troika) of Comintern chairman Grigory Zinoviev, Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin and Politburo chairman Lev Kamenev on the other hand.

The Left Opposition argued that the New Economic Policy had weakened the Soviet Union by allowing the private sector to achieve an increasingly important position in the Soviet economy while in their opinion, the centrally planned, socialised sector of the economy languished (including the mostly state-run heavy industries which were seen as essential not only for continued industrialisation but also defense). The platform called for the state to adopt a programme for mass industrialisation and to encourage the mechanization and collectivisation of agriculture, thereby developing the means of production and helping the Soviet Union move towards parity with Western capitalist countries, which would also increase the proportion of the economy which was part of the socialised sector of the economy and definitively shift the Soviet Union towards a socialist mode of production.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Opposition
#15145270
ckaihatsu wrote:What this tells me is that Arab nationalist geopolitics are opportunist.

It also demonstrates how Israel is forced to make alliances with kings and dictators against the wills of the people who live in these countries.

Israel is thus showing the world how much it detests the opinions and agency of ordinary people.

"Only primadonnas need apply."
#15145413
QatzelOk wrote:
It also demonstrates how Israel is forced to make alliances with kings and dictators against the wills of the people who live in these countries.

Israel is thus showing the world how much it detests the opinions and agency of ordinary people.

"Only primadonnas need apply."



I wouldn't agree that Israel is 'forced', exactly -- obviously it has the power of discretion as to its geopolitical ties, and the result is its regional hegemony in the Middle East.

But, yes, it's preferring to be socially 'in-crowd' and elitist, rather than populist and popular.

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]