EnviroLink Forum

Just to point out that the Hamas goal of the destruction of Israel would make any support impossible and would bring about only opposition.



Yes, but partly due to the violence associated with them. If there ever was enough peace I believe there would be some changes in that regard, but there is little hope for such an experiment in the short term.
.



I agree. Not the way to win friends and influence people to be peaceful.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

It's worth pointing out that Israel's goal of the ethnic cleansing and expansion of Israel would also bring about only opposition, but it doesn't make support impossible. Hamas should be treated the same way.



Six Palestinians have died for every Israeli in the current conflict.

I associate the violence with the Jews and the policy of ethnic cleansing to a prevalent religious belief in Israel.



You think that Israel's perception that they have a God-given right to other peoples homes and land would be affected by "enough peace". Enough atheism might do it, but that nation is vicious and sociopathic.



Yeah. At least that much is clear.

You mean after war being declared on Israel when it was formed and Israel repeatedly taking territory and returning it over the years? Israel gave up the land Hamas is using to attack them did they not?



The problem is the facts do not support the view. If Israel wanted ethnic cleansing there would have been none left after the various flare ups in the past.
I believe a country being in a constant state of war, which they did not start nor wanted is being confused with a goal of some sort.



You should read some actual history. Israel was attacked as they were formed. The Arab nations had the opportunity to form a peaceful solution and did not. Israel took and returned land until they grew tired of the status quo over the years. The Palestine situation would have never happened except the Arabs threw them under the bus because they did not want them. The Arab nations controlled Gaza and the West Bank after the War of Independence, but it was finally Israel that gave the areas independence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Oh this is complete nonsense on stilts. Palestine never exsited and certainly not in democratic form. Bill Clinton gave MIRV technology to the chinese. Viscous you bet and to the core. My father served in the Pacific during WW2. In post war Philipines there is a large Muslim population that made their presence known through the usual tactics. A force of 50 attacked US forces and a handful survived. A large trench was dug. Survivors were lined up to witness what was to take place next. The dead were dumped into the trench. Two pigs were then slaughtered. The blood and entrails were dumped over the bodies. The heads were cut off and dumped in as well. Everything was buried. The survivors were released. Problems with the Muslim population dropped off significatly in the years to follow. Viscousness is all they understand. And there is only one way to fight them and win. You have to demonstrate you are willing to fight to their last man. Of course many here are not interested in winning.

Compassion I'm full of it for peace loving, democratic, capitolist people who are interested in bettering themselves. All you have to do is listen to what these people say in their native tongue. They spell it out. They say exactly what they want to do. They want to finish what Hitler started. Anyone here support that?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Palestine was a democracy in the middle east, but Israel didn't like their choice of Government, so the cut off funding, and starved the people.



But where they are second class citizens.



Compassion.



Your ally sold your military equipment and secrets to China.



Viscous.



I guess we are.[/quote]

Oh this is complete nonsense on stilts. Palestine never exsited and certainly not in democratic form.

Not sure about the nonsense on stilts or otherwise. Palestine may not have existed in democratic form or not. I don't see this is a point of any kind. How or why would it matter? To put it plainly, the people who call themselves "Palestinians" are just simply a population of people living in a narrow region, and are a people like any other, who need the basics of living .... health care, clean water, medicine, etc. ....

So what? There were and are people living in that geographic place. This is clear. Call it what you will.




What a gross story. It's one of many. So what?



Interested in "winning"? There is NO winning. Just a bunch of losers. Are we willing to fight to our last man? Are we willing to subject our sons, uncles, fathers, etc ..... ? As we are willing for them to fight their last man? Aren't our men the same? (Aside from diet preferences, skin color, religion?).



I could pretty much assure you there is nobody here interested in furthering Hitler's aims. I have not seen it.

So you might wave a peace flag for people who adhere to your criteria ..... and their governance. All of a sudden, you experience that thing called 'compassion" if, and only if, these others adhere to your criteria? You decide to extend compassion to those who "better" themselves by being capitalists?

