Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[F1jocker12]

You are repeating what Israel is implying ... This is the front cover of the Report

Here is the report.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are repeating what Israel is implying ... This is the front cover of the Report

Here is the report.

Nope, no implications are needed, only facts:

US Departement of State lists Iran as a State Sponsor of Terror

US Departement of State lists Hezbollah and Hamas as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Plus this of course:

Still, we should note that the 2015 report hardly lets Iran off the hook. The report accuses Iran of:

• "Preserving (the) nuclear weapons option,"

• Remaining "an ongoing threat to US national interests because of its support to the Asad regime in Syria, promulgation of anti-Israeli policies, development of advanced military capabilities, and pursuit of its nuclear program,"

• "Pursuing policies with negative secondary consequences for regional stability and potentially for Iran,"

• And pursuing actions to protect and empower Shia communities that "are fueling growing fears and sectarian responses."

Administration officials cautioned against over-reading the choices made in Clapper’s written report.

"There is no change in the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment of the threat posed by Iran or Hezbollah," said Brian P. Hale, the director of public affairs in the office of the director of national intelligence. The report, Hale said, "was written to be an overview of top threats. … There were a lot of topics to consider this year -- ISIL, cyber, Ukraine-Russia, etc. Iran was included, too."

Hale added that Clapper fleshed out the national-security concerns about Iran and Hezbollah during testimony at the Senate hearing. Responding to a question from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Clapper cited several entities linked to Iran, including Hezbollah, as methods for Iran to use as "a physical manifestation of their spreading their influence in the region."

Source Hale is widely quoted in various publications including all major American newspapers.

Do try to keep an open mind. Things are not always as black and white as you think they are. This may be difficult to understand but the world operates on many levels. Understanding all the various levels, subtleties and nuances is a part of the process of understanding and educating yourself beyond the little box you live in where every piece of information that confirms your opinion is lit up with a halogen lamp, and every piece of information that disagrees with your view is packed away in a dark little box. Keep at it, and eventually you too will be able to leave that box and see the world in a different light.

 

[Tornado]

You are correct, and UN stood strong against abuses of any sort.

Which doesn't mean anything if the member countries, the important ones, not only fail to defend those Resolutions but actively undermine them. That's the fundamental flaw with your continued insistence that UN decisions are unquestionable. Let's go all the way back to the original post:

UN decisions are facts, not fiction, recognized by the entire world.

You specifically stated that UN decisions are facts that everyone recognizes as facts, hence not being arguable so not needing defense. How many countries who passed the Resolutions condemning the Iran-Iraq war recognized the authority of the UN in its wishes to prevent escalation of the Iran-Iraq war?

The answer was none of them. So why was what the UN said about there being an international wish to end the conflict a fact?




How many countries who passed the UN Resolutions regarding the strict terms of the Gulf War ceasefire that Iraq had to follow were interested in recognizing UN authority and enforcing them?

The answer is none of them, and when the excuse was raised the the 2003 invasion was for that purpose it was rejected out of hand; so why was what the UN said about there being an international wish to prevent Iraqi violations of the ceasefire a fact?


How many countries who passed 1441 were interested in recognizing the UN's specific avoidance of justifying an invasion for failure to comply with 1441?

The answer is basically just France and Russia; so why was what the UN said about there being an international wish to prevent Iraqi buildup of WMDs without resorting to invasion a fact?






None of those UN "facts" actually coincided with the reality of what was happening in the region despite being "recognized by the entire world"; because the UN is capable of coming to international consensus of reality up to the exact point the UN's version of reality interferes with the wishes of one of the countries on the Security Council. So why exactly does the theoretical UN consensus about who that land really belongs to become unquestionable objective reality in this one instance when it wasn't in those three? Is it simply because that way you don't have to face the reality that before Israel had it, Palestine still didn't have it (Jordan did)?





And an actual answer would be nice this time. If you're just going to fob it off as irrelevant after the basis of the comparison was spelled out to you so thoroughly, you might as well save your breath.

 

[Famine]

US Department of State lists Hezbollah and Hamas as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

They're not the only ones. Egypt lists Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

That's Egypt, to whom the Gaza Strip nominally belongs following their incursion in 1948 and after it was ceded back to them (along with the Sinai peninsula) in 1982 following its recapture in 1967. And Hamas which claims political control of the Gaza Strip.

