Hamas Kills 6 Suspected Israel Collaborators: Witnesses (GRAPHIC PHOTO)

[Solomon2]

Twaddle. You dodged the point that Holocaust (and other) guilt drummed into people from birth and throughout their lives is the primary reason Israel gets special treatment.

You mean the reason why Israel is specially abused is because the Holocaust whetted the appetites of people who want to see Jews dead and express their feeling by wishing that Hitler "finished the job."

More twaddle. Jews were a miniscule minority in Palestine, after the Roman conquest and over the centuries. They came back by stealth, some buying property it is true, but the vast majority were shipped in when it was clear the Western powers would back their clandestine plan to take over Palestine.

Keep reading your history. History is different from ideology in that it has the best possible factual basis to it. Pakistani history students, according to eminent historian Bernarnd Lewis (he calls them his "grandchildren" in his memoirs, since their profs were his students) think history is something you invent to order and find facts to support here and there, as needed; contradictory or opposing facts get completely ignored.

...on what basis the Balfour Declaration can be justified to create a Jewish state in a region when 97% of the resident population is not Jewish.

"97%" comes from where? Under the Ottomans the peoples of the middle east were Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians, Samaritans, etc.

Even before WWI, peaceful resettlement by simple purchase had begun - if you think there's something wrong with that, I suppose you also want to evict Hezbollah's Shia supporters from much of Lebanon.

The ultimate basis of the Balfour Declaration, the Treaty of Sevres, and the British Mandate is that Palestine was the Jews' home 2000 years before and that the Jews deserved to return to it once more, as they never seemed to fit in as equals in the Diaspora. The Ottoman Caliph agreed to it, probably for two reasons: one, he didn't want to simply "give" the middle east over to purely Arab domination as that would be bad for Turkey, and tow, because he knew from his own experience that Arabs couldn't be trusted to tolerate Jews in their midst without seeking to molest them.

(Go ahead and bring back the Caliphate - the Jews are the Caliphs' last loyal subjects!)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

One thing is for sure. Before getting wiped out of the earth, Israel will use all its assets and even nuclear to defend itself which will eventually lead the land to be inhabitable.

I read about the "Samson Option". Using their nuclear arsenal instead of Samson's arms to bring the entire region down, including themselves.

This doctrine doesn't only apply to the Middle East, but to the rest of the world as well. As "punishment" for letting Israel die, and as an incentive to stop it happening.

There was a comment on YT in a documentary, If Palestine put down arms, there will be peace, But if Israel put down arms, there will be no Israel.

Look at history. Israel is doing what even a small country did to survive. Its matter of survival for Israel too. If the enemy is remorseless and attacks civilians, why should it keep quite. It will attack all Hamas leaders and forces. In this, collateral damage is certain.

You can kind of understand the desperation that leads to doctrines like the Samson Option. Israel feels that if they lose one war, they will be overwhelmed by their Arab neighbours in all directions.

All the more reason to come to a peaceful and lasting solution.

 

[Developereo]

Interestingly, this has happened all over the world. Many of the major countries today were built on the land of natives that are now nearly gone, mostly originating from around the period of European colonial expansion.

The case with Israel seems to be different though, in that it is still actively being fought over today.

Indeed, conquest has been the norm throughout history. After the end of the European colonial period, it was expected that such colonial conquest would no longer be allowed. It was the Europeans and Americans, themselves, who set about releasing colonial conquests.

The only exception was Israel, where the Western powers created a brand new colonial outpost instead of returning the land to the people who were actually living there. This happened, as I explained, because of Holocaust guilt and Zionist lobbying in Britain and the US.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Indeed, conquest has been the norm throughout history. After the end of the European colonial period, it was expected that such colonial conquest would no longer be allowed. It was the Europeans and Americans, themselves, who set about releasing colonial conquests.

The only exception was Israel, where the Western powers created a brand new colonial outpost instead of returning the land to the people who were actually living there. This happened, as I explained, because of Holocaust guilt and Zionist lobbying in Britain and the US.

I'm not sure how strong these "lobbies" are, but don't you think they are weakening (in relative terms anyway)?

Obama for example refused Netanyahu's demand to draw a red-line in Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu seemed quite upset, and possibly even surprised by this?

 

[Solomon2]

One thing is for sure. Before getting wiped out of the earth, Israel will use all its assets and even nuclear to defend itself which will eventually lead the land to be inhabitable.

Possibly. Remember the difference between Jewish and Christian ideas of "justice": only the person offended can forgive, not a third party, and it is the duty of the community to punish the perpetrators of the crime of murder.