I don't think you'll find support for your "POUND THEM TILL THE RUBBLE BOUNCES" ....

It' been done. Where are we now?

Some talk of compassion as if there is no line to be drawn with it and tolerance. Over-compassion and over-tolerance have led to gross overpopulation with all its attendant pollution and depletion. There is no logical reason to show a people or cult compassion and tolerance when they do not reciprocate equally, or if they do it is only temporarily until they are in a position of advantage, like with Taqiyya.
It also must be recognized, but seldom is, that overpopulation leads to overcrowding which leads to hostility. This hostility is used by imams and others to incite violence and wars. It also leads to resource scarcity/expense and lowering incomes, which can also add fuel to the fire. Wealth can only be expanded through inflation and resource depletion/pollution on a planet far into overshoot, so making a segment of the population richer and supposedly more peaceful is only temporary until scarcity again catches up. Why aren't the extremely oil wealthy Arabs/moslems sharing the wealth with their so called Palestinian brothers? There are too many of them("Palestinians"), and they(oil rich moslems) are filled with greed, except when it is to surreptitiously provide support for terrorism.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Israel has not returned the territories that they took. And they were the aggressors when Israel was formed. A lot of Palestine was taken by Israel then.



And Palestinians, used to own the land that Israel is attacking them from, did they not?



Okay, I claim that there is an Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing. This is achieved by racism in the immigration laws, particularly with respect to people who marry people without citizenship, by refusing permission to build houses or buy land to people who aren't Jews, and by confiscating land of people who left the country for a short time or who fled violence, if they aren't Jewish.

I don't accept that there is a necessity that there "would have been none left after the various flare ups in the past".



Your claim is that Israel did not start the war?

And your claim is that Isreal does not want the war?

... Hmmm ... That's a point of view I suppose. Why have they done everything to crush economic activity, health, nutrition and education in the occupied territories then? Surely the path to peace is development. (And honouring the right of return).



You should read some actual history. Israel attacked it's neighbours when it was formed. It's borders moved outwards.



Who is this "The Arab nations" person, and what was his opportunity?

How does it compare to Israel's opportunity to support development in Palestine, or accept united nations rulings on collective punishment?



Also, and more significantly, took and didn't return. And Gaza is held in embargo ... that's not returned. It's a big cheap prison camp.



They were thrown out of their homes in the now Israel. They're not citizens of this "the Arabs" country.



Gaza is not economically independent, and Israel is campaigning hard on every front to prevent them from being recognised as an observer an the UN.

Why is that, do you think?

Fine.

The campaigning of Israel against recognition by it's allies of Palestine does not mean that it never existed. And it was democratic, for a short time. Until the fledgling democracy was economically strangled.


And Israel has been doing the same for decades. In the 90s:
ISRAEL SELLS ARMS TO CHINA, U.S. SAYS

Israel accused of selling US secrets to China

They were still doing it in the naughties:

US 'anger' at Israel weapons sale

And may be doing it still:

Israel Sells Secret US Technology to China



So you'd have no compassion for your father or yourself then?



Do you speak Arabic?


Genocide.



Besides yourself, I don't see anyone supporting genocide.

The Palestinians are Semites. They're the Jew's brothers, not the Saudi's.

Really? How much of the Sinai do they occupy after capturing it and crossing the Suez? How much of Gaza do they occupy?



How do you conclude Israel was the aggressor when the Arab nations vowed their destruction and attacked them? The entire region was called Palestine at that time, including the state of Israel when it was formed.



Some of it. Some of it they abandoned supposedly at the instruction of the arab nations, some of it was owned by Jewish settlers, some was mandated to them by the UN and some was ceded to Israel by the the Armistice with Syria in



And the evidence for this claim is?