 

[F1jocker12]

US Departement of State lists Iran as a State Sponsor of Terror

By clicking on "Country Reports on Terrorism" on the bottom of the page you will get here

where you will notice how the last submitted report was back in 2013... Again, you are looking at the wrong info... Do not try to be quick, to shut me down... take your time, and make sure the info is correctly updated. The fact that Iran was removed from that list is an addition to the reality that Iran, as a nation, was/is not an aggressive attacking entity.

Things are not always as black and white

Is good you start understanding that... Let me help you more... It is only grey.. No white, no black.. First step forward... Loose the sarcasm and you will be back on the right path...

Source Hale is widely quoted in various publications including all major American newspapers.

That is a bad source. If you will start listening to Glenn Beck I will give you Alex Jones. Let's stay serious here!

@Tornado
I'll explain how it works in a future comment.

 

[Johnnypenso]

By clicking on "Country Reports on Terrorism" on the bottom of the page you will get here

where you will notice how the last submitted report was back in 2013... Again, you are looking at the wrong info... Do not try to be quick, to shut me down... take your time, and make sure the info is correctly updated. The fact that Iran was removed from that list is an addition to the reality that Iran, as a nation, was/is not an aggressive attacking entity.



Is good you start understanding that... Let me help you more... It is only grey.. No white, no black.. First step forward... Loose the sarcasm and you will be back on the right path...



That is a bad source. If you will start listening to Glenn Beck I will give you Alex Jones. Let's stay serious here!

@Tornado
I'll explain how it works in a future comment.

Nope. The front page for both links is the current State Department stance.

And as I said, which you quoted and then ignored, those comments are widely quoted in all major American media. If you have some proof he was misquoted, please provide it. Otherwise, it directly disputes your argument. Remember, open mind.

 

[squadops]

This resolutions were adopted to create an embargo as a sanction... I don't see how Iran is an aggressive nation. If I am wrong, can you please explain? And do you know what was the reason for the embargo? Let me help...

...Again this is not proof to demonstrate how aggressive Iran is... You can not find any proof because there is none. I'll give you their entire history and there's nothing.

You're a funny guy with your silly condescending attitude towards me. I really don't need your help concerning the reasons(plural) for sanctions against Iran. It's because they are aggressive. Sure pressure is applied in hopes to insure no nuclear proliferation, but, I'll show you something else. I'm sticking to my guns here because it relates to the thread title, no Israel doesn't attack Gaza specifically because of Iran, however Iran is involved with enemies of Israel and is an enemy itself.

Sanctions have constricted Iran’s ability to procure equipment for its nuclear and missile programs and to import advanced conventional weaponry. However, the sanctions have not halted Iran’s provision of arms to the Assad government in Syria, the Iraqi government and related Shiite militias, Houthi rebels in Yemen, or other pro-Iranian factions in the Middle East such as Lebanese Hezbollah. Sanctions have not altered Iran’s repression of domestic dissent.

The objectives of U.S. sanctions have evolved over time. In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. sanctions were intended to try to compel Iran to cease supporting acts of terrorism and to limit Iran’s strategic power in the Middle East more generally. Since the mid-2000s, U.S. sanctions have focused intently on compelling Iran to limit the scope of its nuclear program to ensure purely civilian use. Particularly since 2010, the international community has joined U.S. sanctions in pursuit of that goal. However, most sanctions against Iran have multiple objectives and address different perceived threats from Iran at the same time.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf

You can dismiss this for whatever reason I'm sure you will come up with but to me, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, well, it's most likely a duck.

I'm so glad you are willing to give me their entire history, will you post it in weekly installments or something? How about what we call The Iran Hostage Crisis and they call The Conquest of the American Spy Den? That wasn't aggressive or anything, but here again is some more information about Iran relating to Israel.

WASHINGTON — A string of aggressive gestures by Iran this week — assassination attempts on Israelis living abroad that were attributed to Tehran, renewed posturing over its nuclear program and fresh threats of economic retaliation — suggest that Iranian leaders are responding frantically, and with increasing unpredictability, to the tightening of sanctions by the West.

As investigators unearthed new evidence implicating Iran in the attacks this week in Thailand, India and Georgia, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran announced Wednesday what he said was his country’s latest nuclear advance, and Iran’s Oil Ministry threatened to pre-empt a European oil embargo by cutting off sales to six countries there.

