Trump finally reveals his Anti-Semitism.

Page 7 of 11 [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2022, 12:39 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
There are theologically based Protestant views towards Israel that people outside of those views don't get. Even if a Protestant with such views says something negative about Jews and or Israel, it's meant as constructive criticism.

In a nutshell the Protestant view I'm taking about is absolute support for Israel, because the belief is if America turns its back on supporting Israel, God will be greatly displeased.


Evangelical Protestants. Few if any mainline Protestants subscribe to the "End of Days" theology.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

17 Oct 2022, 12:41 am

Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,140
Location: temperate zone

17 Oct 2022, 12:56 am

ironpony wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ironpony wrote:
DmitriNicholaev wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. Well other countries have no problems allowing in immigrants, so why is it a big deal for Israel compared to other countries?


Israel does allow some immigrants, but Israel's situation is infinitely different than other countries' situations. Israel, unlike other countries, doesnt have defined borders because Israel is an expansionist state that has as its goal the complete resurrection of the land that used to belong to Israel, which means the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel also wants to be the land of the Jewish people and that means having a majority Jewish population. England, which already has solid borders that are well defined, can choose to import immigrants following certain quotas because there isn't any fear that the population of immigrants will ever truly outnumber the native Britains, despite how much white nationalists fear such a predicament. Israel on the other hand isn't Britain because Israel hasn't realized its ideal state borders, but if Israel were to annex the West Bank and Gaza Israel would now be a majority Arab land, which means its no longer the land of the Jewish people.

Israel isn't like other countries because Israel isn't a civic state, which is a state where the premium is on being a citizen who follows the laws; Israel is an ethno-nationalist state, which means that Israel is primarily the land of the Jewish people and its land is supposed to be majority Jewish. America isn't the land of the White people, but the land of the American people, and American just means a citizen of America who follows the laws and is entitled to full citizenship rights. Israel defines itself as the sole land of the Jewish people, so having an Arab majority would disrupt that end goal and go against the entire premise of a Jewish majority state.


Oh okay I see. Thank you for explaning. Why don't they just become a nation like the UK for example, if that would mean less conflict? Is just a matter of mere d%^k measuring, rather than wanting to function as an actual nation?

Also, I do not understand how if Israel were to relinquish the Gaza Strip and the West Bank that that would make them more of an Arab population? If they were to give up those areas to Palestinians, wouldn't that mean there are now less Arabs in Israel, since more Arabs would then therefore be gone if that happened?




.


Oh okay, but if Israel would be a narrower country, and harder to defend, is that a bad thing necessarily? I mean countries like Belize and Switerzerland, are smaller than Israel for example, and they seem to do fine, even though they are smaller?


How many wars has Belize fought to maintain it's existence in the last 80 years? I just got through talking about how there were four Arab-Israeli wars between 1948 and 1973. And fighting between native Arabs and Jewish settlers had already been going on for a generation before 1948 when the land was a British ruled territory taken from the defeated Turkish Empire (allied to the loosing Germans in the first world war).

Zero. Belize is not surrounded by neighbors whom have all sworn to drive it into the sea the way that the Egyptians, the Saudies, Jordan, Syria, and at one time even Lebanon were vowing to drive Israel into the sea. And even if they did attack Belize has swamps and jungles on its borders.

Switzerland is a normal shaped ovalish shaped country (not an insanely narrow bacon strip like pre 1967 Israel, or even as narrow as post 1967 Israel). AND...Switzerland is a natural fortress because its up there in Alps were no invader likes to go (Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler, all steered clear of the place). AND the Swiss have exploited their land to make it into a bad-ass man made fortress honey combed with tunnels and defences. AND every male person serves in the military. AND Switzerland was the very model that the Israeli Zionists patterned their own society and army after.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 17 Oct 2022, 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

17 Oct 2022, 12:59 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay I see. One thing I find curious in the US is that it seems that democrats are 'pro-Palestine', and Republicans seem to be 'pro-Israel'. Would this be correct, or is that a reach on my assumption?


Both parties are pro-Israel



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

17 Oct 2022, 1:52 am

ironpony wrote:
Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...

According to the Bible God established Israel as his holy nation.


“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2022, 2:36 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...

