Attack on Israel

[Jon]

I think war is now essential. The Palestinians and their various terrorist groups will not stop attacking Israel. This has been going on for many decades now. All Israel can do is degrade the current round of terrorists until a new batch emerge.

Sadly, it appears to be a holy war, Muslims verses Jews. The Jews seek peace, the Muslims want war. Take the stance of Iran. They want to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Look at the huge amounts of anti-Semitism around the world, coming from both Muslims and also many of those with a left-wing ideology. They (Jew haters) are the new Nazi party.

In the UK, it is considered a hate crime if you say something Islamophobic, as I understand it. Quite what this blasphemy law means is beyond me. It appears to suggest that a particular religion is immune from criticism, even if it has passages that say you can beat your wife. So, instead of saying anything Islamophobic, I will present the facts as listed by the UK government regarding the terrorism risk.

In the UK, we have a population of 67 million. We also have a an MI5 list of extremist terror suspects, which in 2020 was 43,000 people. Out of those, 90% are Islamists. So that is 38,700 Jihadi suspects, and 4,300 non-Jihadi suspects. So lets do a little more maths.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-watchlist-doubles-43-000-just-one-year.html

The Muslim population in the UK is 3.9 million. The non-Muslim population is therefore 63.1 million.

So, that means...

Muslim extremist risk: 38,700/3,900,000 = 0.992% or roughly 1 in 100 Muslims are terror suspects.

Non-Muslim extremist risk: 4,300/63,100,000 = 0.0068% or roughly 1 in 14,700 are non-Muslim terror suspects.

Therefore, you are 147 (14,700/100) times more likely to be a terror suspect if you are a Muslim compared to a non-Muslim, based on the UK's own governmental figures. That is astonishing!!

Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Muslims or Islam. Yet at the same time, the statistics show the 147 times increased risk of being a terror suspect in the UK if that is your religion.

I am all against painting everybody with the same brush, and some of my Muslim friends use it more as an identity rather than a religious belief. And those moderate Muslims are also not to be lumped in with the extremists. But can someone explain to me why there is an astonishingly high number of terror suspects within the Muslim community compared to the non-Muslim community? Or am I being Islamophobic by calculating and then pointing out statistical facts you can derive from the governments own research?

 

[Steve R.]

... I condemn the attack perpetrated by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens and I condemn the retaliation even more, ...

Condemnation of Hamas, not punishment?

• If Hamas is not punished, then they will view that as a "green-light" to continue their terrorist tactics.
• How do you propose to punish Hamas for brutal terrorist war crimes?
• If you don't think it is appropriate for Israel to meet out justice, then who should punish Hamas?
• If someone were to kill your spouse (assuming you have one) would you take the position that "the past is the past", that grudges should be forgotten/forgiven, and in the name of peace invite that murderer into your home for tea and desert for a nice social event as if the murder of your spouse never happened?

 

[Jon]

Edgar_ said:
... I condemn the attack perpetrated by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens and I condemn the retaliation even more, ...

But do you condemn Hamas itself? Do you also condemn those who support Hamas? Do you condemn the Palestinians who opted for war by voting in Hamas?

Your answer to these will show what you really believe. Yet most people who are anti-Israel avoid these types of questions because they are a little bit awkward, don't you think? Instead, they tend to obfuscate the issue. Why bring clarity of where you stand if you can instead muddy the water to avoid criticism?

Furthermore, if they don't retaliate they will die. If someone tries to stab you, should you retaliate or do you really believe you just stand there and take it?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The only thing preventing the discussion getting anywhere is the collective idea from my detractors that economic reasons are somehow out of the question and the only thing that matters is some text written on a charter by Hamas.

I have no doubt that there is economic hardship in the area. I have no doubt that many consider it execrable. I ALSO have no doubt that it is caused by repeatedly allowing Hamas to attack Israel, which makes Israel force the issue of controlling what goes into the Palestinian areas. A lot of the "aid" sent that way ends up buying weapons because apparently, some people think food and medicine aren't as important as guns and missiles. This leads to an old phrase that my father often used for criminals: They have made their beds; now they must lie in them.

