Topic: Palestine & israel? What do you think about that situation? - page 7. (Read 15034 times)

I think the word you're looking for is "true", not "bad".

Holy shit. I argued so well in this thread that I became a "Full Member" and get to have an avatar. In honor of the thread I thought I'd remember a very special day in Palestinian history: September 11, 2001. What a happy day for them.

jesus fucking christ you've managed to condense a lot of bad opinions into such a small amount of words

Everyone ignored this, but I think it's important. The fact that "Palestinians receive one of the highest levels of aid in the world" is completely consistent with my assertion "most of the world hates Jews." Palestinians are being rewarded for killing Jews. However, it's completely inconsistent with the assertion "The U.S. is preventing help getting to the Palestinians" which people seem to be making here (especially regarding the U.S. influence on the U.N.). Maybe you're not being clear about the kind of "help" you have in mind. I'd ask, but everyone would ignore the question.

To clarify about my missing post: I wrote a massive wall of text replying to everything in great detail and demolishing all arguments against the legitimacy and in favor of the right of return. The post mention the KKK was meant to be a clarification of a small part of that post. I probably clicked "edit" instead of "quote" and edited by massive post to almost nothing.

Since presenting claims without evidence is popular in this thread, I'll just expect you to accept that I won the argument completely in that lost post. You're welcome.

Something can only be "illegal" if it's against the law. Which law do you mean?

Again, you're not the question answering sort, I know. I capitalized the I in "Israel" in your quote because it seems like you forgot to.

Um. No that's a link to one of your posts. Be careful or people might catch on to the fact that we're the same person and this whole thread is just a fucking game. And obviously you know whether or not I'm paid to do this, because you know whether or not you're paid to do this.

What agreements are you referring to? Your * referenced a map. This map talked about the British mandate, the UN partition plan of 1947, Israeli independence in 1948 followed by the attacks by Arab neighbors, and finally the Six Day War in 1967. Which of these are "agreements"? The only one that seems close to an "agreement" is the UN partition plan of 1947, but the Palestinians rejected it, not the Israelis. A plan is only an "agreement" when both sides agree.

While I have asked you many questions in the previous paragraph, I know you're incapable of answering questions. I mean, if you can't even attempt to answer a "fill in the blank" question about what action the U.N. could/should take if the U.S. didn't have a veto, when YOU'RE the one who wrote "the action," then it's clear you really can't answer even the simplest question. So you don't have to bother. Just keep posting uninformed dumb bullshit that ignores everything I say. People seem to enjoy it.

This is the original post : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11125626  and it seems that you know the truth but you don't want to say it . No problem, we all know that israel invaded the Palestinian land "illegally", so you can say whatever you want but at the end you will be always wrong.


Can I ask you why are you doing this? It is really insane, change the words/thought of other users. Are you paid to do this? Thanks for the attention.

Somehow I totally fucked up my last post. This is all that's left. Fuck it. I'm not typing it again. Short version: You're all fucking lying Jew hating Nazis.

And why are the "Palestinian people oppressed"? Because they're fucking terrorists! Every chance they have ever been given to help make peace they have used to make war. It's like saying the KKK is oppressed, which they actually kind of are, but I am 100% in favor of the "oppression" of violent racists. I'm funny that way. (The KKK was also formed as resistance to occupation, by the way.)

Just to clarify in case any of you are KKK supporters. While I hate the KKK, I in no way mean to suggest they're as bad as the Palestinians.

First, this is why I'm comfortable calling you guys Nazis, and I'm surprised anyone reasonable is willing to stand with you. In the Holocaust six million Jews were killed, not a few hundred. And to destroy Israel it would take killing about six million Jews again. I doubt it would be by gas this time. Anyway, people like you can decide how it happens, obviously. I don't have much say in the matter. If it's up to the Palestinians I imagine most of the Jews will be stoned or thrown off buildings. Probably a combination of the two: throwing them off a building and then trying to throw stones off the building faster. The one thing we can be sure of is that they'll be yelling Allahu Akbar!

Most Palestinians alive today were born in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza or Israel. The ones in Jordan can keep living in Jordan, where they were born. Maybe Jordan will kill a few thousand of them like they did in Black September, 1971, but no one will care unless they can blame it on the Jews. And if the Jordanians do the Palestinians will respond like they did in 1972, by killing Jews in Munich. The Palestinians born the West Bank/Gaza can continue to live in the West Bank/Gaza. In a two-state solution what is now called "the West Bank" and "Gaza" would be called "Palestine." The ones who live in Israel can keep living in Israel. Sounds like we don't have a problem. People can live where they were born.