According to the Bible God established Israel as his holy nation.


“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3


But Paul said there was no longer any division between Jews and gentiles now that Christ had come. In fact, it can be argued that the church is Israel - not based on blood, but on faith.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

17 Oct 2022, 2:54 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...

According to the Bible God established Israel as his holy nation.


“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3


But Paul said there was no longer any division between Jews and gentiles now that Christ had come. In fact, it can be argued that the church is Israel - not based on blood, but on faith.

True. But throughout history Christians have viewed Israel as the Holy Land. An early example of this was demonstrated in the Holy Land Crusades that started in 1096.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

17 Oct 2022, 3:03 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
There are theologically based Protestant views towards Israel that people outside of those views don't get. Even if a Protestant with such views says something negative about Jews and or Israel, it's meant as constructive criticism.

In a nutshell the Protestant view I'm taking about is absolute support for Israel, because the belief is if America turns its back on supporting Israel, God will be greatly displeased.


But since the assumption is that God is always right, then the assumption that God is pro-Israel would make the bearer of that assumption pro-Israel as well.

So the idea that the person is antisemitic yet is pro-Israel in order to please God would be absurd since then the person would basically be saying that God is wrong but he has to be on God's side out of fear. I guess that might be the case when it comes to "some" beliefs, particularly related to salvation. But I don't think it applies to politics that much: with politics they just project their own views onto God, so if they think God is pro-Israel its only because they are pro-Israel too.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

17 Oct 2022, 3:24 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
From my point of view, Trump is being "opposite" to antisemitism. He criticizes Jews for being antisemitic.

There is a concept of "self hating Jews" or in other words "antisemitic Jews". Thats the concept that pro-Israel Jews are using in criticizing anti-Israel Jews. As in, anti-Israel Jews are the ones that are "antisemitic" or "self-hating" while pro-Israel ones are the ones with Jewish pride and are opposed to antisemitism.

Well, all Trump did is agree with pro-Israel Jews. Since pro-Israel Jews aren't antisemitic, neither is Trump.

I realize that the rhetoric "Jews say such and such so its not antisemitic" is wrong. But the reason its wrong is precisely because there are antisemitic Jews. Well, antisemitic Jews are anti-Israel, not pro-Israel. So the notion of Jewish self-hatred would nullify the statement "there are anti-Israel Jews so one can be anti-Israel without being antisemitic". But it won't nullify the statement that "Trump agrees with pro-Israel Jews so he isn't antisemitic. After all, nobody accuses pro-Israel Jews of self-hatred.


Criticism of Israel doesn't necessarily make one Anti-Semitic. After all, being lovingly critical of America is in fact the height of patriotism.


We have to compare same kind of criticism. In case of Israel, we are talking about the war. So in case of America, we should look at the same: compare kind to kind.

1) There are American patriots that criticize America for invading Iraq. This means that one can be pro-Israel and criticize Israel for invading Arab lands.

2) You won't find an anti-American person that would criticize America for NOT starting a certain war. Therefore, when Trump criticizes Israel for not fighting even more than they do, he is not being antisemitic either

Now, with statement "1", I would say that it is controversial because Israel has a lot more need to defend itself than America. America used 911 as an excuse to start that war; with Israel they have 911 every week if you account per population and do per capita. Also in case of America 911 only happened because it interferes in foreign affairs on the first place. In case of Israel it would happen regardless. Because even if Israel doesn't interfere in anything, there is a territorial dispute as both Jews and Arabs claim Jerusalem as a holy land. In case of of America, Arabs could care less about a land on the other side of the globe: what they are upset about is how America keeps intefering. So, based on this argument, for America the most logical thing to do is stop interfering in other people's business, in case of Israel the most logical thing to do is to keep defending itself.

Nevertheless, this argument itself is controversial. So I am not trying to argue this point (that would be the subject of a different thread) but what I am trying to argue is that people who make the above argument are not antisemitic. And to make that point, I decided to purposely be naive and simplistic and pretend that two completely different situations are similar, when they are not (as I did when I wrote item 1).

In other words, we have two separate questions:

Question 3. Is it fair to label ANY of the sides as "antisemitic"?