You repeatedly call the areas "jails" and yet fail to consider the crime of "aiding and abetting a terrorist." If the people of Gaza would kick out - or turn in - the terrorists, things MIGHT get better. But as long as Hamas has free reign in Gaza and the West Bank, things are NOT going to change. Israel's goal is security for its people. The continued behavior of Hamas and its supporters is a barrier to that goal.

You complain that we ignore economic reasons. Our counter-complaint is that you ignore legitimate non-economic priorities. They exist too, and MUST be considered as part of the mix. You wish to isolate the economic hardships of the people of Gaza and the West Bank because on that narrow consideration, you believe you might win this argument. But you cannot separate economics out of the mix without recognizing that there is still a lot left in that mix of reasons for conflict. You want to win this argument by trivializing all other factors so you can lay the blame on economics, but fail to realize that the economic problems are both cause AND EFFECT of the history of the region. That kind of hardship didn't happen in a vacuum. And there is where your arguments fall flat.

 

[Steve R.]

Sadly, it appears to be a holy war, Muslims verses Jews.

The attack by Hamas is but one "flash" point in an evolving historical context. The Ottoman Empire collapsed as a result of WW1. Since the end of WW1, the Western nations essentially failed stand-up for Christians and Jews in the Middle East in response to the apparent holy war by Muslims against western culture. There has also been a diaspora by Christians and Jews fleeing Islamic regimes which have been persecuting non-Muslims. This diaspora by Christians and Jews has the effect of making Islamic nations even-more Islamic. (Surprising that those on the "left" never complain of human rights abuses in Islamic countries, but falsely assert that the West is anti-Islamic.)

Some quickie examples of the West failing to act include the Armenian Massacre, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, selling out the Christians in Lebanon, aiding of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, and not responding with outrage that the Hagia Sophia (formerly a Christian church) was recently turned into a mosque. Demonstrates that Turkey has taken a pro-Islamic turn instead of respecting Christian places of worship.

Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Muslims or Islam.

The Christians and Jews are being persecuted by Muslims. And as cited above, the West has essentially allowed the Islamic community to expand their cultural influence without adequate push-back. Moreover, in the West there has been a successful subtle propaganda campaign promoting Islamophobia, to create the impression that it is the Islamic community that is somehow the victim and not Christians and Jews who are the real victims.

Consider, in certain Islamic countries, it you are a Christian you can be killed by the State. In the West if you speak-out against radical Islam, you can be jailed by the State for a hate crime. That is wrong.

 

[Pat Hartman]

did the Palestinians agree to have Israel next to them in the first place,

It was never theirs to give. Jews have been living there since long before the area was referred to as the Palestine Mandate. In fact, in the Old Testament, which in theory is the basis of Islam, God gives the Jews this land. The British divided the land up as best they could based on the majority populations of the areas. Having the Palestinian part be in three pieces was unfortunate, like East and West Pakistan. Maybe they should have made four countries or officially given the parts inhabited by Muslims to the surrounding countries. Jordan was administering the West Bank and Egypt was administering Gaza. Lebanon might have been administering the northern section. Maybe they should just have been able to annex the territory. What did you think the Ottoman Turks did when they conquered most of the Middle East? Do you think they asked permission from the locals to take over their country? War changes national boundaries. The losers lose. That is the law of nature. Even the animal kingdom works this way.

I hate it when the aggressors win. Russia will occupy most or all of the Ukraine again and the UN is impotent to stop the aggression and the world sits by and lets it happen. Just like they sit by and allow Israel to be constantly under attack. Well, when Israel wins these wars against them, they get to keep whatever they want in my book. They didn't start the wars but they finished them!

Because you only talk about the supremacist view that if you win a war you keep the territory,

So the losers get to dispose of the spoils of war? We're talking here about the people who started the war and lost. We're not talking about the aggressor like Russia. The UN was created to solve problems like Russia and Gaza but they are useless. Ukraine and Gaza prove that the UN is just a money pit and we should withdraw and make them move elsewhere so they stop messing up traffic in Manhattan.

