How the Palestinians could defeat Israel.

[barts]

And again, Mr. Barts, why should the Zionist dream end? Why not the Palestinian dream? Why should the Palestinians be allowed to destroy the Zionist dream and not visa versa? Why should the Palestinians have the right to destroy or kill the people of Israel and the people of Israel have no {right] to destroy or kill the people of Palestine? Is this the type of {equal rights} that you and others love to preach about? And if so, how is it {equal?} How is it {equal} that one should be allowed the {right] to destroy or kill the other and the other should not be allowed the same {right?] Is it that this is how {equal rights} work?

Who said anyone should "destroy" anyone? For another view, see A taboo question for Israelis in the Jerusalem Post.

[Charlatan]

The Palestinians have no hope of achieving their political goals militarily. Indeed, Palestinian attacks on Israel, as innocuous as they are, strengthen Israel as they insure American political support and funding, and Israeli intransigence and hatred.

To defeat Israel, let me suggest that the Palestinians by way of a public referendum renounce not only all of their territorial claims without reservation, but also agree to become citizens or residents of Israel and obey, without reservation, all Israeli laws.

In other words, an end to all conflict, an end to denial of a "Jewish state", and total acquiescence to all Israeli demands.

As peaceful residents of Israel, most of the need for American support would evaporate, and Israel would have to deal with its new residents and possibly citizens as any other democratic country. Within a short period, the Palestinians would gain political, cultural, and economic power and likely even majority status within Israel, without firing a shot or launching a rocket. Palestinians have higher population growth rates than the Israelis do. Currently, there are about 5 million Palestinians in the Israeli controlled areas, and about 6 million Jews.

As the Palestinian's political and economic power increased in Israel, they would gain de facto control over Israel and be able to realize all of their ambitions, including a de facto "Palestinian state" that would be named Israel.

Ironically, this strategy of slow infiltration is similar to how the Jewish community gained control over "Palestine".

In my view, the Israelis have demonstrated since 1967 that they have, in fact, no interest in any peace of any kind with the Palestinians. Israel's leaders have always understood that should peace break out, the above political scenario would become a reality and mark the beginning of the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish state.

In order to survive as a "Jewish state" rather than a fully democratic and secular one, Israel needs enemies and neverending war.

To defeat the Israelis, all the Palestinians need to do is "surrender" and declare "peace."

Ironically, with the end of a Jewish state, day-to-day life for Israelis would improve and they wouldn't, as they are doing now, feel such a need to emigrate. Ironic, too, is it not that the future of Jews in Eretz Yisrael may depend on Palestinians surrendering unconditionally, and assuming democratic control over Israel as peaceful residents and citizens.

That is only if they were to base thier elections on religious grounds. In the future, when it takes about ten years or so for this population dynamic to affect the elections, you will need to know that they are not currently voting inside Isreal based on religious grounds, but educated ones. Palestinians growing up in Isreal are not bred the same stuff as their neighbour, leading to an informed society that does not shun anything. It is like comparing African Africans to Afro Americans, where the Afro Americans are educated and do not base everything on the muti of Arfica, although they remember it, they do not live thier lives by it.

Now if you were to take that into account you have a fully working society.

Strangely enough with enough Palestinians in Isreal they wouldn't be attacking Isreal anymore, with enough mixing of the people that is.

Things are therefore looking good for Isreal, unless the Palestinians regaurd these brothers of theirs as enemies, that is.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Aren't you forgetting that the Palestinians don't live in Israel but in territories under Israeli military occupation (or Gaza, which the Izzies blast any time they feel like it)?

Or, which Israel is moved to blast anytime the Palestinians feel like it?

If the Palestinians did what you suggest, Israel would pocket the peace and decline to officially expand its borders to include them. End of issue.

One would be led to think so?

Anyway, Israel already faces demographic problems owing to the burgeoning population among its own Arab citizens, not to mention that many Israeli Jews are getting fed up with all the violence and starting to leave. Many to Germany, interestingly (and gallingly/embarrassingly for the Likudniks).

So then it would appear that the primary offensive weapon of the guy who goes into a crowd and yells "Alalalalalalalalalaaa" and then goes BOOM, is working? Interesting. One would think that this should stick a fork into the idea that posits that the Palestinians have not analyzed their situation in "the rational strategic manner? “ So much for that idea, huh?