There was a comment on YT in a documentary, If Palestine put down arms, there will be peace, But if Israel put down arms, there will be no Israel.

So true.

Look at history. Israel is doing what even a small country did to survive. Its matter of survival for Israel too. If the enemy is remorseless and attacks civilians, why should it keep quite. It will attack all Hamas leaders and forces. In this, collateral damage is certain.

The Israelis are the most moral Army on Earth. If another country had suffered such bombardment from a foreign hostile population who doubts that retaliation would stop at merely killing their leaders? The Soviets sent millions of captured German soldiers to work camps for years.

No matter how much Hamas attack Israel, there won't be any peace as Israel will always be more powerful than Hamas. At this asymmetry, only diplomatic solution is the only solution.

The Palestinians, being funded mostly by foreigners, are merely the tip of the antisemite sword. Ideological change has to come from abroad first. That's where Pakistan and India can both try to help. Pakistan especially should have a strong incentive to help as countering the terrorist mentality in Palestine will help cure the same at home.

By the way, I see nothing inherently "Muslim" or "Islamic" to this issue. Much the same happened in Europe a thousand years ago: the crusaders saw no reason to focus exclusively on liberating Jerusalem if they could find richer infidels to pick on closer to home. That led to many Jews and Christians being killed in France, Germany, and Byzantium. After the Venetians convinced the Crusaders to help them sack Constantinople even the illiterates in Europe realized they were being had and enthusiasm for such ventures dropped sharply. Respect for civil law began to outweigh religious authority once more.

 

[Developereo]

You mean the reason why Israel is specially abused is because the Holocaust whetted the appetites of people who want to see Jews dead and express their feeling by wishing that Hitler "finished the job."

No, I mean Israel gets away with a colonial outpost where others can't. Israel is a colony because the residents were shipped in after the state was mandated. Unlike all the other creations of the post-colonial era where the political entities were formed around people actually living there.

Keep reading your history. History is different from ideology in that it has the best possible factual basis to it. Pakistani history students, according to eminent historian Bernarnd Lewis (he calls them his "grandchildren" in his memoirs, since their profs were his students) think history is something you invent to order and find facts to support here and there, as needed; contradictory or opposing facts get completely ignored.

You entire paragraph is an opinion of a known hardcore Islamophobic Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis. Try countering with actual facts next time.

"97%" comes from where? Under the Ottomans the peoples of the middle east were Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians, Samaritans, etc.

Sorry, my typo. I meant 93% of the population was non-Jewish, yet the area was declared to be a future Jewish homeland.

Table 4 in the link MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

The ultimate basis of the Balfour Declaration, the Treaty of Sevres, and the British Mandate is that Palestine was the Jews' home 2000 years before and that the Jews deserved to return to it once more

You are just repeating the Zionist justification, which the Europeans accepted out of guilt and lobbying. Some Jews, as you know, believe the European acquiescence was motivated by anti-Semitism to rid Europe of Jews and dump them somewhere else where they would be the Arabs' problem. Regardless, the Western powers' treatment of Palestine was the sole exception to their treatment of other colonial possessions.

 

[Solomon2]

Indeed, conquest has been the norm throughout history. After the end of the European colonial period, it was expected that such colonial conquest would no longer be allowed. It was the Europeans and Americans, themselves, who set about releasing colonial conquests.

The only exception was Israel, where the Western powers created a brand new colonial outpost instead of returning the land to the people who were actually living there. This happened, as I explained, because of Holocaust guilt and Zionist lobbying in Britain and the US.

So even when your arguments are sufficiently countered by fact you are sticking to purveying untruths.

Why should other people continue to respect you, Developereo? What grounds do you have to respect yourself?

 

[Developereo]

One thing is for sure. Before getting wiped out of the earth, Israel will use all its assets and even nuclear to defend itself which will eventually lead the land to be inhabitable.

Like a bank robber who claims he will kill all his hostages and blow up the whole city block if anyone dares take his loot from him.

I'm not sure how strong these "lobbies" are, but don't you think they are weakening (in relative terms anyway)?

Obama for example refused Netanyahu's demand to draw a red-line in Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu seemed quite upset, and possibly even surprised by this?

Israeli lobbies are plenty strong enough, and their media domination is stronger than ever.

So even when your arguments are sufficiently countered by fact you are sticking to purveying untruths.

Why should other people continue to respect you, Developereo? What grounds do you have to respect yourself?