“These are all facets of the same message,” said Muhammad Sahimi, an analyst and professor at the University of Southern California. “Iran is saying, ‘If you hit us, we will hit back, and we are not going to sacrifice our nuclear program.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/w...actions-hint-at-pressure-on-iran-leaders.html

Given how quickly I found this information and how most every webpage I look at leads me down multiple paths via links to government agencies and such, I'm sure there is more, much more.

Lol, I'm selective? Will you know post links to US state department stenographers now?
I guess supporting wahabism when it doesn't really effect us here in the free world...

...I asked for real proof. Not what the US state department feels Iran might do. No bias here haha... Lets all be free like saudi arabia

What in the world are you talking about? stenographers, wahabism, Saudi Arabia is liberated? Huh? Oh well, maybe what I posted above will give you an idea why I say Iran is aggressive.

I feel like both of you are under the impression that I am personally supporting Israel which I am not, there is plenty of blame to go all around(including the west). I'm simply interested in the topic, the history, the future, and possible solutions as well as what has/is failing.

 

[F1jocker12]

UN Isreal-Palestinians Resolution coming.... Israel risking isolation.

Pushed by the French, discussions will begin this week on the possible wording of such a resolution, which could include a timetable for negotiations, and also the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The Israelis would ordinarily expect the Americans to quash such a move. Now US opposition is by no means guaranteed.

Alert to a potential shift in policy, the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said last week when he announced the resolution: "I hope that the partners who were reluctant will not be reluctant anymore."
"Would the US abstain from a resolution that Israel opposes? That's the question here," says Robert Danin, a former White House official and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"It's a distinct possibility."

Such a resolution could be a "legacy item" for the Obama administration, he says, but ultimately "it all depends on the quality of the resolution".

The wording is key.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32117501

UN Security Council resolutions on Israel have long been carefully moderated to try to coax the US into accepting a call for a peace deal they’ve claimed to support at any rate. Historically, that’s not mattered, as the vetoes come as a matter of course. Now those resolutions may be seen as practice for a serious round of serious resolutions.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/01/israel-risks-un-isolation-as-us-tensions-worsen/



Meet the ICC prosecutor who will investigate Israel - Fatou Bensouda

A double edged sword? The Palestinian Authority-initiated bid may create legal complications for Hamas. The Islamist movement’s firing of upgraded fireworks in 2014 did not distinguish between civilian and legitimate military targets and may therefore constitute war crimes. Nevertheless, Hamas, which joined into a unity government with the PA last year, risks little. For one thing, the proportionality of violent aggression comes overwhelmingly from Israel, with the Israeli army killing 1,500 Palestinian civilians and Hamas killing only 6 civilians during Operation Protective Edge. For another, Palestinians who attack Israelis are already vulnerable to Israeli retaliations such as long term imprisonment, military strikes, and assassinations (which are illegal), while Israelis who order attacks on Palestinian civilians are not even vulnerable to litigation. An ICC investigation would give Palestinians much more legal recourse against Israel than vice versa. Israel knows it stands to lose from an ICC investigation, which is why it fought the bid tooth and nail

@Johnnypenso

Nope. The front page for both links is the current State Department stance.

And as I said, which you quoted and then ignored, those comments are widely quoted in all major American media. If you have some proof he was misquoted, please provide it. Otherwise, it directly disputes your argument. Remember, open mind.

I'll give this from the State Department website - updated
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm

 

[Sanji Himura]

You specifically stated that UN decisions are facts that everyone recognizes as facts, hence not being arguable so not needing defense. How many countries who passed the Resolutions condemning the Iran-Iraq war recognized the authority of the UN in its wishes to prevent escalation of the Iran-Iraq war?

Also to add in that any UN declarations are just that. Not actual treaties with the force of law. That is half the reason why both Gaza and Israel ignore them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'll give this from the State Department website - updated
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm

And I'll give you the same links which lead to the same unchanged pages which leads to the same information you earlier said was Jewish propoganda or some other nonsense. Iran is still listed as a State Sponsor of Terror and Hezbollah and Hamas are still listed as terrorist organizations by the Department of State, even in the wake of the unratified negotiations completed today.