[grandpa]

Or, which Israel is moved to blast anytime the Palestinians
feel like it?

So, just evict the paliswine squatters, huh? Yeah, that's civilized.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Indeed, but Bart's suggestion is remarkably astute.

…and is already being implemented in places around the world. It’s not exactly a suggestion that is terribly {new?}

The Palestinians reproduce at an astonishing rate - this is what got the them where they are today. Integrating them in Israel could be quite smart and it would elegantly resolve the land issue.

…until the Israelis join the {minority.}

Secondly, what exactly is your definition of {elegant?}

Thirdly, why does integrating the Palestinians into Israel mean that the land issue will no longer exist? How does Palestinian integration make the land issue disappear?

I would, however, imagine that the Israelis wouldn't be too keen on such an idea.

And why should they be? Why should they jump at the opportunity to lose their land and means of subsistence? Do they not have the {right] to keep the land that was given to them? Do you eagerly jump at the opportunity to be stripped of your home and means of subsistence?

Well precisely, for obvious reasons. And that's what I mean -- it's a non-starter.

…some would think.

Nevertheless, the Izzies have a real demographic problem on their hands. Time is not at all on their side.

Well, one should think that they had better start propagating or either find a way to keep the Palestinians from doing so?

[barts]

Do they not have the {right] to keep the land that was given to them?

What land was given to the Israelis? Who gave it to them? And, whose land was it before it was given to the Israelis?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

I'm not suggesting anything that Gandhi and Martin Luther King didn't use.

Of course you are not, Mr. Barts. This suggestion of yours is not exactly {new} news? There are those who are very much aware of the Reality that these two occupy in the annals of those who have used {subversive} measures to alter institutions? That is, that it is known that these “paragons of virtue” were well schooled in the art of using covert and subversive tactics to undermine the societal institutions of those who were seen as their enemies. How else did you expect them to accomplish their objective of surviving in a manner that they believed was fitting?

Now, Mr. Barts, since it is that you took the Time to bring this up, is it that you can further explain to us the mechanics behind those tactics? In other words, how and why is it that such covert and subversive tactics are able to work? What type of psychology is needed for these tactics to work? What type of environment do they work in?

Secondly, in continuing in this subject of subversive tactics, one is reminded of a similar conversation. That is, one recalls another Point In Time, when during a discussion regarding the {just} and {unjust} Laws of sovereign nations, another debate regarding the Rev. Martin Luther King came about. It was, that in this gathering, an individual, who, in his attempt to defend the U.S. Constitution and delineate the difference between {just} and {unjust Laws,} was actually led to try to use the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s famous words from the Birmingham Jail for such a purpose. Here is one of the {more} famous lines from that letter that was used in the discussion that was found to be of particular interest:

I. Excerpts from Dr. Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail.
(April 16, 1963)

Quote
“Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.”

So it was that after examining the letter (and especially this line,) it became evident to us that its writer did not intend for it to be an instrument with which an individual should use to defend the U.S. Constitution? Instead, it is that it was shewn that this was a tool which was devised so that it may be used as a means of subverting and undermining that Constitution. This is because, if it is that we are to take the writer at his word, and he is someone who believes that “ A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.” then it must be that the same individual must see the {entire} U.S. Constitution as an “unjust Law?” Why? Well, as one recalls, in regards to being denied the {right] to vote, it is taught that at the writing and enacting of the U.S. Constitution, African Americans, Asians, Native Indians and other racial {minority} groups were denied the {right] to vote? And as a result of being denied the {right] to vote, these groups had no part in enacting or devising the U. S. Constitution?

Now, if it is, that as a result of being denied the right to vote African Americans, Asians, Native Indians and other racial {minority} groups had no part in enacting or devising the U. S. Constitution, and if it is as the writer has stated, that “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.” then we must conclude, that in the eyes of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the entire U. S. Constitution is an {unjust} Law. And as such a Law, it was in need of abolishment? Therefore, it is that Dr. King decided that it was in his best interest to set about subverting and undermining it. And the letter from the Birmingham Jail was one of the instruments with which he chose to use to accomplish that goal.

