So let me get this right, the Jews could in 1948 take up arms and liberate a land that they say they owned 2000 years ago, but the Palestinians cannot liberate land (through peaceful means or war) we all know they owned a few decades ago ? AHAHAHAHAHA .. you are a funny guy I must admit. It doesn't work that way, browntown, you Jews still have a lot to learn, when you to steal land, expect the owners to fight back.
Again, I am not going to argue that the American's taking of Native American land was right, or that they way Israel got all it's land was right, or that the way Jordan or Iran or Italy got their land was right - it doesn't matter anymore. History of the world is written with stories of war where one group took land from another. We are not going back to undo every historical wrong. I know the Palestinians desperately wish they could and the world would support them, but it is not going to happen. What the world will support is for them to have a state on the lands where they live now. I also understand that the Palestinians, and most Islamic countries do not accept this fact. That they will arm the Palestinians and together attack Israel and try to take Israels' land back by force. That is what people have done throughout history. The only problem for them is that it is 2012 and not 1850 and the world will not let them simply take Israel over. Even if the world stood by and let them attack Israel with impunity, we all know Israel has weapons that could make sure whoever is attacking Israel pays the ultimate price. So what now? Do the Palestinians want to make the best deal they can and live and run a peaceful state in the West Bank and Gaza? If so, great for them, I would support them. If they want to make war and try to take Israel, I will support Israel. Thankfully, my government agrees with my position.
Palestinians are not doing anything illegal, that's what they are not hated by the world like the Israeli's are. They want a state in the Palestinian territories. And they want to democratically change Israel into another Palestinian state... why do you have a problem with democracy ? Oh please, the Arabs have nuclear weapons too. We all know who would win in a nuclear war. The Arabs have been busy dealing with Saddam Hussein, the Soviets, Kadafi, Hosni Mubarak and at the moment they are dealing with Assad, King Abdullah of Jordan and Khamenei. Israel is just a minor problem for the Arabs, but that problem can wait, for now. It's fun to turn the world against Zionists and use Israel as a tool to make the USA lose money. The USA has lost more than $3 trillion dollars on Israel since 1948 and will for sure lose more in the future.
Democracy doesn't give non-citizens the right to vote, or no country would stand. What you are requesting is actually against the principals of democracy. I think most sane people do, but I doubt you do. When you get done scrubbing cooking utensils at McDonalds, let me know how the battle is going general. LoL.
That's why the 7 million Palestinian refugees need to become Israeli citizens first. Israel is a few square kilometers, it would obviously lose. 2 or 3 nukes on key locations in Israel and it's over.
...and after all his waffle...he STILL can't show me the post where he claims he told me what he would do if he found himself in the same situation as a Palestinian. Yah, we Europeans had some flooding in coastal areas due to the rising sea level caused by all your tears. Boo-hoo! you cried. Look what they've done to us. Poor us. You dorks think that terrorism was invented on 9/11! Some of us, me included, have lived for decades with terrorism - having to look under our cars before we got in them, living with the fear of having our arses blown off just by going to do the shopping, travelling on public transport or just going to the pub for a drink and a HUGE percentage of the funding for all that terrorism came from the USA. The IRA could never have done what they did without those dollars. The most powerful country in the world, a country that spends BILLIONS of dollars every year on it's defence, left sobbing like babies by 11 'rag-heads' armed with a potato peeler. LOL! So Yah. Europe did find that amusing. Show me your post where you told me what you would do if someone stole your home and killed your family.
So now you see 9/11 as some sort of just payback because some Irish immigrants to the US sent money back to Ireland to fund the IRA? Wow. You really need to have your head examined. Talk about non-sequitur. And now you think you speak for all of Europe as you laugh about murder? LoL. What a moron. You have basically devolved into name calling because you can't construct a reasonable explanation/justification for murdering women and children to fight a war that is already lost (much like the IRA).
For that to happen, Israel would have to change its immigration laws, which means it will never happen. This is, of course, where you step in with desire to force Israel to do something it wouldnt do on its own, and where your revolution by democratic means falls apart. Yah, thanks for the confirmation. You think you can win a nuclear war. Says so much about you.
At the moment Israeli's won't give the refugees a right to return to their land. But the new generation of Israeli's will. This is because they don't want to be hated by the world any more. They don't want their elected leaders to be welcomed by protesters whenever they arrive in London. They won't want to be condemned and insulted on the media, at the UN and other international forums.
Oh come now fella. Don't get sore because you got a taste of what you were supporting. Well I am European, I live in Europe, I travel extensively in Europe, I speak daily to Europeans, I watch European news programmes and read European newspapers. That give me an insight into how Europeans feel. ...and that from someone that calls me a moron. Hypocrisy or what. LOL! What a joker! Show me your post where you told me what you would do if someone stole your home and killed your family.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other lobbing rockets into Israel is illegal. Using hospitals and ambulances to shield terrorists and hide weapons is illegal. The attempts to infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis is Illegal. You show your true ignorance with that answer. You actually surprise me with how much you believe the bullshit you spew. Glad you are having fun. As an American, I am happy with the money we spend supporting Israel. The money is not simply lost like the billions we spend supporting countries like Egypt. You have been losing a PR campaign for 60 years and the funniest part is Israel doesn't give a shit what the world thinks of it so even if you win a pr war, you gain nothing. America is more likely to give 40 acres and a mule to every black American than Israel is to give a right of return to a bunch of terrorist descendants of people who attacked them.
