So why do people hate Israel?

So you are saying terrorism is a legitimate means to an end?

Do you guys actually think about your posts or are you using www.suckuptoisrael.com/repetitiousidioticresponsestoallquestions.html?

Nope, I fully disagree with terrorism no matter the reason of those who are doing it. The thing is, they let terrorism win, they (Palestine and the U.N) lost that "war" and we should focus on the present instead of the past to find solutions now. That is my point.


Now here is the nifty thing I don't care that the UN decided to give Jews a state hell for all I care they can give everyone there own state what I care about is that they gave someone else's land away to make that state and then expected them to sit back and live with it.

But no Britain had a chunk of dirt they didn't want and even though they had already offered it to the Arabs they figured there was more in it for them to give it to the Jews now here we are 70 years later trying to figure out how to fix this mess.

Yes, they gave away land that they had no real right to except the fact they governed it... Just like VDKMS said, it is the government (the leaders) that make the decisions and the rest obey it whether they like it or not. It don't have to be ethical to be legal.

We can get lost in the legality of the situation and it is off-topic anyways.
 
Yes, they gave away land that they had no real right to except the fact they governed it...
No they were not the government, they were the mandated administrators empowered under the League of Nations, and they never "gave it away", nor had the right to do so anyway, neither did the League of Nations. They were essentially powerless in such matters, even moreso than today's UN.

The Brits withdrew from Palestine, as the British public were not willing to suffer the continued losses of the Zionist terror groups, and would not support a new war against the Zionists, whilst still getting over the losses of WWII.
 
Nope, I fully disagree with terrorism no matter the reason of those who are doing it. The thing is, they let terrorism win, they (Palestine and the U.N) lost that "war" and we should focus on the present instead of the past to find solutions now. That is my point.

On the contrary the Palestinians haven't lost the war because they are still fighting it, however my argument remains as support for Israel is support for terrorism essentially your argument is that when terrorists become recognised they are no longer terrorists.

What neither you nor VD seem willing to face is that the Palestinians are for the most part native inhabitants and occupiers of the land and they have been forced off the majority of that land by a bunch of Europen boat people (they are not refugees because the majority moved after the war therefore there was no threat any longer) through the use of violence, manipulation, racism and threat and you believe that it is the Palestinians that should negotiate?

So by all means you guys can dance around the truth with maps of Turkey and meaningless double talk about not supporting terrorism unless they win then its fine but the fact is that time is not on Isreals side surrounded by someting like 150 million muslims living in wealthy countries some of which are becoming nuclear capable, others with NATO backing and only the support of a waning near bankrupt super power to rescue them.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary the Palestinians haven't lost the war because they are still fighting it, however my argument remains as support for Israel is support for terrorism essentially your argument is that when terrorists become recognised they are no longer terrorists.


When I said lost I was talking about Israel is in fact created, which is what the early terrorist wanted. They can try fighting now, but if they want to win support of todays people then they need to fight be todays rules. No country in the west will condone terrorism.

Your obviously trying to slip words in my mouth with that last sentence.
Tell me if the Germans won right now and held the countries firmly even till now, how will people view them?

As we all know the victors dictate who was right and wrong in history (most of the time).

What neither you nor VD seem willing to face is that the Palestinians are for the most part native inhabitants and occupiers of the land and they have been forced off the majority of that land by a bunch of Europen boat people (they are not refugees because the majority moved after the war therefore there was no threat any longer) through the use of violence, manipulation, racism and threat and you believe that it is the Palestinians that should negotiate?

I am saying that if they want their state, the best way would be to get support by those with the power to do it... Obviously their Islamic brothers are not within the power to do this. All they have done thus far is piss off westerners (whom are the ones that can help them).

Terrorism will not get their state, as Israel is not the Brits post WW2. All it does is piss people off, that is it.