US Departement of State

US Departement of State

 

[F1jocker12]

You're a funny guy with your silly condescending attitude towards me. I really don't need your help concerning the reasons(plural) for sanctions against Iran. It's because they are aggressive. Sure pressure is applied in hopes to insure no nuclear proliferation, but, I'll show you something else. I'm sticking to my guns here because it relates to the thread title, no Israel doesn't attack Gaza specifically because of Iran, however Iran is involved with enemies of Israel and is an enemy itself.



https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf

You can dismiss this for whatever reason I'm sure you will come up with but to me, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, well, it's most likely a duck.

I'm so glad you are willing to give me their entire history, will you post it in weekly installments or something? How about what we call The Iran Hostage Crisis and they call The Conquest of the American Spy Den? That wasn't aggressive or anything, but here again is some more information about Iran relating to Israel.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/w...actions-hint-at-pressure-on-iran-leaders.html

Given how quickly I found this information and how most every webpage I look at leads me down multiple paths via links to government agencies and such, I'm sure there is more, much more.



What in the world are you talking about? stenographers, wahabism, Saudi Arabia is liberated? Huh? Oh well, maybe what I posted above will give you an idea why I say Iran is aggressive.

I feel like both of you are under the impression that I am personally supporting Israel which I am not, there is plenty of blame to go all around(including the west). I'm simply interested in the topic, the history, the future, and possible solutions as well as what has/is failing.

What you are showing us here is Iran's subversion, not Iran's aggression..
Edit

The benign explanation of the Iranian leaders is that they are simply arguing for a multiethnic state for encompassing the all historic Israel to include the West Bank (which is Hamas position as well, by the way). It is not that the Israelis should go away or be exterminated, is that the state of Israel should go away and then a multiethnic state encompassing both Palestinians and Israelis should continue to exist.

Interestingly enough, there are extremists, but viable parties, in Israel who also think that the Isreali state should encompass all the West Bank. The difference is that they think it should be a jewish state, while the Iraninas argue that it should be a multiethnic state.

By the way, if Iran would have ever wanted to kill Jews they would have done it by now, because the larger number of Jews living in the Middle East, other than in Israel, is in Iran.

if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, well, it's most likely a duck.

My friend... They talked the talk, but they never... never walked the walk.
They also make a clear distinction between Judaism (the religion) and Zionism (the concept of Jewish expansion).

They have never done anything (like attacking a different nation or territory) and they will never do anything that will endanger their existence.

@Johnnypenso

Now you are telling me to keep an open mind?

You, the one I shown how Palestinian youth is purposely targeted by the IDF to, and had a sarcastic answer about those children being too resistant, without doing any further research?

You, the one that rejects watching a Jewish documentary about how the legislation is created and implemented in the Occupied territories by the IDF, after one of the other commentators sensed the anomaly of the reality and asked for a viable source to confirm it and explain it?

You, the one that is insulting our intelligence by insisting the not updated 2013 data on States Department's website is more relevant than a 2015 NSA report, only because.... the top stance of the page says "US Department of State"?

You, the one that is posting silly photo shopped pictures and emoticons over GTP website?


Let me show you how "open mind" works....

I'll invite you, and everybody else interested, to watch a super interesting debate about the possibility of the Palestine being admitted in the UN as full member. Believe me, you will learn from this one...
The two teams were

For admission -
Mustafa Bargouty - Palestinian former presidential candidate of the Palestinian Authority, Nobel Peace prize nominee
Daniel Levy - Israeli citizen, former Israeli negotiator in the peace negotiations (I trust Israeli society because it allowed an individual like him to be part of a peace negotiation)

Against admission -
Dore Gold - former Israeli representative at the UN, former Bibi Netanyahu's adviser,
Aaron David Miller - former US MidEast negotiator,

What do you think Johnny?

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso

Now you are telling me to keep an open mind?

You, the one I shown how Palestinian youth is purposely targeted by the IDF to, and had a sarcastic answer about those children being too resistant, without doing any further research?

The sarcasm was explained to you and you never did answer the question of how 30 children could have their little bodies hit with one or more bullets from Jewish military weapons, and none killed. Answer the question in your own words and we'll have something to discuss.