But I know what you're really saying. You're saying Palestinians who are the descendants of people who once lived in the land now called "Israel" should be able to return to that land, treated as full citizens, and then be allowed to vote to...kill the Jews. So, in the end it's still "kill the Jews," and only a few Jews (40%?) are naive enough not to see right through this. It's one of the key "Palestinian demands" called "the right of return." It's never going to happen on a grand scale, though it's conceivable that some older people who were actually alive in 1947 might be able to return. Maybe instead of the descendants of Palestinians going back to Israel, there should be an accounting of land stolen from Jews around the world in the 20th centuries, and Palestinians should be given all of that. They could probably get some nice real estate from Egypt to Iran, as well as some very nice apartments in Germany, Holland and France. But, let's be real, they don't want land. They want the Jews dead. They're pretty fucking open about it. The "right of return" is just a means to that end.

There have always been three very big sticking points in "peace negotiations."

1. The Right of Return: Palestinian descendants should be able to return to land their ancestors left/were kicked out of (depending on the story).
2. The Status of Jerusalem: Both sides want it. Israel says it'll never give it up, but in fact Barak offered part of East Jerusalem in the Camp David 2000 peace offer Arafat rejected.
3. Recognition of Israel (as a Jewish state): Arafat finally gave in to some degree on this with Oslo (though tended to hedge on the "Jewish" part in interviews). Hamas will never recognize Israel, and this is obvious if you know anything about Hamas. It's like saying the KKK will recognize civil rights. The best you can hope for is they'll be shamed into shutting the fuck up. Hamas will never be shamed into shutting up because they're both shameless and very popular.

Of course, there's also the issue of...

4. Terrorism: How many Jews are Palestinians allowed to kill annually before Israel is allowed to bomb the fuck out of them. Actually, the issue is what the Palestinian "authority"/government is obliged to do to stop terrorist attacks (or rocket attacks or martyrdom operations or whatever you call them). Anyone who's been following this for any length of time knows what the Palestinians always do in response to terrorism: reward it and encourage it. Naming schools after the terrorists is always popular.

The exact borders aren't really the main point, as far as I can tell. The deal offered at Camp David in 2000 gives a good indication of what the borders could be. Similar to pre-1967 but with some land exchanges based on "the facts on the ground."

If any of you are serious when you say you want both sides to live together in peace, then you should have a well-thought out position on these major issues.

I would ask you guys what your positions on those three main points are, but what's the fucking point anymore? You know everything's the fault of the Jews. The rest are just details to you. Better to outsource the details to your Mullahs/Obamas.

Exactly, I have created this thread only to 'catch' some opinion about the fact : why the Palestinian people are oppressed? Why didn't israel respect those *agreements? Why have they illegal invaded Palestine?
 
I am not talking about hamas etc... I am talking about the Palestinian people and you cannot sat they are not oppressed (if you will say it, I am sure you are a liar). The fault here is from UN and (old/actual) israel government.

*

Oh.. here you come again. OK... now answering your question, I don't think there will ever be a resolution in the United Nations, to "Kill the Jews". We were talking about the right of Palestinians to live on the lands where they were born (and their ancestors were born), and not about gassing a few hundred Jews.

I'm behind on this thread, so I'll just assume the past few pages is a lot of "Gee I wish the U.S. didn't have a veto so the U.N. could kill the Jews."

As was mentioned before, the U.S. has a veto on the security council. It also has some extra influence on a number of countries because the U.S. gives a hell of a lot of countries a hell of a lot of money. Maybe you should spend more time trying to convince countries to refuse U.S. aid.

Pretend it's a hypothetical world in which the U.S. is out of the picture at the U.N. Now countries can vote however they want on the security council, at the general assembly, or however you imagine the U.N. works. Now, what exactly could/would/should the U.N. do in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Someone earlier mentioned that the U.N. could patrol the seas near Gaza to prevent weapon shipments. I see no evidence that "the U.N." (whatever that even means in this context) wants to prevent weapon shipments to Gaza. Frankly, I see no evidence that most of the people on this board want that.

But do you think "the U.N." would vote to enforce a weapons blockage on Gaza? (Since you won't answer, I'll answer for you: no, you don't.)