So you are against Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and all of those things that they do which you describe? You are just another hypocrite who will complain about that type of terrorism in one breath while cheering when those things happen to Jews. You act as though somebody cares what you think about it.
Who told you this ? Israel can be targeted because it continues to occupy Palestinian land and it continues to deny Palestinians their rights. Just because the Arabs have not publicly declared that they have nuclear weapons does not mean they don't have them. Israel never said it has nuclear weapons in public either, does that mean it doesn't have nuclear weapons? Of-course not. Yes yes you are so happy that a few miles of desert in the Middle East has costed the USA $3 trillion dollars. That's because you are a Zionist Jew. You love to live off others. You are a parasite.
Occupying land that does not belong to you is illegal. Using retaliatory force that is not equal to what you have suffered is illegal. Trampling on the human rights of others is illegal. Bombing hospitals is against international law and the Geneva Convention which, in case you don't know, Israel signed in 1951. Disobeying hundreds of UN resolutions is contrary to international law. So what is your point? I am against terrorism in all forms, whether it comes from the Palestinians, Jews, Africans, Germans, British, Spanish or anyone else that you care to mention. I am against the illegal occupation of one country by another. I do support, very strongly indeed, Palestine's fight to get their land back. You see it as terrorism (whilst of course, ignoring the terrorism carried out by Israel), others see it as fighting for their freedom. Did you also consider Nelson Mandela's fight to get Africa back to be 'terrorism'. Please explain how you see the actions of the ANC as being different to the actions of Hamas. Nope! I don't want to see Jews dying any more than I want to see Palestinians dying. I just happen to understand why Palestinians are angry whilst you don't. You obviously do, or you wouldn't have bothered to answer.
It's for the more reason the whole world should be aware. Terrorists don't want peace. How do you know this are you now the Hamas spokeperson ? How do you know Israel will do this for the Palestinians and the UN as well ? Man, its time to wake up and stop dreaming because the day that happens the world has stopped using petrol and half of the world population will take packs of raw bacon, down to their nearest mosque, and wrap the strips around the door handles of every door that leads into it, just to get even. Sh*T !
Mandela's "Army" fought the South African government with mortars, rocket launchers, suicide bombers with targetting civilian population, buses, places of worship settlements. Are those you were trying to say in comparison ?
They never will, for a myriad of reasons. 1) People like you speak openly about turning their democracy into a sham by means of population movement, and the Israelis aren't stupid. 2) True "refugees" are practically non-existent. Children born to "refugees" are citizens of the country they were born to. Even if there could be a legitimate claim to land made by these children, there could NEVER be a legitimate claim made to citizenship LoL. Hold your breath.
Ummm...yes they did. I suggest that you get a copy of Mandelas's biography. It's called "The Long Walk To Freedom" and in it Mandela himself describes how the South African government offered him his freedom on numerous occasions, IF HE WOULD RENOUNCE TERRORISM . Mandela always refused as he believed the armed struggle was necessary.....and THAT is why he spent so long in prison. "Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated "Spear of the Nation," was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela, which fought against the South African apartheid government. MK launched its first guerrilla attacks against government installations on 16 December 1961. It was subsequently classified as a terrorist organization by the South African government and the United States, and banned..... ....."in the Rivonia Trial, in which ten leaders of the ANC were tried for 221 acts of sabotage designed to "foment violent revolution"...... The MK carried out numerous bombings of civilian, military, industrial and infrastructural sites. The tactics were initially geared solely towards sabotage, but eventually expanded to include urban guerrilla warfare. Notable among these were the 8 January 1982 attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant near Cape Town, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the formation of the ANC, the Church Street bombing on 20 May 1983, killing 19, and the 14 June 1986 car-bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban, in which 3 people were killed and 73 injured. The total number of people killed or injured in the 30 years of MK's campaigns is not known exactly." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe Bombings Landmark events in MK's military activity inside South Africa consisted of actions designed to intimidate the ruling power. In 1983, the Church Street bomb was detonated in Pretoria near the SA Air Force Headquarters, resulting in 19 fatalities and 217 persons injured. During the next 10 years, a series of bombings occurred in South Africa, conducted mainly by the military wing of the African National Congress. In the Amanzimtoti bomb on the Natal South Coast in 1985, five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre. In a submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the ANC stated that Zondo acted in anger at a recent SADF raid in Lesotho.