You, the one that rejects watching a Jewish documentary about how the legislation is created and implemented in the Occupied territories by the IDF, after one of the other commentators sensed the anomaly of the reality and asked for a viable source to confirm it and explain it?

I'm not going to watch hours of propoganda that I already know only supports your side of the story when you've proven over and over again that anything that contradicts your incredibly narrow view of the situation is either ignored, or dismissed as Jewish propoganda. Again, if you have a case to make, make it in your own words, and show the rest of us that you are willing to have a discussion, with some give and take and acknowledgment of the point/counterpoint made on both sides of the discussion.

You, the one that is insulting our intelligence by insisting the not updated 2013 data on States Department's website is more relevant than a 2015 NSA report, only because.... the top stance of the page says "US Department of State"?

Asked and answered already. The State Department front page is fully up to date with their current position.

You, the one that is posting silly photo shopped pictures and emoticons over GTP website?

Yup, that's me. I am a multi-dimensional human being, capable of humour, action and thought...all in the same day.

Let me show you how "open mind" works....

I'll invite you, and everybody else interested, to watch a super interesting debate about the possibility of the Palestine being admitted in the UN as full member. Believe me, you will learn from this one...
The two teams were

For admission -
Mustafa Bargouty - Palestinian former presidential candidate of the Palestinian Authority, Nobel Peace prize nominee
Daniel Levy - Israeli citizen, former Israeli negotiator in the peace negotiations (I trust Israeli society because it allowed an individual like him to be part of a peace negotiation)

Against admission -
Dore Gold - former Israeli representative at the UN, former Bibi Netanyahu's adviser,
Aaron David Miller - former US MidEast negotiator,

What do you think Johnny?

You mean beyond the hilarity of you thinking you know anything about an open mind? I think it's lazy and presumptuous to continue to throw up links and videos to prove your cause. If you have something to say, say it in your own words and use the links or videos to back it up. You've proven over and over you're not capable of digesting any information that contradicts your narrative so engaging in a discussion with you is rather fruitless when all you do is respond with denial, avoidance and a barrage of links.

Make your own case, acknowledge all sides of the discussion, and then we'll have something to talk about.

 

[squadops]

You mean beyond the hilarity of you thinking you know anything about an open mind? I think it's lazy and presumptuous to continue to throw up links and videos to prove your cause. If you have something to say, say it in your own words and use the links or videos to back it up. You've proven over and over you're not capable of digesting any information that contradicts your narrative so engaging in a discussion with you is rather fruitless when all you do is respond with denial, avoidance and a barrage of links.

Make your own case, acknowledge all sides of the discussion, and then we'll have something to talk about.

Not surprising even when he appears to have his own words he actually doesn't, well unless he is James Dobbins lol. His last response to me is nothing more then a transcript from a debate recorded likely in 2012. Israel can live with a nuclear Iran, yes or no.

Here is the link and the time in question is around the 26 1/2 minute mark. Unbelievable(or is it)
http://app.voicebase.com/voice_file/public_detail/237863

I'll email my response to Mr. Dobbins.
Who is he? http://www.rand.org/about/people/d/dobbins_james.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just have to say a certain user here is really good at semantics. And that's not a compliment.

 

[F1jocker12]

Nope. The front page for both links is the current State Department stance.

And as I said, which you quoted and then ignored, those comments are widely quoted in all major American media. If you have some proof he was misquoted, please provide it. Otherwise, it directly disputes your argument. Remember, open mind.

No matter how you put it or how many times, you failed to show how Iran is aggressive.
Let me explain again.
Even if a nation is considered a threat, that doesn't automatically means is an aggressive country.
Now Mr. Hale states that his boss

Clapper fleshed out the national-security concerns about Iran and Hezbollah during testimony at the Senate hearing.

Well, The report was not put together only for the Senate. The report remains for ever.

If I am selling guns, Johnny, and you are asking me to sell you one, because you have some nasty neighbours you want to draw some lines with or against, and I sell that gun to you, guess what... You are the potential aggressor, not me. I am trying to make a buck, and eventually I can be considered an indirect threat to your neighbourhood stability, but I can never be accused of being an attacking aggressor. I may not even care what you use that gun for (like a real jew merchant will say). I have what you need. That is all. Same with Iran in that area....

@Tornado

First of all, I need to remind everybody how Justice is not about the truth, but about what can be proven in court.

