How the Palestinians could defeat Israel.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

True. I can't say I'm jealous of their present psycho-social-political
situation.

Grandpa h.

And there are those who will agree with you? These will also tell you that they themselves cannot say that they are jealous of Israel’s present psycho-social-political?

Israel is not just another "state". Israel is a Jewish state, and the culmination of Zionism. Intrinsic to current Jewish culture and cohesiveness is the notion of persecution, and the struggle against it. Absent the notion the endless conflict of Jews struggling against persecution (real, imagined, or feared), the Jewish culture would melt in the larger culture melting pot, in my view. Consequently, even where there is no or very little persecution of Jews, the persecution complex is maintained and fostered.

And Mr. Barts, you are saying this to say exactly what? Is it that we cannot say this for many states? Can we not say the same for those whom you favor and defend? Can we not say the same for the Palestinians?

“Intrinsic to current Palestinian culture and cohesiveness is the notion of persecution, and the struggle against it. Absent the notion the endless conflict of Palestinians struggling against persecution (real, imagined, or feared), the Palestinian culture would melt in the larger culture melting pot, in my view. Consequently, even where there is no or very little persecution of Palestinians, the persecution complex is maintained and fostered.”

So again, why is it that you are so intent on destroying only Israel and her culture? Why should Israel not be allowed to exercise its culture? Does it not have the {right] to do so? Are we to conclude that it is only the Palestinians who have this {right?] Are we to conclude that it is only the Palestinians who should be allowed to exercise their culture? Are you not of those who are always preaching and teaching about equality? Are you not of those who are supposed to be of love and no hate? Or is all of that just a shill? Is all of that just part of the infiltration game?

Ironically, had there been no Holocaust, there would be no Israel and there would have been a broader diaspora. Ironic again, isn't it that one of the Jewish people greatest enemies, Hitler, made possible the realization of some Jews greatest dream, Israel.

And so you wish for History to repeat itself again we see? That is, with the exception being that this Time you wish to place Israel in the stead of Mr. Hitler and the Palestinians in the stead of Israel? So in essence, you and your people are wishing and waiting for a pretext or pretexts that will allow you all the opportunity or opportunities to demean and eventually destroy Israel? An opportunity or reason to destroy Israel for exerting its {right] to self-preservation? And of course, with this eventual destruction, you will help the Palestinians to realize their greatest dream, a Palestine without Israel? Very interesting, Mr. Barts?






By the way, don’t mind those who question you and your people about how such an Action is one that is in line with the standard of equality which you are so fond of preaching and teaching ? Don’t mind those who question what type of standard of equality deems it appropriate to champion the destruction of one and not the other? You and your people go right ahead. Maybe one day after you finish destroying Israel you will come back and teach us more about how this equality of yours works?

[barts]

And Mr. Barts, you are saying this to say exactly what? Is it that we cannot say this for many states? Can we not say the same for those whom you favor and defend? Can we not say the same for the Palestinians?...

Don’t mind those who question what type of standard of equality deems it appropriate to champion the destruction of one and not the other? You and your people go right ahead. Maybe one day after you finish destroying Israel you will come back and teach us more about how this equality of yours works?

My people? What or who are my people?

Anyone, as you do Mr. Mxyzptlk, can run from real debate by posing endless rhetorical questions, passing them off as intellectual prowess. Rhetorical questions require little, even no, grasp of an issue. Perhaps you should begin to answer the questions posed to you. Or is that too difficult? Too challenging? I suspect it is. Until you begin to answer questions posed to you and exhibit some intellectual courage for a change, I see no reason to respond to your insincere, disingenuous questions. They are not offered to improve debate but merely, in my view, as self-aggrandizement. I am I wrong in that assessment?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Israel won't allow it.

Mr. Barts, is Israel alone in not allowing for a Palestinian state? Or is it that that is what you wish for us to believe? How about the Palestinians? Are they not involved in not allowing for their own state?