Economics have a huge part to play in the unhappiness of a population but why are you blaming it on Israel? The Jews bring industry and prosperity wherever they go. The Arabs prefer to live in the 7th century. It is a choice. The Arabs who stayed in Israel are citizens, they vote, and they are prosperous. The Arabs who fled have had nearly 4 generations of pain and strife. Perhaps if Hamas spent some of the billions they get each year on improving the lot of the people who voted for them instead of buying bombs and villas in the south of France, Gaza could be a beautiful sea-side resort.

 

[ColinEssex]

In fact, in the Old Testament, which in theory is the basis of Islam, God gives the Jews this land.

Yet another fairy story.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

This is a separate question from who's at fault and how much punishment should be had.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on Israeli breach in security. Hamas terrorist were training in plain sight for 6-7 months, either Israeli security isn't what they advertise or something else is going on here. I'm pretty sure American security was aware of this activity months ago it's well documented by CNN, CBS and others. Which begs the question was this allowed to happen and to what end?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1716482250081018071

 

[Edgar_]

@ebs17
I would be enraged if someone harmed my family.

I would also be enraged if I were living peacefully without bothering anyone, and then some superpower with nuclear bombs started interfering with my basic services, and then I saw its leader holding maps that essentially claim my home as theirs.

Now, whether or not I voted for the group in charge of my community, it would be infuriating if they started using me as a human shield for who knows what reason and what interests, which, at this point, could very well be foreigner interests, because they're not taking care of me.

However, little can I do, because now I'd be running away from the attacks and I would be accumulating hatred towards the people currently attacking me and my family, I would also be exhausted because I'd have no food, water, roof or medicine, let alone, peace of mind. If I am, somehow, finally at some remote location where the attacks seem unlikely and my family is well, AND WITH ME, I'd feel relief and a deep impotence of taking care of my own family. And if I was with a few family members left, that'd be similar, but there would be quite likely a sense of vengeance towards my community leaders and my attackers, there would be no distinction, really.

And if I had NOTHING, NO ONE LEFT from my family, you can be sure, I'd grab sticks and stones, and I would join whoever else feels that way in order to try to bring peace to my own mind, some justice, but I'd be deeply rotten inside. It could also be the case that I'd just suicide, or just become really traumatized to the point of getting dementia. You could, perhaps, also count on me to see all that hopelessness as a lesson and try to raise awareness in whatever is left of my community. But there would be reasons to become a monster, especially because I'd have no choices.

Now, there's the other way too. I would be devastated if I was having a good time and some religious nuts started shooting me and if some family members were suffering that attack, I would grab sticks and stones if I don't have guns and I would both demand my country to bring justice and also I would try to do it myself, with my own hands. It would become puzzling and confusing if I later find out it was all planned by MY country. But I'd have peace of mind to know my country can handle it. My leader, however, I'd be against him or her.

If there was no evidence of my country being in any shape or way guilty, I'd demand my country to bring justice in the form of genocide, or arrests, or whatever seems fit, because it's defense and I am now safe. If there was evidence and I don't wanna see it because I'm so deeply ignorant that I wouldn't know that I don't know what's going on, I'd tell my community that it's all because we're victims of a monster.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Perhaps a history lesson is in order? This video is now 12 years old, but gives names, times, places, and threads of discussion relating to the impasse that (now 12 years later) still runs rampant through the area.

@Edgar_ - can you find any factual errors in this?

 

[Jon]

Doc, looks like the Nazi theme is more embedded than I first thought considering the Hitler connection. The company you keep tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Edgar_]

can you find any factual errors in this?

The video reinforces my understanding that leaders in all parties have made questionable decisions, in a land where 10% of people were Jewish and 90% NOT, but because of a series of geopolitical concerns, now the land will become Jewish 100%. I bring religion to this argument only to accommodate the fact that Israel is mostly Jew.

It is expected of me to think this is a happy ending, however, that only is for one party, which had 10% of the decision if we talk democracy. If we look at the entire situation from the perspective of the economic system, that with more power tends to accumulate more power, which may help explain why the Jews grew so much there, considering their influence on the west, who were the actual decision makers here, so the entire reason for this being so "hard to explain" comes from the fact that the native population of that land has increasingly becoming more and more homeless over the years, while the minority thrived, which is illogical in humanistic terms, but logical in power terms, or whatever you want to call this.