Now your dilemma is about why certain governments were repeatedly ignoring UN Resolutions (if UN is considered the international authority) without consequences, correct? And to address that question, you used the 1441 example, correct?

In order to understand that, you must recognise how the system works, at the international and national level. There is the Supreme Court that makes a decision based on the law, and the authority to implement it.

At the national level, I can give you examples when the Supreme Court of Israel made decisions regarding the settlements or/and the settlers, and the Israeli Government refused to implement them.

Sawsan Zaher, a lawyer with Adalah, a legal centre that launched the contempt petition, said: "This case has become a symbol of how the government refuses to implement decisions it does not like, especially ones relating to constitutional protection and minority rights." However, she said that punishing the state for its actions would not be easy. "After all, the court is not going to jail the government. The best we can hope for is a fine."

It is not an easy one, but still, even if ignored or not enforced, the Supreme Court decision based on the existing law is right, and the Supreme Court remains the highest legal authority.

At the International level, I admit, is sad to see how US bullied certain Resolutions. They also, as Security Council permanent members, vetoed 41 Resolutions and every time, the israeli prime ministers admired them and declared how Israel will follow the US path for achieving peace in the region.

The reality is that is hard to come after US's coalition for invading Iraq. Not even Russia or China will do that, because they will look at the consequences and admit how damage control is better, because they are not dealing with white and black, but everybody is dealing only with different shades of grey (no comparison intended). The same reality shows how US can persuade its partners into following to pursue its goals.

One of the commentators mentioned how the Resolutions are not treaties... and that is half of the reason Gaza and Israel doesn't follow them. Palestinians always complied with United Nations decisions. Israel got most of the Resolutions vetoed by US, as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Regarding 1441, at that time the world was divided over a justified (or not) invasion.

In a fiery speech to the German parliament, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said UN inspections in Iraq must continue and that Security Council Resolution 1441 on disarmament was not a trigger for war.

from http://articles.economictimes.india.../27526407_1_material-breach-baghdad-war-plans

Even if some of the UN Security Council's or General Assembly's Resolutions ignited some opinionated debates, they remained final.

@squadops
You are correct... somehow, thru some editing steps, I lost the quotations... my bad... Thank you for your input! Fixed it! Good catch! Hahahaha, yup, those were not my words indeed!
Have the courage and watch the whole thing... It is a debate with 2 sides...

 

[Imari]

First of all, I need to remind everybody how Justice is not about the truth, but about what can be proven in court.

How can you use Justice with a capital J in that sentence? Especially when there's another word that works far better.

Legality.

You're talking about what is legal, not what is just.

 

[F1jocker12]

How can you use Justice with a capital J in that sentence? Especially when there's another word that works far better.

Legality.

You're talking about what is legal, not what is just.

I am telling you how Justice works. Truth is relative to which side you are looking at certain events from. That's why proof always prevails. Sometimes it can be very frustrating, but this is how it works.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just have to say a certain user here is really good at semantics. And that's not a compliment.

And that like just proved it went over their head...continue the good fight fellas

 

[F1jocker12]

Learn how New York Times mislead its readers during the last Gaza conflict in 2014. With the numbers.

Not fit to print: When good design goes bad

 

[squadops]

How can you take an article seriously that uses TL;DR?

Besides, we're educated adults here, we know about media bias and trickery.

 

[F1jocker12]

Whoever wants to understand more about the creation of Israel and Gaza conflict, can watch israeli author Miko Peled (son of Israeli Major General Mattitiahu Peled) tring to explain it in very few words.
You will find out how Israel was created on the basis of segregation, and - from the IDF archives, a little about the 1967 war circumstances.
Miko Peled also explains how his entire family got afected by his niece death, after a suicide bomber attack (min.20).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Whoever wants to understand more about the creation of Israel and Gaza conflict, can watch israeli author Miko Peled (son of Israeli Major General Mattitiahu Peled) tring to explain it in very few words.
You will find out how Israel was created on the basis of segregation, and - from the IDF archives, a little about the 1967 war circumstances.
Miko Peled also explains how his entire family got afected by his niece death, after a suicide bomber attack (min.20).