So, Mr. Barts, you bringing up the use of {subversive} tactics by Dr. King and Mr. Gandhi made one recall the discussion that was had in terms of Dr. King's use of the letter from the Birmingham Jail. That is, how such a letter is used to subvert and undermine, and helps to bring about that which Dr. King had set out to fulfill.

[Thanatos]

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

He wasn't going around breaking laws on principle. His anarchism had a direction. MLK wanted to break the parts of the social contract that he had not signed and that were holding his minority back. Laws that his minority had not participated in the writing of were not unjust just because, but rather because they tended to favor the people who did get to write and regularly rewrite them.

There is nothing wrong with your logic, except for the fact that it is stupid. The truth is obvious in the context of the quote. Everything in the universe is contingent, especially comments, and taking them out of their native context and then applying logic to them is not productive. It is quite easy to conduct a document where every single sentence is innocuous yet the whole is quite evil, or vice versa.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

No Barts, you're probably not suggesting anything that Gandhi or Martin Luther King didn’t use. But your not answering Mr. Mxyzptlk questions either.

I believe they both would have answered questions (from the heart) presented to them about their beliefs about Israel.

Yes Mr. Ripper, one could conclude that they both would have probably answered those questions from the heart? But here is the Thing: In answering those questions, would those answers (from the heart) be in accordance with what they truly believe? Or would they simply be answers (from the heart) that are given for the furtherance and strengthening of their own cause and movement?

What I can’t see is you intentionally putting yourself on their level and will chalk it down as an oversight on your part.

Now, to your answers.

Hey, nothing {wrong} with that?


By the way, while we are on the issue of those who would employ subterfuge and {subversive} tactics to undermine and destroy Israel and or the societal institutions of their enemies, there is wind of a very {good} remake of V, a 1980’s television program, which deals with the invasion of alien beings from another world. Now, one must say, from what has been seen so far, this is a program that has done a {wonderful} job of illustrating how some of these various tactics are employed and put to use for the advantage of a group. Have you or anyone else seen the program, Mr. Ripper? If not, you should try viewing it sometimes? It is amazing how art imitates life. Or is it that we should be amazed at how life imitates art?

I.V (2009 TV series)

II.V’ debut makes its sci-fi alluring, mysterious

III.V on ABC

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Israel will not be defeated, it says so in the bible. They will come close, but Israel will never be completely destroyed.

And so, Dr. Barber, since it is that the Bible has said that she will never be completely destroyed, is it that Israel should simply take comfort in that fact and move to go back to sleep? Or should she still be working towards the prevention of such an occurrence? Should she still be working towards securing her inheritance? Should she still be striving to survive?

Secondly, who is they?

But don't take my word for it. The events in the bible will come to pass, and if you're alive, you'll be able to witness it for yourself.

I think it will happen rather soon though. Advances in technology and recent changes in the government will make it very easy for a one world government and leader.

Now, Dr. Barber, it is all fine and dandy for you to tell us all about what the Holy Bible has to say about what will or will not happen to Israel and the rest of the world, but here is a question: Why should you and anyone else care? Or should you or anyone else even care? Should you or anyone else even care that people are trying to destroy Israel? Should you and anyone else even care about what the Holy Bible has to say about Israel’s survival? In fact , why should you or anyone else even listen to what the Holy Bible has to say? Why should you or anyone else listen to a book that is reported to have been written by a bunch of {“illiterate“} and {“unscientific”} herders? Herders and farmers whose intelligence and technology {clearly} pales in comparison to the intelligence and technology of today’s scientists, as some have said? Surely you are aware of the fact that today’s scientists are far more wiser than those {“unscientific“} {“unlearned“} individuals, as some have said? So why listen to them?

Things like DigitalAngel and RFID chips are already being used and are growing in popularity. I read not too long ago how people are already using chips to go clubbing.

Hopefully not for seals?

What people don't realize is that this is the perfect technology for a one world leader.

Dr. Barber, have you never thought that maybe it is that it is not that these people do not realize? Instead, maybe the fact is that these people do realize but they just do not have the same concerns as you have? Maybe it is that they are looking for their one world Leader? Maybe it is that they are in agreement with this one world Leader ?