I understand your views, because you and others here are from the US and other countries where democracy is a simulation, but I can not agree with that way of thinking. That is why you see so many people not validating any of this nonsense war, which we can conclude will end with Palestine, then Israel will try to attack Iran, then we'll have to see what Russia does with that and so, we all die. That's what happens when you support stupid s**t like this.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Edgar_ ... PLEASE understand that I am not pro-war. I would no sooner hurt the Palestinian people than I would hurt my own family. But I have to take the Zen approach to this conflict. The proper Zen question is "The conflict exists. What should I do about it?" And the answer is "What CAN you do about it?" (Zen allows you to answer a question with a question.) Analyzing that question, I realize that my protests and exhortations for peace will make no difference until BOTH sides of the conflict put down their weapons. If I took the extreme position of going over there to broker peace (assuming I even could), the probability of being killed (by either side) is too high to offer any odds of success, and my ability to non-fatally get their attention is too low a probability for success. Therefore, for the second question, the answer is "I can do nothing until they stop shooting."

The video reinforces my understanding that leaders in all parties have made questionable decisions

It seems to me that several times the questionable decision was that the Muslim side of the decision was to walk away rather than offer a meaningful counter-offer involving sharing. When you offer a compromise and one of the parties says "NO" to any sharing solution then reason has not prevailed. The selfishness of an arrogant, greedy, petulant child or the barbarity of a primitive person with no semblance of civilization has prevailed.

Too many news shows and travel shows and other shows have indicated that the Middle East is a land still in transition, trying but in far too many cases failing to join the 21st century. In some cases, trying and failing to catch up to the 20th century. The problem is not only that they have not spread modern technology to that part of the world, but have not allowed or accepted more modern philosophies of general equality - among races, religions, creeds, and gender.

I understand your views, because you and others here are from the US and other countries where democracy is a simulation, but I can not agree with that way of thinking.

I think I need to ask a question about this statement. You suggest that democracy is a "simulation" but I don't understand what you mean by that. I see that you disagree with our "simulation" in some way, but I believe your statement was made based on facts not previously discussed in this thread. What "way of thinking" raises your objections? Can you kindly explain what you meant? I don't want to be accused of falsely attributing something to you if I don't understand it. And if I don't understand it, we cannot have a proper dialog. Despite my having strong opinions, I do not want to make this into a monologue.

 

[Edgar_]

I think I need to ask a question about this statement. You suggest that democracy is a "simulation" but I don't understand what you mean by that. I see that you disagree with our "simulation" in some way, but I believe your statement was made based on facts not previously discussed in this thread. What "way of thinking" raises your objections? Can you kindly explain what you meant? I don't want to be accused of falsely attributing something to you if I don't understand it. And if I don't understand it, we cannot have a proper dialog. Despite my having strong opinions, I do not want to make this into a monologue.

I find it's a simulation of democracy when money can buy who you can vote for. The way of thinking I'm referring to has to do with the idea that a population can not decide for themselves because the interests of the few will dictate the destiny of the many.

 

[Steve R.]

The three posts below are a few examples, of numerous news items that serve as propaganda for the Palestinian cause. Overtime, the continue production of this propaganda will be to the detriment of Israel, the injured party. Time is not on the side of Israel.

• The posts fail to disclose that it was Hamas that started the current fighting.
• The posts call for a cease fire, which would seem reasonable, except for the fact that Hamas killed over 1,400 helpless civilians in a brutal barbaric sneak attack attack that violated all the rules of war. The posts fail to acknowledge that depravity and those deaths and act as if Israel is the oppressor of the Palestinians..
• Some posts (falsely) claim that antisemitism is repugnant, but then immediately pivot that we must not be Islamophobic. it is the radical Muslims, in the name of religion who have inflamed antisemitism. References to Islamophobia is "gaslighting" to obfuscate the truth from the reader.