Question 4: If we "insist" on labeling one of the sides as antisemitic, which side would we label as such?

So most of you keep talking about Question 3, but I am talking about Question 4.

If you go by Question 3, then you are mudding the waters as the answer depends on the views of the person you are talking to.

On the other hand, if you go by Question 4, then it becomes a lot more clear. The answer to Question 4 is that you would label anti-Israel side as such. And the answer to Question "4" is so much more clear than the answer to "3". So if you could look past "3" and look at "4", you would see what I am talking about.

I guess you are going to say "4 is irrelevant because we shouldn't label either side as antisemitic". Again, remember "if we insist" clause. So we are talking about hypotheticals here. Even if its wrong to use antisemitism as a political tool, IF we decide to do it -- a hypothetical -- what side would we label as such?

If you are going to say "we will label the side thats wrong, and pro-Israeli side is wrong", then you are again missing the point. Being antisemitic is not equivalent to being wrong. It is equivalent to being wrong in a specific way. Pro-Israeli side is wrong in a way that is pretty much opposite to it. Thats why it can't be labeled as antisemitic no matter how much you disagree with it.

Well, since some of you still can't let go of "3" to focus on "4", lets put it this way. Trump won't be antisemitic no matter how you cut it. If your answer to "3" is "no", then he isn't antisemitic since neither side is. If your answer to "3" is "yes", then he isn't antisemitic because then anti-Israeli side is antisemitic, while he is being pro-Israel.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2022, 3:49 am

Matrix Glitch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...

According to the Bible God established Israel as his holy nation.


“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3


But Paul said there was no longer any division between Jews and gentiles now that Christ had come. In fact, it can be argued that the church is Israel - not based on blood, but on faith.

True. But throughout history Christians have viewed Israel as the Holy Land. An early example of this was demonstrated in the Holy Land Crusades that started in 1096.


The crusades were a horrendous mistake, and only served to demonstrate how religion is used to justify murder and war. The fact that medieval Christians had wanted to take over the Holy Land by violence shows how little they understood their own religion.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

17 Oct 2022, 3:56 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but if Israel would be a narrower country, and harder to defend, is that a bad thing necessarily? I mean countries like Belize and Switerzerland, are smaller than Israel for example, and they seem to do fine, even though they are smaller?


Because Belize and Switzerland aren't being attacked by its neighbors while Israel is. So Israel needs that extra territory to defend itself.

A lot of Muslim countries don't want Israel to exist on the first place. But they don't have enough strength to annihilate Israel UNLESS Israel is weakened by giving up territories. So asking Israel to give up territories is simply the first step in trying to annihilate it altogether.

While Muslims know it, people in Europe don't. Since people in Europe won't agree with an idea to get rid of Israel, Muslims instead are trying to "sell it" as if once they get this or that territory they would let Israel keep the rest. But its a lie: their actual plan is to use the weaker position of Israel to take the rest of its territories. Israel knows it and thats why it doesn't want to give up those territories.

Now, despite all this, there were times when Israel actually proposed giving up its territories in exchange of peace. Muslim countries refused. Why? Because as I said: for them the goal is to get rid of Israel altogether. So if part of the deal is that they can't attack Israel afterwords, then they are no longer interested in the deal. What they want is to *first* make Israel smaller, and *after that* attack it to get rid of it. Getting rid of Israel slice by slice is easier than all at once. And thats what they are trying to do.

And, going back to your question about "Belize and Switzerland', the analogy breaks because nobody wants to annihilate Belize and Switzerland, while a lot of countries do want to annihilate Israel. In case of Switzerland, it didn't have wars for the past 3 centuries, which makes it even less of an analogy. But if we take other countries, then yes there are some wars, but the purpose of those wars is not about annihilation. Its about settling certain disputes. For example, France wasn't annihilated after Napoleon lost the war. Germany wasn't annihilated after it lost World War 2. And so forth. In case of Israel its neighbors want to annihilate it. And they were quoted saying this. "Throw Israel into the sea" is one of their slogans.

Now, if you ask why they want to annihilate Israel, it is simply because they view the entirety of Middle East as Muslim. Israel is in the Middle East, and its not Muslim. So they are trying to get rid of non-Muslim element in a Muslim territory.