How about you provide some 'truths' of your own instead of quoting opinions. I provided the population statistics in Palestine during the historical period. All you have provided is an ideological justification that Jews should be allowed to recolonize the land because they lived there 2000 years ago. I wrote 'recolonized' because the initial colonization of Canaan was itself a bloody conquest by the invading Hebrews over the indigenous Canaanites.

 

[SHAMK9]

As I always say, lunatics on both sides of the border May the dead RIP.

 

[shelly]

No, I mean Israel gets away with a colonial outpost where others can't. Israel is a colony because the residents were shipped in after the state was mandated. Unlike all the other creations of the post-colonial era where the political entities were formed around people actually living there.



You entire paragraph is an opinion of a known hardcore Islamophobic Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis. Try countering with actual facts next time.



Sorry, my typo. I meant 93% of the population was non-Jewish, yet the area was declared to be a future Jewish homeland.

Table 4 in the link MidEast Web - Population of Palestine



You are just repeating the Zionist justification, which the Europeans accepted out of guilt and lobbying. Some Jews, as you know, believe the European acquiescence was motivated by anti-Semitism to rid Europe of Jews and dump them somewhere else where they would be the Arabs' problem. Regardless, the Western powers' treatment of Palestine was the sole exception to their treatment of other colonial possessions.

the other way is also true.. israelis were shipped out 2000 years ago and muslims occupied it

 

[KRAIT]

Like a bank robber who claims he will kill all his hostages and blow up the whole city block if anyone dares take his loot from him.
Israeli lobbies are plenty strong enough, and their media domination is stronger than ever.

A bank robber analogy is not correct here. better analogy is if someone threatens to kill my family, I will say that if you are going to take out my family, I will make sure I will take out yours. This might make the other person think twice because he now have something to loose too and he may not take chance. If I go to court and register a case against that person and court fails to give appropriate decision which can assure security of my family, what I am supposed to do ?

In this example, I am the person who is desperate to keep his family safe, and for that I may threaten with everything I got. Its more about survival than taking moral high ground, if I keep quite and other person kills my family, what would be the point of me going to courts and community for justice especially when the court failed to protect my family at the first time. The culprit may get some punishment but inaction of court in due time resulted in my family got killed.

So the next person, who gets similar threat, he might not take the same route as I did. It will be better for him to threaten the other person rather than loosing his family counting on unjust system.

Jews were killed for years. No one cared. Their motto is Never Again. Even China hasn't forgiven Japan for the atrocities they done. They are on same page. Never Again and now they can protect their citizen.

Iran asked for UNSC to take action against Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapons. UNSC didn't do anything. Now they don't rely on others for protection of their own people. When the world fails you, especially in the magnitude of what Jews went through, they will never count on anyone. They again asked world community during Munich Massacre. World kept silent just did some lip service. Meir had only one option. Use of iron fist. Taking out the culprits rather than expecting world to deliver justice which never happens.

When you are small nation surrounded by hostile countries who attacked you together, only way of defense is offense.

 

[Sasquatch]

I want to know chinese opinion on this incident!!

Staying out of it.

 

[Developereo]

#1: Arab Palestine Before 1948

8000 BC: Permanent agricultural settlements in Jericho.
2500 BC: Settlement of the Canaanites.
1250 BC: Israelite conquest of Canaan.
965-928 BC: Reign of King Solomon.
721 BC: Assyrian conquest of Israel.
586 BC: Judah defeated by Babylonians.
539 BC: Persians conquer Babylonia.
333 BC: Alexander's conquest of Persia brings Greek rule.
165 BC: Revolt of the Maccabees.
63 BC: Palestine incorporated into Roman Empire.
70 AD: Destruction of Jerusalem Temple by Romans.
135: Bar Kokhba revolt suppressed.
330: Palestine under Byzantine rule (to 638).
638: Muslims capture Palestine from Byzantines.
1099: Jerusalem under Crusader control (to 1187).
1291: Mamelukes capture final Crusader strongholds Acre and Caesarea.
1516: Ottomans capture Palestine (to 1917).
1776-1804: Ahmad Pasha Al Jazzar appointed Ottoman ruler of Acre; builds port, monopolizes trade.
1799: Napoleon attacks Acre; repulsed by Al Jazzar.
1832: Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt occupies Palestine (to 1840).
1840: Lord Palmerston advocates Jewish immigration to Palestine.
1869: Suez Canal opened.
1878: First Zionist settlement at Petach Tiqwa.
1882-1903: First wave of 25,000 Zionist immigrants.
1906-14: Second wave of 40,000 Zionist immigrants.
1909: Tel Aviv founded north of Jaffa.
1914: World War I starts; Ottoman Empire joins war on side of Germany, and attacks Russia.
1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement secretly divides Ottoman Empire.
1917: Balfour Declaration pledges UK support for "a Jewish national home in Palestine."
1918: Palestine occupied by UK forces under General Allenby; World War I ends.
1919-23: Third wave of over 35,000 Zionist immigrants.
1920: League of Nations mandates Palestine and Mesopotamia to UK.
1921: UK appoints Haj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem
1922: UK excludes Transjordan from Jewish immigration; first UK census of Palestine shows 78% Muslim Arab, 11% Jewish, 9.6% Christian Arab.
1924-28: Fourth wave of 67,000 Zionist immigrants, raising Jewish population to 16%.
1929-39: Fifth wave of over 250,000 Zionist immigrants, raising Jewish population to 30%.
1936-39: Arab rebellion in Palestine.
1939-45: World War II in Europe.
1947: UN adopts plan to partition Palestine into two states; Israel declares independence, fights war against Arab forces.