Of course, there is the counter claim of the same thing in the Arab countries since there was a region to send them.

http://www.hsje.org/forcedmigration.htm

The various efforts for peace between Israelis and Palestinians have overlooked an important factor concerning the Arab - Israeli Conflict. The displacement of 850.000 Jews from Arab countries, the loss of all their assets and property, and the hardships accompanying their migration and emigration to Israel, constitute an aspect of the Middle East refugee problem which has been neglected. As almost half of the Jewish citizens of Israel, together with their descendants, are from Arab countries, peace research and future peace efforts should take this important part of the history of the conflict into account, and to address it, in all its complex aspects.




Fine, but if Israel wanted a true ethnic cleansing, as the term implies, there would not be any of the undesired people left alive in Israel after the various flare ups because they would have been "killed in the fighting".



No, history claims Israel did not start the war. They were attacked by the Arab nations immediately after the state was formed.



Yes, they have been fighting for their lives against a larger number of opponents since they were formed. They have no territory that can buffer them in an attack and their opposition had vowed to destroy them. Such a conflict is not something any nation would choose.



You mean like allowing them to become independent and form their own government? The problem being that government also vowed the destruction of Israel thus creating a problem for all of the above.



Whose armies were first to cross the border? That is the definition of who attacked whom, not which nation ended with the strongest position.



It is the governments and people of the region surrounding Israel. Such a question implies lack of understanding of the history.



Very well, since the problem in both cases is the vow to destroy Israel by the leadership.



If the leadership chosen had not vowed the destruction of Israel there might have been a different outcome. The embargo is to prevent items which can be used to harm Israel from being imported. It is a national security issue to them.





They were citizens fo what nation exactly? The UN was trying to form an independent nation for the Arabs in the region but the Arab nations refused to accept it.



After being under the control of Egypt from 1948 until 1967 (except for the occupation by Israel and return in the 1950s) when Egypt no longer sought to control it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation ... p_by_Egypt

The influx of over 200,000 refugees into Gaza during the 1948 war resulted in a dramatic decrease in the standard of living. Because the Egyptian government restricted movement to and from the Gaza Strip, its inhabitants could not look elsewhere for gainful employment.[6] In 1955, one observer (a member of the United Nations Secretariat) noted that "For all practical purposes it would be true to say that for the last six years in Gaza over 300,000 povertystricken people have been physically confined to an area the size of a large city park."[6]

Baster, James, "Economic Problems in the Gaza Strip," Middle East Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1955), pp. 323-327




I would think security would be the prime concern.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

When did it exist? Not when Israel declared independence and the Arab nations invaded it along with Israel. Not after the Armistice when the Arab nations retained control over what was not ceded to Israel by them. Could it have been when Israel granted them autonomy to govern themselves and the choose to have Hamas lead them? Hamas was and is considered a terrorist organization by many of the world's governments and whose charter includes the destruction of Israel.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The Hamas charter ..... No Israel, no living Jews, and no negotiations .... that says it all.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

On the Destruction of Israel:

-----------------------------

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)


Anti-Semitic Incitement:

------------------------

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)



Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:

-------------------------------------------

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

How about in Gaza? The Hamas Charter to be exact.

'The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and

kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the

rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind

me, come and kill him.' (Article 7)

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

None of it.



About three quarters of it.



As for your rhetoric about vowing destruction, I'm not sure what you mean. If you are referencing a particular speech by a particular leader, please cite it. However claiming that this "the Arab nations" vowed somebodies destruction is just racist. A lead might do that, but a nation doesn't. A diverse group of nations from Turkey to Palestine certainly doesn't.

How do you conclude that Israel was attacked when the fighting was outside their original borders, and they annexed large areas of Palestine?

Do you agree that there is a difference between invading and being attacked?

And if you're annexing other peoples land, that is an invasion.

This is very very simple: If your army is outside your country's boundaries, and the civilians from the other country are fleeing their homes before you, you have invaded. If their army is in your country, and your civilians are fleeing, you have been invaded. And that's it.