And by the way, we are talking about "historically Muslim" rather than "historically Palestinian". Because as far as Palestinian people, their history only started with 1948 or something similar. Prior to that, the word Palestine was just a synonym of the word Israel: so "Palestinian" would be anyone who lives there -- doesn't matter if its a Jew or an Arab. The people that we now call "Palestinian" have come largely from Jordan, and other Arab lands (Arafat was Egyptian).

The biblical Philistines are not Palestinian. What happened is that Roman conquerors hated Jews so much that they decided to re-name Israel into a name that sounds similar to the name of Israeli former enemies, and they picked Philistines for that. But Philistines were no longer around at that time anyway. So they didn't give the land to Philistines: they just named it after them. And then, two millenia later, Arabs from Jordan, Egypt and other countries that moved there, called themselves Palestinian since thats how the land was called. But otherwise they have no connection to Philistines.

It is funny how, in order to justify having a land, they falsely claim the connection to Philistines. Because, biblically, Philistines were not a good people. So claiming to be a Philistine is like villifying oneself. But apparently they don't see it and thats what they are trying to do in order to claim the land. And its also funny how Jews won't say "oh yes you are Philistines, now look at how horrible they were". Instead, Jews simply say "there are no Philistines around". So that shows that Jews aren't trying to villify Arabs on every turn, after all.

In any case, while there is no such thing as "historic Palestinians", there IS such a thing as "middle east as a whole is historically Muslim". And so Arabs invented Palestine in order to restore all-Muslim integrity of the Middle East. But all-Muslim middle east logically implies annihilation of Israel, which is something Jews by definition can't agree with. That is why there is a perpetual conflict that can't be reconciled no matter what you do.

If the conflict was about Palestinians having a land, then yes it can be reconciled: two-state solution would be an answer. But since their REAL goal is getting rid of Israel and they just mask it in those other ways, thats why Israeli side sees giving in to Arabs as an existential threat to itself.

Seeing that Palestinians are historically from Jordan or Egypt or other Arab countries, the problem with refugees could have been solved by simply those countries letting them back in. They don't want to do it because they want to, instead, use them as a political tool. When "Palestinians" can't return to any of the "other" Muslim lands, it "seems" to say "yes there are Palestinian people, and they don't have a land, so Israel should give a land to them". Muslim countries taking the "Palestinians" back in would make it impossible to make that argument, thats why they won't do it.

But then again, its also true that Israel could have given the full citizenship status to them which it chose not to do. Israeli justification of not doing it is that a lot of them are terrorist. But since a lot doesn't mean all, then not giving one Palestinian a status because other Palestinians are terrorist is unfair. So Israel isn't being fair either although one might argue that it is being pushed to the wall. Also, buldozing their homes and/or giving them away to Israelis is even more unfair, yet Israel does all of those things (again, in the name of fighting terrorism).

But, even if Israel is being unfair in how it treats Palestinians, that doesn't change the fact that Arab countries want Israel annihilated and use Palestine as a tool. So the latter is a reason for Israel not to give up territories, although it is definitely in the wrong when it buldozes Palestinian homes.

Keep in mind though that Israel chased Jews out of their homes too when it gave Gasa back to Muslims. So if you put throwing Jews out of their homes side by side with throwing Muslims out of their homes, then one can argue that its not so much about anti-Muslim hatred but rather about inability to think of better ways of dealing with a bad situation. Althogh, of course, there is no justification for such actions.

Logically, this issue is separate from the territorial disputes, yet people tend to lump the two together. Its weird how people who think Israel can have more land also think Israel is fully justified in buldozing Palestinian homes. But I guess the context described above is what fueled that type of thinking.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,464
Location: Long Island, New York

17 Oct 2022, 4:09 pm

A traditional anti-Semitic trope is of dual loyalty which is bad.

Trump turns it around and thinks Jews are supposed to have dual loyalty. Even though that may seem to be a good thing IMHO it is worse than the traditional dual loyalty trope.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

17 Oct 2022, 4:46 pm

QFT wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
There are theologically based Protestant views towards Israel that people outside of those views don't get. Even if a Protestant with such views says something negative about Jews and or Israel, it's meant as constructive criticism.