By the way, why won’t you simply allow the current T-Party to take over the reigns of governance? How about sitting idly by and allowing them to take over the country? A state? Your State? Why are you and your people so intent on fighting their ascent? Why is it that you have not laid down yet? Or is it that you are asking Israel not to fight when you yourself will fight and do fight the ascension of a group whose views are antithetical to your own? Is that not the {ultimate} of hypocrisies ? Well of course it is! But hey, what is a {little} hypocrisy amongst enemies? “It’s okay for me to do all of the fighting while you must do all of the laying.” Mr. Barts, it seems that you believe that you are dealing with chickens who should just simply sit down and lay?

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

Did we forget so soon, Mr. Barts? Are you not the individual who has posted a plan on how the Palestinians could infiltrate and destroy Israel? Or is it, that even with your own postings as evidence, you are going to deny ever doing such a Thing? Has atheism moved you to the Point where you will now go beyond denying the existence of God to denying the existence of your own words? Quotes = Mr. Barts
POST# 1

“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.”

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

POST# 5
“ Indeed, it is a one state solution. I can see why the Israelis would object because it would be the end of the Zionist dream. For the Palestinians, however, it would over time--less time than since the '67 war--give them everything they ever hoped for.”

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

That is only if they were to base thier elections on religious grounds.

And what other grounds are there for them to base their elections on? What ground do you base your choices on? Are they not based on a {personal} set of beliefs? Are they not based on attitudes and practices? And if so, then who are you to tell others not to base their choices on religion when it is that you yourself are someone who does the same? Or is it that you are of the mind that your own elections are not based on religion?

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.

Then it must be that you have come to conclude that {religious} grounds are not “educated ones? And it must also be, that as a result of that conclusion, it is that you wish for everyone else to conclude that {religious} grounds are not “educated ones?” So Mr. Charlatan, what is it that makes {religious} grounds to not exist as “educated ones?” What makes it so? Is it that {religious} grounds do not teach? Do they not train? Are they not based on knowledge of fact?

Palestinians growing up in Isreal are not bred the same stuff as their neighbour, leading to an informed society that does not shun anything.

…except the life of the Palestinian people that are not growing up in Israel?

Secondly, how do they “breed” the Palestinians that grow up in Israel? What “stuff” do they feed them in Israel?

Thirdly, a society or entity that does not shun anything is always a recipe for success and longevity? Ask the animals of the field how well such a policy works?

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.

And Mr. Charlatan, what is the “muti of Arfica?” What are you trying to express here?

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.

And what has led you to conclude this?

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

Things are looking {good} in what way? Israel is surrounded by enemies and a world which is itching to destroy her and you say that Things are “looking good for Israel?” Are you missing something here? What exactly is your definition of {good?} Or is it that you are speaking of another Israel, one in which its own destruction is sought after and welcomed?

I. Deadly Israeli Raid Draws Condemnation

II. UN condemns Israel's deadly raid on blockade-busting aid convoy as British relatives face anxious wait for news

III. In Asia Protests, Condemnation Follow Israeli Raid on Gaza Flotilla

IV. Fallout Builds Over Helen Thomas 'Palestine' Remarks, Credentials Called Into Question

V. Helen Thomas Comes Under Fire for Remarks on Jews, Israel

[Deadeye]

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.

What an interesting thought!

So the Palestinians declare peace and annex their land to Israel, then they become Israelie citizens. Good idea. However what would happen is that the former Palestinians would bask in their newly found prosperity and they'd learn to love Israel, because their lives would be so much better than they had been when the PLO ruled.

The Middle East would experience a rennaisance. People would be put to work, they'd be able to buy nice homes, their kids would be educated. Money and prosperity would flow like water.

Yep, I like your idea a lot. It makes my heart go pitter pat.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

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

And so, Mr. Grandpa, evictions are now Acts of {uncivilized} people? Or does it only become an Act of {uncivilized} people when it is that the ones who are being evicted are of those whom you support and adore?

Secondly, if it is that the Act of evicting is itself a sign of an {uncivilized} population, then shouldn’t the Act of defeating or destroying be seen as one also? And should you not have also made this comment to the writer of this OP: “Just defeat Israel, huh? Yeah, that’s civilized.” And yet it is that no such comment was made? Is it that we should then conclude that defeating Israel is so much more of a “civilized” Act than evicting the Palestinians? And if so, why?