Here are the tags the author of the video used

Israel Wolf Judaism war Israel Wolf Judaism war murder evil Zionism Bad People Hate apartheid murder evil Zionism Bad People Israel Wolf Judaism war murder evil Zionism Bad People Hate apartheid Hate apartheid Israel Wolf Judaism war murder evil Zionism Bad People Hate apartheid U.S WWIII

I'm sure he's completely unbiased though

And here's a little something for you:

 

[squadops]

I'm sure he grew up with the better to best the country has to offer, if he was interested in change why wouldn't he do something from within?

 

[F1jocker12]

Here are the tags the author of the video used

I'm sure he's completely unbiased though

And here's a little something for you:

You have a distructive approach because you are so scared you don't even want too see it, listen and use your logic. Perfect person to absorb Israeli propaganda.
Like @squadops mentioned above

Besides, we're educated adults here, we know about media bias and trickery

In addition, do you remember who owned the vast majority of those newspapers from UK and US provided as sources in the video? Take a guess...

Take a look at the complete version... Is because individuals like Miko Peled Israel has chances to peacefully exist in the Middle East.



@squadops

whatch the video and learn how, after she lost her daughter to a suicide bombers attack, authors sister, former Bibi Netanyahu's school mate, blamed Israeli's governememt policies for the loss..
Most of the jews are not affraid to recognise and speak the truth... but sometimes, for so many victims, is way too late.
Do something from within? He needed to get out to learn from the Palestinian minority in the US about the realities. He explains how it took several years to understand the Palestinian point of view.

You might need to read his blog if you want an answer to your question.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to how Israel is going to absorb the 5 million "refugees" and what will happen if Jewish people become a minority in Israel. Do you really think, that based on the actions of pretty much every country around them, that they will be allowed to live there peacefully? That the situation won't reverse itself?

 

[Dennisch]

As soon as the borders are opened and the ghetto wall is torn down, we'll see videos and pictures of blown up busses again.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You have a distructive approach because you are so scared you don't even want too see it, listen and use your logic. Perfect person to absorb Israeli propaganda

So which of the points raised in the video link I posted, specifically do you disagree with and why? Let's discuss them 1 by 1.

 

[F1jocker12]

@Johnnypenso
I see how you want to disect everything in order to confuse yourself. Step back for a second and listen to what I am telling you.
That is exactly what Zionist propaganda indirectly pushes you to do. By disecting (trying to diferentiate between lies and thuth) you will be like a fish in a net or like being stuck in the middle of a swamp. The more you move, the more you will go down. By not having access to the archives or to the original documents, you will stay in a permanent controverse or personal conflict.

I will give you the 1st frame of that video... the one that you can see without even playing it. It says "is lying for Palestine".

Now, Johnny, the next logical question is "Why do you think this guy is lying?" He served in IDF, he is the son of a well respected Israeli Major General, he grew up inside the jewish culture, he is a jew, his whole family is jewish and on top of that, he lost a niece in a terror attack. What are his reasons to lie for the Palestinians? cause I can tell you the reasons to lie for Israel...

Just think about it Johnny.. and please do not jump on conclusions and sayis hate. What hate? Does he sounds like he hates Israel? Don't you feel like something is not right, here? like something is missing?

And he is not the only jew to have that position, about who the other side will say they are "self hatred jews"... Really? Again - Why?

What is the reason for those jews to hate Israel? Do you think they want to see Israel destroyed? Do you think that, if that tragedy will take place, all of them will suddenly celebrate?

(and to give you an insight into the '40 reporting style in the American media, specifically in the Miami Herald, check John S. Knight who bought the newspaper in 1937. Turns out that

His major journalistic concern was editorial integrity and the preservation of a free press in the United States and abroad. As the 1944 President of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, he sent representatives on a worldwide tour, interviewing editors and governmental officials in the interest of journalistic freedom. Observations and final reports disclosed that in practically all cases the press was used as an instrument of government propaganda and social control. Knight believed that a free and honest press would help to reduce the chances for future wars.

from http://ead.ohiolink.edu/xtf-ead/view?docId=ead/OhAkUAS0008.xml;chunk.id=bioghist_1;brand=default)

But like I said, this is not about disecting, is about understanding the entire picture. At some point in my life Johnny, I've told my kids that the more they will fight, for anything, the more they will lose, because they were driven by young inflamatory instincts. First, you as a person, need to try to fully understand the damage of any conflict. As you can see here, after all your efforts to sarcastically dismmiss, I am not mad, not even upset. But you are still anxious and slightly belligerant. It is not your fault, but you have the capacity to step back and ask yourself

What if the Palestinians are right?