In a nutshell the Protestant view I'm taking about is absolute support for Israel, because the belief is if America turns its back on supporting Israel, God will be greatly displeased.


But since the assumption is that God is always right, then the assumption that God is pro-Israel would make the bearer of that assumption pro-Israel as well.

So the idea that the person is antisemitic yet is pro-Israel in order to please God would be absurd since then the person would basically be saying that God is wrong but he has to be on God's side out of fear. I guess that might be the case when it comes to "some" beliefs, particularly related to salvation. But I don't think it applies to politics that much: with politics they just project their own views onto God, so if they think God is pro-Israel its only because they are pro-Israel too.

Yeah that would be absurd. That's why I separated constructive criticism from antisemitism. As far as God's views, God was extremely critical of Israel in the Old Testament aka Hebrew Bible. But again, it was constructive criticism.



Matrix Glitch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2021
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,741
Location: US

17 Oct 2022, 4:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Matrix Glitch wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I thought God cared about all groups of people equally and Israel is therefore no more important, than say Ukraine for example...

According to the Bible God established Israel as his holy nation.


“I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3


But Paul said there was no longer any division between Jews and gentiles now that Christ had come. In fact, it can be argued that the church is Israel - not based on blood, but on faith.

True. But throughout history Christians have viewed Israel as the Holy Land. An early example of this was demonstrated in the Holy Land Crusades that started in 1096.


The crusades were a horrendous mistake, and only served to demonstrate how religion is used to justify murder and war.

Have you ever read the Book of Joshua?
Kraichgauer wrote:
The fact that medieval Christians had wanted to take over the Holy Land by violence shows how little they understood their own religion.

They weren't trying to take over, the Muslims were. Remember Christianity was founded in Israel, in Jerusalem, by the Jews. Hundreds of years before Islam began. But my real point is that Christians have always viewed Israel as the Holy Land. There's more to it and it goes a lot deeper than the eschatological views found in Evangelical Protestantism.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

17 Oct 2022, 6:58 pm

^^^
As far as the book of Joshua is concerned, Christ's call to love your neighbor and to turn the other cheek circumvents that.
As for the Muslims "trying" to take over the Holy Land - - they already had. They had been living there for centuries.
In my system of beliefs, I don't need a geographic location, as Christ said, "Where two or three of you are gathered, I am there."


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

17 Oct 2022, 7:17 pm

QFT wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but if Israel would be a narrower country, and harder to defend, is that a bad thing necessarily? I mean countries like Belize and Switerzerland, are smaller than Israel for example, and they seem to do fine, even though they are smaller?


Because Belize and Switzerland aren't being attacked by its neighbors while Israel is. So Israel needs that extra territory to defend itself.

A lot of Muslim countries don't want Israel to exist on the first place. But they don't have enough strength to annihilate Israel UNLESS Israel is weakened by giving up territories. So asking Israel to give up territories is simply the first step in trying to annihilate it altogether.

While Muslims know it, people in Europe don't. Since people in Europe won't agree with an idea to get rid of Israel, Muslims instead are trying to "sell it" as if once they get this or that territory they would let Israel keep the rest. But its a lie: their actual plan is to use the weaker position of Israel to take the rest of its territories. Israel knows it and thats why it doesn't want to give up those territories.

Now, despite all this, there were times when Israel actually proposed giving up its territories in exchange of peace. Muslim countries refused. Why? Because as I said: for them the goal is to get rid of Israel altogether. So if part of the deal is that they can't attack Israel afterwords, then they are no longer interested in the deal. What they want is to *first* make Israel smaller, and *after that* attack it to get rid of it. Getting rid of Israel slice by slice is easier than all at once. And thats what they are trying to do.

And, going back to your question about "Belize and Switzerland', the analogy breaks because nobody wants to annihilate Belize and Switzerland, while a lot of countries do want to annihilate Israel. In case of Switzerland, it didn't have wars for the past 3 centuries, which makes it even less of an analogy. But if we take other countries, then yes there are some wars, but the purpose of those wars is not about annihilation. Its about settling certain disputes. For example, France wasn't annihilated after Napoleon lost the war. Germany wasn't annihilated after it lost World War 2. And so forth. In case of Israel its neighbors want to annihilate it. And they were quoted saying this. "Throw Israel into the sea" is one of their slogans.