So by all means you guys can dance around the truth with maps of Turkey and meaningless double talk about not supporting terrorism unless they win then its fine but the fact is that time is not on Isreals side surrounded by someting like 150 million muslims living in wealthy countries some of which are becoming nuclear capable, others with NATO backing and only the support of a waning near bankrupt super power to rescue them.

I know you didnt just call the muslim nations "wealthy"... The only thing that makes the wealth for them is the ground they stand on and once countries wise up (which U.S is finally doing), by making more re-newable energy investments, they will find oil helps little for them. For Pete's sake, the oil is the only reason western nations even gives a crap about it.


It will take at least half a century for another nation to overdue U.S. China is the closest and even if they sustained this growth many analyst believe it to be at least 50 years to even pass (if not catch up) to U.S. For example, Russia is a shell of what is used to be, but yet a lot of people fear and know how powerful it is. (granted its mainly because of their nuke stockpile XD)

Do you think Israel will be weak in 50 years?

I believe more people support Israel than Hamas, which is what a good deal of people think of when they talk about Palestine.
 
Last edited:
When I said lost I was talking about Israel is in fact created, which is what the early terrorist wanted. They can try fighting now, but if they want to win support of todays people then they need to fight be todays rules. No country in the west will condone terrorism.

Show me Prussia on a modern map.
Oh now I remember it was abolished in 1947 the moral of that story is nothing is set in stone, anything created can be destroyed.

Your obviously trying to slip words in my mouth with that last sentence.
Tell me if the Germans won right now and held the countries firmly even till now, how will people view them?

View who?
Germans?
My guess is that they would be viewed as occupiers and given the resistance movements sorry I mean terrorists sprang up almost immediately I imagine there would be a lot of terrorist I mean resistance activity going on.

As we all know the victors dictate who was right and wrong in history (most of the time).

No the victors write the history they do not dictate right from wrong.

I am saying that if they want their state, the best way would be to get support by those with the power to do it... Obviously their Islamic brothers are not within the power to do this. All they have done thus far is piss off westerners (whom are the ones that can help them).

I would suggest you are well off the mark as Palestinians do not want a state as much as they want their land back, as for what their "Islamic" brothers can and cant do get back to me in a couple of years now that Egypt isn't being run by a guy getting back handers to play the western game and Turkey is seeing its relationship with Israel deteriorating rapidly and I would rate both of those military's capable of defeating Israel at this point.

Terrorism will not get their state, as Israel is not the Brits post WW2. All it does is piss people off, that is it.

You are right Israel does not have anywhere near the resources available to it that Britain had and the technology that was available to Jewish terrorists is nothing like what is becoming available to the modern terrorist.

I know you didnt just call the muslim nations "wealthy"... The only thing that makes the wealth for them is the ground they stand on and once countries wise up (which U.S is finally doing), by making more re-newable energy investments, they will find oil helps little for them. For Pete's sake, the oil is the only reason western nations even gives a crap about it.


It will take at least half a century for another nation to overdue U.S. China is the closest and even if they sustained this growth many analyst believe it to be at least 50 years to even pass (if not catch up) to U.S. For example, Russia is a shell of what is used to be, but yet a lot of people fear and know how powerful it is. (granted its mainly because of their nuke stockpile XD)

Part of your problem is that you are assuming that the US will maintain its station economically so you are correct it would take 50 years for it to be overtaken however given that your debt is becoming unsustainable it is more likely you will regress thus reducing the 50 years until you sink below that of other nations.

Do you think Israel will be weak in 50 years?

I have no idea but it wouldn't surprise me if Israel was a smouldering hole in the ground 50 years from now, I can't predict the future though and for all I know the world could be a smouldering ruin by tomorrow morning with some of the idiots we have running the nations of this world.

However it seems even Israel is divided and you know what they say about a house divided..

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_a_settler_s_view
 
Last edited:
You are right Israel does not have anywhere near the resources available to it that Britain had and the technology that was available to Jewish terrorists is nothing like what is becoming available to the modern terrorist.


Lol, I loved the rest of your response. When I said Israel is not post WW2 Britain I meant that Israel can't just retreat as the Brits was able to.