A bank robber analogy is not correct here. better analogy is if someone threatens to kill my family, I will say that if you are going to take out my family, I will make sure I will take out yours.

Let's expand the analogy.

Man robs a house, kills the occupants, gives the loot to his son, and says if anyone tries to take their loot away from him or his son, he will kill all the hostages and blow up the city block.

 

[Sasquatch]

On paper the Arabs were stronger in '48, '67, and '73. They still lost.

Israel had a stronger force in 1948, the war has plenty of exaggerations. Both sides started with 30,000 to 35,000 at the beginning until Israel received more soldiers as the war went on the Arabs generally fought for their own ambitions, the Jordanians were able to secure the West Bank due to it having the best trained and equipped of the Arab Forces during the time and it was lead by the British, but then again Jordan wanted the West Bank so the newly formed IDF did not have to worry about them while fighting Egypt in south, same with Syria and Lebanon, the foreign Arab forces did not make much of a difference.

1967 Israel still had the superior force, Nasser was deluded by the victory of the Suez Crisis, and moved a bunch of highly untrained soldiers into the Sinai while the best of his forces fought in Yemen, not to mention the Monkey Model weaponry received from the USSR & his false messages to Jordan and Syria which caused even more humiliations. Israel also had been preparing for 1967 since 63 not to mention it already had the first of it's Atomic Arsenal.

1973 the Egyptian and Syrian forces were inferior to the IDF, Sadat wanted to fight a limited war with political victory, the EAF was inferior to the IAF unless they managed to take it out they would have to fight a limited war, and once Egypt went beyond the SAM Defensive line thats when they started losing.

 

[Solomon2]

How about you provide some 'truths' of your own instead of quoting opinions.

Yes, Dr. Lewis' assessment is an opinion. Until you find a source with as great learning and integrity it will remain the authoritative one.

I provided the population statistics in Palestine during the historical period. All you have provided is an ideological justification that Jews should be allowed -

You're ignoring the legal arguments I gave previously. We can dispose, then, of the idea that Jewish settlements are illegal or that Israel is somehow an illegal state.

People do buy and sell land. Landowners in Palestine had great incentives to do so, as their lands were largely unoccupied and unproductive. The Jews bought land from Arabs and other Ottomans, often at a far greater price than the land would have been offered to an Arab. In the last century the beneficiaries were often absentee Lebanese landlords and the relatives of the Mufti himself. The Mufti and his relatives had a scheme where they compelled Arabs to sell land to them cheap (accusing them of being Zionists) which they would then re-sell to the Jews (using their position at the top of the heap of antisemites to keep from being molested as pro-Zionist themselves.)

I wrote 'recolonized' because the initial colonization of Canaan was itself a bloody conquest by the invading Hebrews over the indigenous Canaanites.

Peoples do migrate. Archaeologists say, however, that while the Hebrews colonized Canaan the process was gradual and evidence of large-scale conquest is scanty. I have no explanation for the discrepancy. What is not in doubt is that the Arabs were not the original inhabitants, were comparatively recent arrivals, and that the land was strikingly empty.

Btw, I've stopped providing links to you because I've done so in our previous conversations. You should be able to search PDF and find these yourself. In my opinion, you don't merit the effort of sticking in the links and references a second time.

Let's expand the analogy.

No. These analogies are red herrings and don't fit the bill.