Second day in a row, Karine Jean-Pierre universalizes Jew-hatred - JNS.org

The White House press secretary, who began the daily press conference ostensibly to correct her pivot to Islamophobia the day before when asked about Jew-hatred, began discussing Muslims again.

www.jns.org

Greta Thunberg's pro-Palestine message turns heads

The Swedish climate activist told her more than 20 million social media followers that a ceasefire should occur in Gaza.

www.newsweek.com

Obama urges Israel to minimize civilian casualties in war with Hamas
In the news article above, note how Obama urges Israel to minimize casualties, but it fails to make a similar demand of Hamas. Obama should have also condemned Hamas for starting this round of violence. Obama demands that Israel abide by international law, but not Hamas?

Obama argued for the continued U.S. support of Israeli efforts to go after Hamas and backed Israel’s right to exist. At the same time, he urged the Israeli military to conduct strategies that abide “by international law, including those laws that seek to avoid, to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations.”

What about the Israeli dead and injured?

“Even as we support Israel, we should also be clear that how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters,” Obama wrote. “Already, thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, many of them children.”

Obama is clearly on the side of the Palestinians. His references to "supporting Israel" are empty words to gaslight the gullible.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I find it's a simulation of democracy when money can buy who you can vote for. The way of thinking I'm referring to has to do with the idea that a population can not decide for themselves because the interests of the few will dictate the destiny of the many.

This is a problem we are working on and have not found a good solution. We admit it to be a problem. Will you accept that it is a work in progress and that we have seen the issue at several levels. It certainly is not a situation that we like.

".. the interests of the few will dictate the destiny of the many." You mean like the case where Hamas extremists leave Israel no choices but to return fire thus condemning many innocent people? Yes, we have seen that. Or did you mean the case where the imams promulgate hatred for Jews, thus inflaming the passions of the many to satisfy the bloodlust of the few?

Yes, it is a terrible thing when a few have both hatred and power at the same time.

 

[MsAccessNL]

Some of the native American’s had this “terrorist” tendency to scalp innocent white colonists. Luckily the government could retaliate with a strong well equipped army. Otherwise the poor colonists could have been ended up in “white reserves” without any rights, suppressed by these scalping animals, this would have been inconceivable…

 

[Jon]

Some of the native American’s had this “terrorist” tendency to scalp innocent white colonists. Luckily the government could retaliate with a strong well equipped army. Otherwise the poor colonists could have been ended up in “white reserves” without any rights, suppressed by these scalping animals, this would have been inconceivable…

The analogy is poor. I am sure the skin colour did not determine if they were scalped or not. And "reserves" is a deliberate misrepresentation. Palestinians have been repeatedly offered their own country, and repeatedly refused.

Palestinians have rights, just like anyone else. In fact they have been given rights that Nazi sympathisers agree with, like the murder of Jewish citizens.

Also, you are comparing different eras which is a common mistake, in my view. Looking at the acceptable values of the past (e.g. carpet bombing) is no longer deemed acceptable now. But you cannot go back and apply todays standards and judge those from back then. Society evolves, as does values. In the past there wasn't even a legal system. Do you think we should judge those based on todays laws when they didn't even have a concept of a legal system?

But yes, nowadays scalping would be considered animalistic, as is the murder, ra**, beheading and burning of innocent civilians, including babies, the elderly, the disabled and so on. These animalistic acts were conducted by the Palestinians. And supported by anti-Semitic views in the West. It seems the scourge of Jew hating has done a full circle.

 

[Pat Hartman]

".. the interests of the few will dictate the destiny of the many."

In the case of Hamas and gaza, The majority are condemning the minority to being used as cannon fodder according to recent polls. Not only did these people vote for Hamas to govern them in 2005 but they still support them today which is a complete mystery to me.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Some of the native American’s had this “terrorist” tendency to scalp innocent white colonists. Luckily the government could retaliate with a strong well equipped army. Otherwise the poor colonists could have been ended up in “white reserves” without any rights, suppressed by these scalping animals, this would have been inconceivable…

While it may be true that native Americans had the practice of scalping before European settlers arrived, early settlers didn't help the matter. They placed a scalp bounty and paid bounty hunters. But the bounty hunters didn't need to bring in the body - just the scalp.