I do not think U.S will maintain its stability, I just don't think it will rapidly fall anymore.

Well, there is no idea how the world would be if Germany had won. I do not think terrorism would have worked to fight Germany off, as they were ruthless.
 
Lol, I loved the rest of your response. When I said Israel is not post WW2 Britain I meant that Israel can't just retreat as the Brits was able to.

I do not think U.S will maintain its stability, I just don't think it will rapidly fall anymore.

Well, there is no idea how the world would be if Germany had won. I do not think terrorism would have worked to fight Germany off, as they were ruthless.

Hi RayManKiller,

I raise questions about all references to the Second World War, which was a unique event. We have the state of Israel and we have the Palestinians, what do you think should be the solution to the conflict? Do you think people outside Israel really hate Israel? I have met a lot of people from the Arabic world, even Palestinians, they do not hate Israel, they dislike the Government of Israel sometimes, but they do not hate the Israelis
 
No, its not a valid comparison. You cannot compare with the WWII, you need to learn to compare. I can compare, you cannot
I raise questions about all references to the Second World War, which was a unique event.
This is where your argument becomes somewhat delusional.

OK,...every event is "unique", including all wars, but that does not mean that the wars and events that occurred within them cannot be compared, as there are many things that are not "unique" such as most wars have an aggressor and a victim, they all have a winner and a loser (to a degree).

In the case I made when I posed the question:
Did we ask how can we reach a peace that satisfies both the Germans and the Allies in 1939?

The answer is, No!,... we did not, and the reason we didn't ask that question is because one side was clearly the aggressor who invaded the lands of others, as is the case in Palestine where a people have been forced of their land by an aggressive invader.
 
Last edited:
This is where your argument becomes somewhat delusional.

OK,...every event is "unique", including all wars, but that does not mean that the wars and events that occurred within them cannot be compared, as there are many things that are not "unique" such as most wars have an aggressor and a victim, they all have a winner and a loser (to a degree).

In the case I made when I posed the question:

The answer is, No!,... we did not, and the reason we didn't ask that question is because one side was clearly the aggressor who invaded the lands of others, as is the case in Palestine where a people have been forced of their land by an aggressive invader.

But you cannot compare WWII with Israel, sorry. What can we compare WWII, Nothing!!!! Not even WWI, we need a WWIII to make a comparison like that.
 
Last edited:
Hi RayManKiller,

I raise questions about all references to the Second World War, which was a unique event. We have the state of Israel and we have the Palestinians, what do you think should be the solution to the conflict? Do you think people outside Israel really hate Israel? I have met a lot of people from the Arabic world, even Palestinians, they do not hate Israel, they dislike the Government of Israel sometimes, but they do not hate the Israelis

No, I don't think majority of the world (including Arabics) hate Israel, as in the people of Israel. I believe they are very critical of it though, just like how other countries are very critical of U.S, but do not hate it.

I believe Palestine should get their 1967 borders, that is recognized, but demilitarized (for obvious reasons). Israel would not dare to attack Palestine unprovoked when it is demilitarized and recognized by the entire, or at least the most of the U.N.

The only way for this to happen though is if Palestine denounces violence and open up to talks. If Israel decides to douche it out, then they will be pressed into it. U.S is not going to press Israel over Palestine and rightfully so (imo). Palestine done some stupid stuff (terrorism mainly) which is frowned upon by many U.S citizens, so why should U.S back Palestine over Israel?

Sure Israel does stuff as well that we don't like, but so do many other countries, you don't see us invading every single country that do not comply with our way of thinking (excluding Cold War).
 
Last edited:
But you cannot compare WWII with Israel, sorry. What can we compare WWII, Nothing!!!! Not even WWI, we need a WWIII to make a comparison like that.


I wasn't comparing, just referencing. Showing that the country that wins is usually what decides get written down in history. I was saying this as a way to say that Israel, like it or not Monty, is here to stay and they are no longer "terrorist" by definition. Palestine lost the war once they refused the borders the U.N gave them.