You will be aware of this law?
No Israeli Citizenship for Palestinian Spouses

And some of these things?
Israel’s Discriminatory Land Policies

I only learned about this just now:

"According to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch, Israel's school systems for Arab and Jewish children are separate and have unequal conditions to the disadvantage of the Arab children who make up one quarter of all students. Israeli law does not prohibit Palestinian Arab parents from enrolling their children in Jewish schools, but in practice, very few Palestinian Arab parents do so.The report stated that "Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this." - Wiki



Palestinians and Israeli Arabs aren't from other Arab countries. They're already in their homeland.

Do you really think that they should be held accountable with their human rights, education, healthcare, economic chances and prosperity because of what has happened to another group in another country?



That simply doesn't follow. The policies for ethnic cleansing are around never selling an Arab land, denying residency to people who are married to Palestinians, and revoking residency from people who visit their families outside Israel or who fled violence. That has cleansed the majority of Israel, but not all of it.



This is beyond ridiculous. If you are attacked, the fighting takes place in your country. You only annex other countries if you invade. Do you accept that



For their lives? Wouldn't not fighting and supporting the development of everyone in the region be better for their lives?

They have been fighting to annex more an more of Palestine, because they believe they have a god given right to their land. And they have been fighting to keep the Palestinians in poverty.



And yet Palestine is much more destroyed than Israel. Actions speak louder than words.



What if their goal was ethnic cleansing?

What if the standard of living in Palestine was much lower than in Israel, and by bombing roads and power plants under shadow of a war, they could not only keep them on their knees, but also shoot off their feet?

What if the sensation of superiority that that resulted in was popular with a large voting block in Israel?

Would it be possible for a nations to choose it then?

Why is it always Israel that breaks the cease-fires, do you think? Something to do with being shown to be militarily dominant being good for an Israeli government's re-election chances? Or something to do with not wanting conflict?



Applying a tarriff on all exports, or more recently simply not allowing them. Cutting off power and water to the agricultural industries. Holding perishable exports at the border until they have to be dumped. Putting road-blocks to limit movement of resources around Palestine. Bombing infrastructure to keep them dependent of Israeli power. Building the wall between people's houses and their land so that they have no source of income, and allowing settlers to take the soil for their land. Refusing to recognise the independent government (and pressuring their allies to do the same) so that the budget can be cut off by Israel (as it was when Hamas was elected). Even enforcing malnutrition by not allowing food aid into the country has a lasting effect on the economic capacity of those children brought up under the famine of the Israeli blockade.



Surely the bigger problem is the real, actual, and not just vowed destruction of Palestine? Israel has power and communications and a good education system, roads, bridges, and movement of resources and goods. They also have access to health care, and most of all, can move around their country and engage in making a living and in living. They haven't been significantly destroyed, and I see no evidence that there is a risk of them being significantly destroyed if they don't hold millions of their fellow Semites in concentration camps, that you call "independent and forming their own government".


Israel's in the majority of cases.


That's a murky criteria. It's not easy to tell who attacked whom first, especially prior to aerial or satellite surveillance. One persons guess is as good as another's. What we do know is that Israel invaded and annexed it's neighbours. That much is indisputable. I have read that in one area (I don't recall which) there was fighting inside the 1947 borders of Israel. I have not heard that that is the case everywhere where Israel invaded.

We also know that hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled their homes before the Israeli invasion, and that the Israelis have confiscated their land and houses, denying them residency in their homeland, and taking for themselves everything that they owned.



They aren't even stable themselves. Your claim that the are a cohesive whole that had the opportunity for peace is nutty. Your extension that therefore Israel has every right to starve and oppress the people of Palestine, and the Arabs of Israel who they are denying the return to their homeland to, wouldn't even follow if it was true.

But the subtext was: when do you claim this opportunity was offered, and to whom?