By the way, if it is that an eviction is an Act of the {uncivilized,} then it must be that you have come to conclude that squatting is an Act of the {civilized?} That the usurpation of another’s property is an Act that one should hold in {high} esteem? And if it is that this is so, then it would explain your avid support for {illegal} immigrants and other the types of individuals who move to usurp the properties of others? After all, under your definitions of {civilized} and {uncivilized,} by usurping the property of others, they are the ones who are Acting in a {civilized} manner, and those who try to defend their properties are Behaving in an {uncivilized} or {barbarous} way?

So what makes it so, Mr. Grandpa? What makes the individual who usurps the property of another to be more {civilized} than the person who tries to defend his property to prevent the occurrence of such Action? Does the usurper have {more right] to the property than the owner of the property? And if so, why? What gives the usurper {more right] to the property than the owner

[grandpa]

And so, Mr. Grandpa, evictions are now Acts of {uncivilized}
people?
Or does it only become an Act of {uncivilized} people
when it is that the ones who are being evicted
are of those whom you support and adore?

I don't necessarily "adore" Palestinians.
I just don't like to see people killed or bullied around.

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

I don't necessarily "adore" Palestinians.
I just don't like to see people killed or bullied around.

Grandpa h.

Many Palistinians live in Israel in peace. They'd be neither killed nor bullied if they'd just accept the reality that Israel has the right to exist. As long as they attack Israel and and it's people they will suffer retaliation, which is what is happening now.

The source of the troubles in the Middle East are due to the PLO and it's allies and not the other way round.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

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

And what exactly is your point Mr. Barts? That because the land was given to them that it is no longer theirs? Is it that you are also someone who is an Indian giver? Are you now someone who is into giving a present and then taking it back?

Secondly, should we conclude that these are the same questions that you have posed to yourself in regards to Americans? That these are the same questions whose answerings have led you to your current state of mind? That is, based on some of your other arguments, should we conclude that these are the same questions which have led you to conclude that {illegal} immigrants are more deserving of the land than the Americans who received it? Therefore, they, like the Palestinians, are the people who are more worthy of your ardent support than Americans? What land was given to Americans? Who gave it to them? And, whose land was it before it was given to the Americans?

Now, Mr. Barts, what one is saying, is that based on your questions and assertions, it would appear that you are someone who is of the mind that not only should Israel give the land back, but that Americans should give the land of America back? That since it is, that before it was given to Americans, the land belonged to the Native Indians and Mexico, then Americans should practice a sort of self-eviction and simply vacate the premises? That they should simply lay down and give the land back to Native Indians and Mexico? So is this the reason behind your {ardent} support of {illegal} immigration? Is this the reason behind the attacks on those who wish to preserve the inheritance that was given to them? Is this the reason behind the attacks on Israel? Is this the reason behind the attacks on Americans?

[grandpa]

And what exactly is your point Mr. Barts?
That because the land was given to them that it
is no longer theirs?

If you look at capitalism, or the elite privatization of land, you'll find an interesting tactic. Often, land is taken off the market in a given city, creating a shortage of living spaces and driving up prices. I think that's a motivating factor here.

Grandpa h.

[Deadeye]

If you look at capitalism, or the elite privatization of land, you'll find an interesting tactic. Often, land is taken off the market in a given city, creating a shortage of living spaces and driving up prices. I think that's a motivating factor here.

Grandpa h.

You've got ot backwards Gramps. A person puts his land up for sale. It doesn't sell and if there are offers they don't approach the level that the sellor wants. So he takes his land off of the market and waits for the market to improve, which usually happens within a year or so, unless there's a huge downturn in the economy such as we are experiencing now.

But usually the market improves over time and the sellor puts his land up for sale again when it has a better chance to sell for a price that he wants. The sellor, therefore; is not driving the market, as you speculate, but is responding to it.

[grandpa]

And Mr. Grandpa, should we conclude that you are referring
to the Israelis?
Or should we conclude that you are referring to the
Palestinians?

Read it at your leisure:
Our Enemies, the Israelis by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

Grandpa h.