Think about it. What would be all the benefits of this chip? No more missing children; you would always be able to find your child. Less crimes; if everyone has this chip, no more hiding for criminals because it'd be a lot easier tracking them down. Easier and safer payment. No more dollars or credit cards and wallets. Just walk in, grab what you need, scan your arm and walk out.

Well, let’s think about a couple Things, Dr. Barber: Is it that you are of the mind that a people should not be allowed to enjoy the Leader that they have chosen to worship? In other words, should a people not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the Leader that they have chosen to follow? Should they not be allowed to reap the consequence of their Actions? Should they not be allowed to be in league with a Leader whose beliefs are in tune with theirs? Should they not be allowed to engage with a Leader whose leadership is {conducive} to their survival?


Secondly, why should these people be prevented from the benefits of this chip? Why should they be prevented from enjoying that which will confer upon them the benefits which are {conducive} to their survival? Why should they be prevented from enjoying {easier} and {safer} payments? Why should they be prevented from enjoying a place where criminals are {easier} to track down? Why should they be prevented from enjoying {less} crime?

It would be extremely easy for the government to make this mandatory. Many people won't even have a problem with it; probably only 25% of people will oppose it, maybe even less than that.

Now, Dr. Barber, why is it that the 75% should be prevented by the 25%? More specifically, why should the 75% be prevented by the 25% from engaging in that which will confer upon them the benefits which are {conducive} to their survival? Shouldn’t the 25% be moving to engage in that which is conducive to their own survival?

And when you're outnumbered like that, people won't even care.

Oh no, Dr. Barber, when you’re outnumbered like that, people will care. Someone will always care? After all. there is always the care of the one who is outnumbered?

You'll either have to accept the chip or starve to death.

Or accept the chip and still starve to death?

Not accepting the chip would make you seem like you don't want it so you can commit crimes more easily.

Well, Dr. Barber, one should think that the Act of you or any other individual not accepting the chip after it is made mandatory would already be a {criminal} Act? In other words, you not accepting that which a one world Leader has made mandatory would make you an individual who has already committed a crime? You don’t need to seem when it is that you already have.

Secondly, what other reason would there be for an individual not to accept something that confers such {terrific} benefits? What other reason than for the purpose of committing crime?

People are already forced to sign up for Selective Service.

And are they not people who willingly oblige?

How much time before we're forced into something else?

What else is there?





By the way, one assumes that when you speak of chip you are actually referring to the mark of the beast?

[grandpa]

And so, Dr. Barber, since it is that the Bible
has said that she will never be completely destroyed, is
it that Israel should simply take comfort in that fact
and move to go back to sleep?
Or should she still be working towards the prevention of
such an occurrence?

I knew this would not be a realistic conversation. Israel is close to completely destroying the Palestinians, not the other way around. I won't go through the trouble to specify, as Israel is crippling Palestinians on all fronts.

So what you think is more important says more about you than about reality.

Grandpa h.

[scholardude]

I knew this would not be a realistic conversation. Israel is close to completely destroying the Palestinians, not the other way around. I won't go through the trouble to specify, as Israel is crippling Palestinians on all fronts.

So what you think is more important says more about you than about reality.

Grandpa h.

Any argument that begins by suggesting that Israel is in trouble in any way usually cues my "shut up and walk away'o meter". I deal with enough Zionists at school for whom even suggesting that the side with the tanks, fighter jets, walls and aggressive settlers might be better equipped to instigate a peaceful solution than the side herded into ghettos with no hope for a productive future is like saying "I like terrorists". I honestly used to be far more neutral in this argument before I actually met zionists.

Of course I think rocket attacks and suicide bombings are reprehensible, but I also recognize that these are the natural consequence of a people systematically marginalized and terrorized themselves. Can anyone really say that they would not be motivated to lash out, to do anything to punch your enemy in the mouth when faced with the hopeless and destitute situation many Palestinians find themselves in?

Bart's original post is interesting. Ultimately, though, it's difficult to expect a people who feel as if they've been purposefully and systematically done away with as an entity to make the first moves for a real solution. Israel has all the power, all the resources, and yet still forces the Palestinians back with settlements and walls rather than offering them the hope they need to even desire peace.