[9] A bomb was detonated in a bar on the Durban beach-front in 1986, killing three civilians and injuring 69. Robert McBride received the death penalty for this bombing which became known as the "Magoo's Bar bombing". Although the subsequent Truth and Reconciliation Committee called the bombing a "gross violation of human rights"[10], McBride received amnesty and became a police officer. In 1987, an explosion outside a Johannesburg court killed three people and injured 10; a court in Newcastle had been attacked in a similar way the previous year, injuring 24. In 1987, a bomb exploded at a military command centre in Johannesburg, killing one person and injuring 68 military personnel. The bombing campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets, including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four were killed and 18 injured. Also in 1988, in a bomb detonation outside a magistrate’s court killed three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb, killed two and injured 37. A multitude[citation needed] of bombs in "Wimpy Bar" fast food outlets and supermarkets occurred during the late 1980s, killing and wounding many people. Wimpy were specifically targeted because of their perceived rigid enforcements of many Apartheid-era laws, including excluding people of colour from their restaurants. Several other bombings occurred, with smaller numbers of casualties. Landmine campaign From 1985 to 1987, there also was a campaign to mine rural roads used by security forces in what was then the Northern Transvaal. In submissions to the TRC, the ANC described the strategy and how they abandoned it due to the high rate of civilian casualties—especially amongst black labourers. The ANC estimated 30 landmine explosions resulting in 23 deaths, while the government submitted a figure of 57 explosions resulting in 25 deaths. The TRC found that it could not condone the use of landmines because of the indiscriminate nature of the weapon which inevitably resulted in gross violations of human rights, but gave the ANC credit for abandoning the strategy. Torture and executions The TRC found that torture was "routine" — even though it was not official policy— as were executions "without due process" at ANC detention camps particularly in the period of 1979—1989 So pooptalk, now that you have been educated with the facts, please tell us how the ANC was any different to the PLO. Both were/are fighting to get their lands back from 'occupiers'. Both engaged in violence...yet...I would wager highly, that you consider Mandela and the ANC worthy opponents of an unacceptable oppressive regime. Please explain why, when we have two organisations both using the same methods to achieve the same goal, you consider one to be terrorists and the other to be freedom fighters............
I said you need your head examined because you were speaking in non-sequiturs, not that I was upset. Reading comprehension, 2nd grade. So your anecdotal evidence based on experience with Europeans allows you to speak on their behalf, or even be aware of what "Most" Europeans feel? Logic and Reasoning skills, every math class from 1st grade on. Speaking of anecdotal evidence, most English people I know don't consider themselves Europeans. There it is again. "Islam permits killing innocent women and children because of the occupation". LoL. Just because we cannot see the man on the moon, does not mean he does not exist!!! I want to nominate this as the dumbest thing put to print in the history of Digital Point. Read a history book. By the way, when you ask about my use of the word "moron", it comes from statements like this. It isn't an ad hom if you provide the evidence to back it up. But, according to your own words, 9-11 gave you a laugh. Oh the contradiction. Mandela was elected democratically by a black majority. For some reason or other, Hamas' candidate doesn't seem to get much play in Israel. Wonder why. I highly doubt that. You know what I'm really angry about? Obama, with the help of congress, lumped roll your own cigarettes into the same tax category as packaged cigarettes. The price went up 5x, and most if not all roll your own businesses went out of business. These people's livelihoods were wiped out with a stroke of a pen. Some of them had thriving businesses which employed many people, paid rent on store fronts, had large investments in advertising, paid taxes, etc. Now, its all worthless. Like those people, I am angry at this injustice! I suppose I have a few options. I can: a) Start bombing government facilities and killing government employees b) Murdering people not employed by the government at all, in hopes of creating enough fear to effect change c) Vote for new representation in hopes of having this idiotic tax repealed d) Acknowledge that vice taxes are here to stay, regardless of who gets elected to office, and go find another way to make money. Newsflash. Israel, in it's current form with its current citizens is here to stay.
You conveniently forgot about the TV, Radios, newspapers, constantly travelling extensively, the televised riots and protests against Israel. One can get a good indication of the depth of dislike. Most Americans I know don't consider themselves fat bastards...but they are. "English people" are Europeans...whether they consider it so or not. .Is that so? Well before making an arse of yourself you would do well to bone up on International Law. "Current international law imposes limitations on the use of force to defend against unlawful aggression that improperly advantage unlawful aggressors and disadvantage their victims." http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewconte...e greater than experienced international law" "Finally, under the traditional approach, the right of self-defence was limited by a ‘functional argument’:73 Article 51 and customary international law entitled states to ‘resort to force only defensively, in the presence of an armed attack and to the extent necessary to repel it" http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/2/359.full What the law says, as you clearly don't know, is that a country is allowed to use REASONABLE force to defend itself if attacked but it can't use a level of force that is measurably GREATER than the force that was used to attack IT. In layman's terms, that means that if your neighbour lobs a home-made grenade into your back yard, you can't retaliate with a multi-million dollar barrage of high powered guided missiles. AH...yet more deliberate misrepresentation. I suggest you read the post again. What gave us a laugh was the way Americans reacted to the attack..playing the poor victim card...not the attack itself. You sure are a master of misrepresentation. So what. So was Yasser Arafat. The point is that Mandela was head of a terrorist organisation that committed acts of terror against civilian targets. Too bad huh! Just live with it and move on like you think the Palestinians should do. Maybe move to another country and open another tobacco store huh? That's what the Brits thought about their empire! Ahem! Show me your post where you told me what you would do if someone stole your home and killed your family.