Now, if you ask why they want to annihilate Israel, it is simply because they view the entirety of Middle East as Muslim. Israel is in the Middle East, and its not Muslim. So they are trying to get rid of non-Muslim element in a Muslim territory.

And by the way, we are talking about "historically Muslim" rather than "historically Palestinian". Because as far as Palestinian people, their history only started with 1948 or something similar. Prior to that, the word Palestine was just a synonym of the word Israel: so "Palestinian" would be anyone who lives there -- doesn't matter if its a Jew or an Arab. The people that we now call "Palestinian" have come largely from Jordan, and other Arab lands (Arafat was Egyptian).

The biblical Philistines are not Palestinian. What happened is that Roman conquerors hated Jews so much that they decided to re-name Israel into a name that sounds similar to the name of Israeli former enemies, and they picked Philistines for that. But Philistines were no longer around at that time anyway. So they didn't give the land to Philistines: they just named it after them. And then, two millenia later, Arabs from Jordan, Egypt and other countries that moved there, called themselves Palestinian since thats how the land was called. But otherwise they have no connection to Philistines.

It is funny how, in order to justify having a land, they falsely claim the connection to Philistines. Because, biblically, Philistines were not a good people. So claiming to be a Philistine is like villifying oneself. But apparently they don't see it and thats what they are trying to do in order to claim the land. And its also funny how Jews won't say "oh yes you are Philistines, now look at how horrible they were". Instead, Jews simply say "there are no Philistines around". So that shows that Jews aren't trying to villify Arabs on every turn, after all.

In any case, while there is no such thing as "historic Palestinians", there IS such a thing as "middle east as a whole is historically Muslim". And so Arabs invented Palestine in order to restore all-Muslim integrity of the Middle East. But all-Muslim middle east logically implies annihilation of Israel, which is something Jews by definition can't agree with. That is why there is a perpetual conflict that can't be reconciled no matter what you do.

If the conflict was about Palestinians having a land, then yes it can be reconciled: two-state solution would be an answer. But since their REAL goal is getting rid of Israel and they just mask it in those other ways, thats why Israeli side sees giving in to Arabs as an existential threat to itself.

Seeing that Palestinians are historically from Jordan or Egypt or other Arab countries, the problem with refugees could have been solved by simply those countries letting them back in. They don't want to do it because they want to, instead, use them as a political tool. When "Palestinians" can't return to any of the "other" Muslim lands, it "seems" to say "yes there are Palestinian people, and they don't have a land, so Israel should give a land to them". Muslim countries taking the "Palestinians" back in would make it impossible to make that argument, thats why they won't do it.

But then again, its also true that Israel could have given the full citizenship status to them which it chose not to do. Israeli justification of not doing it is that a lot of them are terrorist. But since a lot doesn't mean all, then not giving one Palestinian a status because other Palestinians are terrorist is unfair. So Israel isn't being fair either although one might argue that it is being pushed to the wall. Also, buldozing their homes and/or giving them away to Israelis is even more unfair, yet Israel does all of those things (again, in the name of fighting terrorism).

But, even if Israel is being unfair in how it treats Palestinians, that doesn't change the fact that Arab countries want Israel annihilated and use Palestine as a tool. So the latter is a reason for Israel not to give up territories, although it is definitely in the wrong when it buldozes Palestinian homes.

Keep in mind though that Israel chased Jews out of their homes too when it gave Gasa back to Muslims. So if you put throwing Jews out of their homes side by side with throwing Muslims out of their homes, then one can argue that its not so much about anti-Muslim hatred but rather about inability to think of better ways of dealing with a bad situation. Althogh, of course, there is no justification for such actions.

Logically, this issue is separate from the territorial disputes, yet people tend to lump the two together. Its weird how people who think Israel can have more land also think Israel is fully justified in buldozing Palestinian homes. But I guess the context described above is what fueled that type of thinking.


Oh I see. Well how come people are all against Israel keeping Palestine then, when all the surrounding nations, including Palestine as well possibly, see Israel as their mortal enemy then?