As a jew, what are the reasons to lie about Palestine against Israels interests?

Why?

Do you want the Palestinians to be exterminated?

 

[squadops]

whatch the video and learn how, after she lost her daughter to a suicide bombers attack, authors sister, former Bibi Netanyahu's school mate, blamed Israeli's governememt policies for the loss..
Most of the jews are not affraid to recognise and speak the truth... but sometimes, for so many victims, is way too late.
Do something from within? He needed to get out to learn from the Palestinian minority in the US about the realities. He explains how it took several years to understand the Palestinian point of view.

A former schoolmate of Netanyahu, as her brother he must have been with the 'in' crowd. My question is why someone with all the avenues afforded him, decides the way to make a lasting positive change in his countrie's government is to go rogue and write a nana nana tell all book? Why didn't A career in politics or the military appeal to him. I think it is clear the path he chose will do nothing one way or the other for Israelis or Palestinians, it gives him a bit of fame and money but turning your nose up and rubbing shoulders with the vogue is a joke imo. It would be one thing if he was not raised in the position he was, but then again, without that he would not have been privi to whatever so called truth he proclaims.

Losing a niece to a suicide bomber would be hard to swallow, knowing your friends and family are associated with political powers in the middle of the conflict would not sit easy, wanting to do something about it makes perfect sense.

Recognizing and speaking the truth is not enough, action that produces change is what the doctor ordered. Because it's too late for many is not a reason or excuse to give up before you even try.

I'm sure it did take him several years to understand the Palestinian point of view, how that equates to 'getting out' I don't understand. He comes off as a little prat. All that self-righteous nonsense flowing deep with this one.

These are the reasons I cannot take him, his book, his blog, or any yt vid of his seriously for one second. The fact I spent the time to write this is embarrassing

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso
I see how you want to disect everything in order to confuse yourself. Step back for a second and listen to what I am telling you.
That is exactly what Zionist propaganda indirectly pushes you to do. By disecting (trying to diferentiate between lies and thuth) you will be like a fish in a net or like being stuck in the middle of a swamp. The more you move, the more you will go down. By not having access to the archives or to the original documents, you will stay in a permanent controverse or personal conflict.

I will give you the 1st frame of that video... the one that you can see without even playing it. It says "is lying for Palestine".

Now, Johnny, the next logical question is "Why do you think this guy is lying?" He served in IDF, he is the son of a well respected Israeli Major General, he grew up inside the jewish culture, he is a jew, his whole family is jewish and on top of that, he lost a niece in a terror attack. What are his reasons to lie for the Palestinians? cause I can tell you the reasons to lie for Israel...

Just think about it Johnny.. and please do not jump on conclusions and sayis hate. What hate? Does he sounds like he hates Israel? Don't you feel like something is not right, here? like something is missing?

And he is not the only jew to have that position, about who the other side will say they are "self hatred jews"... Really? Again - Why?

What is the reason for those jews to hate Israel? Do you think they want to see Israel destroyed? Do you think that, if that tragedy will take place, all of them will suddenly celebrate?

(and to give you an insight into the '40 reporting style in the American media, specifically in the Miami Herald, check John S. Knight who bought the newspaper in 1937. Turns out that from http://ead.ohiolink.edu/xtf-ead/view?docId=ead/OhAkUAS0008.xml;chunk.id=bioghist_1;brand=default)

But like I said, this is not about disecting, is about understanding the entire picture. At some point in my life Johnny, I've told my kids that the more they will fight, for anything, the more they will lose, because they were driven by young inflamatory instincts. First, you as a person, need to try to fully understand the damage of any conflict. As you can see here, after all your efforts to sarcastically dismmiss, I am not mad, not even upset. But you are still anxious and slightly belligerant. It is not your fault, but you have the capacity to step back and ask yourself

What if the Palestinians are right?

As a jew what are the reasons to lie about Palestine against Israels interests?

Why?

Do you want the Palestinians to be exterminated?

All you had to say was, "No Johnny, I don't want to discuss any specifics, I'd rather speak in generalities and flood this thread with links that no one will watch"