Third Palestinian Uprising: Updates and Discussions

[A.M.]

How many of them would die if they weren't intent on stabbing Jewish civilians?

More German civilians died than British civilians in WWII - did that make the British people the guilty party?

You don't have a leg to stand on because you're on the wrong side.

And now you're just acting dumb by comparing Apples and Oranges.

Carry on with the useless back and forth without addressing the underlying problem.

 

[Solomon2]

You murder 10 for each one that they commit.

Thank you for confessing the Arabs murder Jews. But you've failed to point out that when Arabs die at Jewish hands it's overwhelmingly out of self-defense. You would not deny yourself that right, but you deny it to the Jews.

Thanks. I know i can trust "Israellycool" to be unbiased on this topic.

I've conversed with reporters who claim that telling a fib that Jews are responsible for violence in the headline and telling the truth that Arabs were responsible in paragraph six makes for an "unbiased" story. No, it's not whether the writer is "unbiased" that matters, but whether his or her writing is truthful and accurate.

 

[terry5]

No, it's an Palestinian uprising against local occupier. Only minority of religious nutjobs like you see it as holy war, all religions are repressive cults. Islam derived from Judaism, it's the same stupid religion. It's cute to see you try dragging the world in after you've realized the colonial plan is going wrong.

Too late now buddy, the world warned you to make two state solution and your religious right wing keeps giving them the finger. They aren't coming to save you.

Watch your mouth little Arbi boy .
Your family never teach you any manners how to behave
This is a Pakistani forum & we dont take kindly to anyone calling Islam neither Judaism a stupid religion .

 

[GBU-28]

Watch your mouth little Arbi boy .
Your family never teach you any manners how to behave
This is a Pakistani forum & we dont take kindly to anyone calling Islam neither Judaism a stupid religion .

He's also completely wrong, because the latest violence was incited by Abbas and others claiming that Israel was going to damage Al Aqsa mosque or make changed. These are rumours that are spread every so often and always cause violence.

So it's very much a religious thing now. Also some of the attackers taken alive said they were "protecting Al Aqsa"

 

[Virk1]

what happened with first 2 uprisings ?

 

[Hindustani78]

what happened with first 2 uprisings ?

Those happened because of the failure of Oslo accords.

 

[Solomon2]

Those happened because of the failure of Oslo accords.

The first intifada was before the Oslo Accords, the second was after:

"If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy; it will be a crime."
- Saudi Prince Bandar

And so it has.

 

[GBU-28]

Those happened because of the failure of Oslo accords.

'palestinian' terrorism spikes when there is either one of these two situations

1) Prospect of peace



Whether Oslo or signing a peace treaty with Jordan or when Ehud Barak offered East Jerusalem and 98% of the WB.

Whenever it has seemed like there was a genuine move for peace, the 'palestinans' resorted to violence.

Oslo was met with the suicide bombing campaign.

Peace with Jordan was met with a suicide attack in Tel-Aviv.

Ehud Barak's peace offer under Clinton, was met with the second intifada.



2) 'palestinian' story is not in the headlines.

Whenever the 'palestinians' are out of the headlines for too long, this drives them mad because they need their story to be the news. So they ramp up terrorism.

We've seen it before when the Ukraine war was raging, the 'palestinians' started the summer war.

We've seen it now when Russia announced bombing in Syria, this dominated headlines. The 'palestinians' launch a new wave of terrorist attacks to push Russia/Syria out of the headlines and make it about them.

Even when natural disasters have hit and grabbed headlines for too long, the palestinians launch attacks.

 

[Virk1]

Those happened because of the failure of Oslo accords.

No i was asking the result and significance of first 2 uprisings.

 

[Natan]

No i was asking the result and significance of first 2 uprisings.

First Intifada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second Intifada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hindustani78]

No i was asking the result and significance of first 2 uprisings.

The result of OSLO accords was UN condemnation of Israeli settlement beyond the 1967 borders.

 

[Solomon2]

The result of OSLO accords was UN condemnation of Israeli settlement beyond the 1967 borders.

Hardly. The U.N. bitched about them decades earlier. However, there are good and solid grounds for their legality, based on the original Palestine Mandate. The U.N. doesn't make international law and even the powers of the Security Council are limited in this regard - statements that contravene stuff that was the province of the now-defunct Trusteeship Council are likely null and void, especially since they would have the effect of making settlements illegal ex post facto.

And it's not about the settlements. It's about the burning Arab desire to deny Jews self-determination in Jews' own homeland by killing or expelling them. New settlements - growing Jewish communities - are merely a reminder that Jews have come home to stay permanently and rub in these Arabs' past failures at extermination, contrary to the promises of Arab leaders that the Arabs could take Jews' money and sell their lands to the Jews - often at extremely high prices - then come back and kill them and drive them out once the British were gone.

For these Arabs of the Levant have long had a reputation for this sort of thing: Western powers sent warships to Jaffa more than once in the nineteenth century (the U.S. alone did it twice in the 1850s) to protest the killings of Western missionaries approved by Turkey to convert Catholics to Protestantism. The Arabs would welcome the missionaries, sell or lease them land, then steal from and murder them after crops were harvested.

 

[Hindustani78]

Hardly. The U.N. bitched about them decades earlier. However, there are good and solid grounds for their legality, based on the original Palestine Mandate. The U.N. doesn't make international law and even the powers of the Security Council are limited in this regard - statements that contravene stuff that was the province of the now-defunct Trusteeship Council are likely null and void, especially since they would have the effect of making settlements illegal ex post facto.

And it's not about the settlements. It's about the burning Arab desire to deny Jews self-determination in Jews' own homeland by killing or expelling them. New settlements - growing Jewish communities - are merely a reminder that Jews have come home to stay permanently and rub in these Arabs' past failures at extermination, contrary to the promises of Arab leaders that the Arabs could take Jews' money and sell their lands to the Jews - often at extremely high prices - then come back and kill them and drive them out once the British were gone.

For these Arabs of the Levant have long had a reputation for this sort of thing: Western powers sent warships to Jaffa more than once in the nineteenth century (the U.S. alone did it twice in the 1850s) to protest the killings of Western missionaries approved by Turkey to convert Catholics to Protestantism. The Arabs would welcome the missionaries, sell or lease them land, then steal from and murder them after crops were harvested.

We all know this that Palestine issue has been complicated but there are powers which wants to settle the longest conflict of Palestine.

 

[Archdemon]

Bullshit, provide evidence, meanwhile you forgot to mention that every 'settler' is an illegal trespassing foreign territory. In any other county they would be blown up on the border. If you want to be blown up with them you're welcome to join you fanatical Christian radical nutjob.

Eat shit.

 

[Styx]

That ended well