You (Seno) seem to think that it is dependent on the reason someone does something that justify the means; justifying terrorism in its definition that most agree with. Palestinians who attacked Israeli civillians are terrorists, like it or not.
 
No, I don't think majority of the world (including Arabics) hate Israel, as in the people of Israel. I believe they are very critical of it though, just like how other countries are very critical of U.S (but do not hate it).

I believe Palestine should get their 1967 borders, that is recognized, but demilitarized (for obvious reasons). Israel would not dare to attack Palestine unprovoked when it is demilitarized and recognized by the entire, or at least the most of the U.N.

The only way for this to happen though is if Palestine denounces violence and open up to talks. If Israel decides to douche it out, then they will be pressed into it. U.S is not going to press Israel over Palestine and rightfully so (imo). Palestine done some stupid stuff (terrorism mainly) which is frowned upon by many U.S citizens, so why should U.S back Palestine over Israel?

Sure Israel does stuff as well that we don't like, but so do many other countries, you don't see us invading every single country that do not comply with our way of thinking (excluding Cold War).

Hate is a very strong word, and it has been wrongly used many times. Are you favor of a two state solution? This historical crap going on here on this thread does not lead anywhere. Arguing about who did what and why 60
years ago?? This is not directed to you, Ray. Live in the present, not the past! We have situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they are not interested in historical discussions, believe me! They have a problem. How do you want to solve the problem?
 
I wasn't comparing, just referencing. Showing that the country that wins is usually what decides get written down in history. I was saying this as a way to say that Israel, like it or not Monty, is here to stay and they are no longer "terrorist" by definition. Palestine lost the war once they refused the borders the U.N gave them.


You (Seno) seem to think that it is dependent on the reason someone does something that justify the means; justifying terrorism in its definition that most agree with. Palestinians who attacked Israeli civillians are terrorists, like it or not.
I am not justifying terrorism per se, but I am justifying self defence by any means, you only call it terrorism because it suits your rather poor argument. As has been pointed out here before, the French Marquis and any number of other resistance groups, did as bad, if not worse and were never accused of terrorism other than perhaps by the Nazis, such is the case here.

And you are wrong, Israel's actions are still terrorism and always will be as Israel has absolutely no legal no moral right to be in Palestine in the first place. Tell me where in the UN charter it gives them the right to just give away the country of another people to a third party?
 
Last edited:
Hate is a very strong word, and it has been wrongly used many times. Are you favor of a two state solution? This historical crap going on here on this thread does not lead anywhere. Arguing about who did what and why 60
years ago?? This is not directed to you, Ray. Live in the present, not the past! We have situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they are not interested in historical discussions, believe me! They have a problem. How do you want to solve the problem?

Rightly said hate is indeed strong word.you cannot simply hate anybody unless you are involved in it directly or indirectly. like i said before co existence is the solution to this problem but only both the parties should be ready to make some sacrifices,which they are making anyway but in the extreme way.
 
No they were not the government, they were the mandated administrators empowered under the League of Nations, and they never "gave it away", nor had the right to do so anyway, neither did the League of Nations. They were essentially powerless in such matters, even moreso than today's UN.

Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized.
So yes, the Mandate for Palestine served as the government.

The Brits withdrew from Palestine, as the British public were not willing to suffer the continued losses of the Zionist terror groups, and would not support a new war against the Zionists, whilst still getting over the losses of WWII.

The British withdrew from Palestine and India in 1948 because of the costs. Britain was virtualy bankrupt after WWII and were only saved by a $3.5 billion loan from the United States.
Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve. The General Assembly voted for a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state.
The British were attacked by the Zionists AND the Palestinians. Izzedin Al Qassam preached Jihad against the British from Haifa. In the autumn of 1937, Hajj Amin El Hussein was forced to flee Palestine, as he was implicated in the murder of the British Commissioner for the Northern District. In 1938 Arab guerillas sabotaged the TAP oil pipe.
 