OK. Maybe you think "the U.N." will vote to recognize a Palestinian state as was discussed earlier. Well, maybe they would. And that would change...what...exactly. I asked earlier, and someone responded with "a lot would change." I'm sure he's given specifics to flesh that out since I've been away.

Now let me let you in on a little open secret. The U.N. is a fucking joke. Yes, it's anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, if you care to look into it. But that's hardly a problem because the U.N. quite literally doesn't matter.

You say the U.N. doesn't stop the evil Zionist Jews from hurting those poor peaceful people who just want to live in peace with neighbor oh yes, we'd never lie to KILL THE JEWS THERE'S ONE BEHIND THAT TREE!

Well, yes, the U.N. doesn't stop them. The U.N. is powerless (fortunately). But that cuts both ways.

If all those countries that would vote against Israel at the U.N. to "stop Israel" just formed an alliance to take some action, the U.N. could and would do nothing to stop them. They really can't use the excuse "The U.N. won't let us" except on very uninformed people.

What is the action you think would be helpful here if "the U.N." took it? And why can't the countries form a coalition and simply take that action?

redzeronazi says:

"The" is used when there is a clear, unique referent, so I assume I missed this clear, unique action which the U.N. could take but is being stopped because of "the VETO." Can you save me the trouble of reading the past few days of posts and repeat what this action is? (<- This is a question and is being asked because I'm hoping you'll answer it. An answer would be in the form "The action the U.N. could take is ___." where you replace the ___ with a phrase that can be clearly interpreted as an action.)

What is it you really want? Since you guys don't answer questions, I'll answer for you again. You want dead Jews. Don't worry, eventually a coalition will be formed, the Jews will be killed, and you can hand out candy on the streets while cheering. The only thing that's delaying it is most people who want to do it want someone else to pay for it. And the fact that post-Hitler the Jews learned you have to shoot back, so the next people who try to kill the Jews might find themselves dead instead.

Jerusalem belongs to Israel.

1. I want to drink fresh white wine (isn't it too racist?)
2. I want to smoke weed (a plant of the Creation)
3. I want to do it looking at ... (privacy)

1+2+3=I want.

I want = opposition is illusory.

the admin of b.o. (or others idiots, low life, low what ever, from where ever) can say (only lies so who cares), think, do, attempt, or even attack Tsahal^tm (be ready such low lifes will do it (not iran, to be clear)).

premise: the b.o. admin past and present (and future) hates Judaism, simple only the POTUS must be trusted.

conclusion: it may be the last fight (ie real total, no mercy, etc).

even if it's radiated from fukushima (thx Japan).

Bitmos

(this isn't an endorsement of any israeli gov, just stating the fact that I feel better in Israel, than in any of it's neighbors... and there are many people that pretends to be Hebrews, but who aren't (will see, it's only a guess, I am not in a position to determine it) some live in Israel, others in foreign countries, some even do Shabat, however God Knows).

What is fun, is that if you don't agree, you will have to defeat an enemy (from your position) who has nowhere to go... that's the toughest fight, generally of a life time...

In pictures:


euobserver.com/media/src/46c6126ec514519a5db6c611e8b8d481.jpg

certain lack of perspective...


http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140906/377870_Gaza-War.jpg

here we go... It's called creating deepness in urban (battle)field, of course, once it's on, it's more (ruins)field.

advice: chose carefully.

Yes of course, but they cannot stop the action with the VETO. it should be removed, because 5 nations can't 'decide' to all the others. I can say at 99% that USA doesn't want to help the Palestinian people instead I can say they want help 'only' the israeli government.

Waiting a reply from J. J. Phillips  (if you want ) without any sort of blame or offense by you, thanks.

May be we should give more importance to either GDP or the total population. Giving 1 vote each to Monaco (which is having a population of 30,000) and China (population of 1.3 billion) is not fair either. The US is able to get dozens of votes by default, from its minuscule vassal states such as Micronesia and Marshall Islands, which puts it in an advantage when compared to the others.

Hmmm I do not think it is only a question of money but I agree with bryant.coleman, why is it needed this VETO? We can't call it a democracy vote where 1 nation = 1 vote but if one (or more) of those 5 nations will express the VETO, it can block everything ( this is really insane).

Probably, money.

Unless the VETO facility is removed from the superpowers, UN will remain as a toothless organization. Why we should consider five nations to be superior to the remaining world nations?