Show me Prussia on a modern map.
Oh now I remember it was abolished in 1947 the moral of that story is nothing is set in stone, anything created can be destroyed.

Yes, and born out of that were 2 Germanies. East and West who joined in 1990 and some wanted it to be called ... Prussia. This former Prussia is now the fourth largest by nominal GDP in the world !

I would suggest you are well off the mark as Palestinians do not want a state as much as they want their land back, as for what their "Islamic" brothers can and cant do get back to me in a couple of years now that Egypt isn't being run by a guy getting back handers to play the western game and Turkey is seeing its relationship with Israel deteriorating rapidly and I would rate both of those military's capable of defeating Israel at this point.

The Egyptian Islamists vowed to keep the peace accord with Israel. Israel is strengthening it's ties with Ethiopia which is building a huge dam on the Nile that will decrease water volume through Sudan and Egypt. If Egypt starts to become more fundamentalistic it's income from tourism will fall dramatically and the $ from the US will dry up. They will be in trouble within the shortest period of time.
Turkey (Erdogan) dreams of the lost powers of the Ottoman Empire. If they attack Israel that would be the end of Turkish Nato membership. That will also make them vulnerable to pressure from their longtime enemy Russian.
Erdogan is to smart to do such foolish things. Fanatical Islamists do foolish things, none of their countries lives in prosperity.

Part of your problem is that you are assuming that the US will maintain its station economically so you are correct it would take 50 years for it to be overtaken however given that your debt is becoming unsustainable it is more likely you will regress thus reducing the 50 years until you sink below that of other nations.

You underestimate the economic power of the USA. If they tax their people like European countries do they are out of debt within a couple of years. The US has also huge corporate assets. Take a close look at Japan and you will understand what I am saying.
 
The answer is, No!,... we did not, and the reason we didn't ask that question is because one side was clearly the aggressor who invaded the lands of others, as is the case in Palestine where a people have been forced of their land by an aggressive invader.

They were not invaders but immigrants who got the same citizenship as the people who lived their.
They were forced from their land by war which the Arabs started. Some stayed, some fled and returned and others fled and never returned.
 
Hate is a very strong word, and it has been wrongly used many times. Are you favor of a two state solution? This historical crap going on here on this thread does not lead anywhere. Arguing about who did what and why 60
years ago?? This is not directed to you, Ray. Live in the present, not the past! We have situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they are not interested in historical discussions, believe me! They have a problem. How do you want to solve the problem?

Problem is that the ones who want the destruction of Israel (Hamas and other fundamentalists) do live in the past. They do not want Palestinian land back (there never has been) but muslim land. The region Palestine became muslim land after the battle of Yarmouk in 636. And once muslim land always muslim land. Why do you think the muslim fundamentalists want Kashmir back?
 
And you are wrong, Israel's actions are still terrorism and always will be as Israel has absolutely no legal no moral right to be in Palestine in the first place. Tell me where in the UN charter it gives them the right to just give away the country of another people to a third party?

They didn't give away a country from other people. Their former country, the Ottoman Empire, ceased to exist in 1923. Many new countries were created after WWI. Only Israel was created by the powers of the League of Nations. many others were created just by France and Britain ( a.o. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia )
 
I wasn't comparing, just referencing. Showing that the country that wins is usually what decides get written down in history. I was saying this as a way to say that Israel, like it or not Monty, is here to stay and they are no longer "terrorist" by definition. Palestine lost the war once they refused the borders the U.N gave them.



You (Seno) seem to think that it is dependent on the reason someone does something that justify the means; justifying terrorism in its definition that most agree with. Palestinians who attacked Israeli civillians are terrorists, like it or not.

I said it to Seno, not to you, Ray. WWII was very unique, and with any comparison or even a reference to it is complicated, because what we do if we do so is to take WWII out from context prior WWII, which is way different than Israel and the problems there
 
Back
Top