Womp womp

I looked on a map of America and didn't find this "West Bank", "Israel", etc. Apparently, they're all part of NotAmerica. F NotAmerica! I hope those NotAmericans do whatever they want, have fun doing it and maybe send us pics.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

UTExan said:

---

El Hombre Mas Guapo said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Because those Palestinians have actual land tenancy there. Villages and fields used for centuries, for instance. Some of these "settlers" are so extreme they take over houses and throw out the owners. In the US we would see that as home invasion and act accordingly.
Come to think of it, Nazis did this to Jews during the Holocaust.

---

Stop. You didn't just say that.

You just get released from jail after getting arrested with your other infada t-sip pals?

---

I actually believe in rule of law and property rights. Who on this forum does not?

---

Well let's start with everyone supporting Hamas. I realize this is awkward for you

---

Explain how exactly? Check my posting history. I am waiting.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I actually believe in rule of law and property rights. Who on this forum does not?

---

So let's explore that point.

Take Texas for example. As far back as my history window goes, it was called Tejas by native Americans and subject to their laws. Then Spain and France, each claimed legitimacy over the territory and the original native American inhabitants. Then the Mexicans took over and settlers laid claim to it under the laws of Mexico. The Texans eventually revolted, gained independence, and ruled over it for a short 8 years before joining the US, who governs to this day.

The point being that ownership changes, usually driven by armed conflict, and the victor sets the rules for the acquired territory. That doesn't make it wrong, and it also doesn't make it right if you were a previous owner, but it does make it final until a new owner comes along and takes it from the current owner. Any legal proceeding under a jurisdiction while it's in control is usually deemed to be valid.

---

Congratulations. You have just rationalized that Islamic Jihad and Hamas should do what they wish because Palestinians do not have recourse to Israeli courts to redress their grievances.
The problem is that they DO have access to Israeli courts to redress grievances, including the protection offered under Israel's squatter law.

WolfCall said:

---

UTExan said:

---

This is a dumb move policy wise. If Israeli courts are to establish credibility they must uphold rule of law in property taking, which they have not done.

---

Why is it Israel and conservatives in the U.S. always have to stick with the rule of law and Hamas (and others of their ilk) and Democrats/Leftists don't have to abide by the rule of law?

---

Because we are not genocidal savages like them?

UTExan said:

---

The problem is that they DO have access to Israeli courts to redress grievances, including the protection offered under Israel's squatter law.

---

If they appealed to Israeli courts for redress, that might be considered "recognition", which is the 3rd No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

Quote:

---

No peace with Israel,
No negotiation with Israel,
No recognition of Israel.

"The Three Noes", Khartoum Resolution, 1967

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Don't start a war if you don't want to lose land on defeat

---

you can't take land over a war that happened 60 years ago

BigRobSA said:

---

I looked on a map of America and didn't find this "West Bank", "Israel", etc. Apparently, they're all part of NotAmerica. F NotAmerica! I hope those NotAmericans do whatever they want, have fun doing it and maybe send us pics.

---

Ideally nude pics of Israeli women

What is overlooked in this is that if we do not call out Israeli human rights violations (actually violations of their own codified law, not some nebulous UN standard) so they can materially address them, they could be in danger of losing military assistance from us under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (as amended).
That would allow people like Ihlan Omar or her fellow squad cronies to successfully challenge military aid to Israel with Democrat majorities in Congress. And WE desperately need a strong, democratic, technologically advanced ally in the region to confront Iran and keep them worried about retaliation. It's a lot cheaper to fund the Israelis than not.

It isn't about feelings or dislike for any particular party, although I am probably a lot more cognizant of the history of Palestinian terrorism than most on the board here, with all due respect. The Palestinian Arabs are going nowhere. The Israeli Jews are going nowhere. They can solve this problem if they eliminate the radicals.

DeProfundis said:

---

From the river to the sea the Holy Land belongs to Christianity

---

Maybe you're not up on current events, but we're not even there to get our asses kicked pal. [/aliens]

It's the other two branches squabbling over who owns the Holy Land.

kb2001 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Don't start a war if you don't want to lose land on defeat

---

you can't take land over a war that happened 60 years ago

---

What about the act of war on Oct 7th? Or are you being obtuse?

---

Do we need to bring out a map?

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Don't start a war if you don't want to lose land on defeat

---

you can't take land over a war that happened 60 years ago

---

What about the act of war on Oct 7th? Or are you being obtuse?

---

Do we need to bring out a map?

---

By all means, bring it out, show us what you mean. I would love to see the cognitive dissonance in action as you try and claim it's one Palestine, while simultaneously pointing out geographical separation between Gaza and West Bank. Don't forget to include the result of the war you referred to 60 years ago, and the actions of Israel after the fact in the name of peace and movement towards a two-state solution.

UTExan said:

---

What is overlooked in this is that if we do not call out Israeli human rights violations (actually violations of their own codified law, not some nebulous UN standard) so they can materially address them, they could be in danger of losing military assistance from us under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (as amended).
That would allow people like Ihlan Omar or her fellow squad cronies to successfully challenge military aid to Israel with Democrat majorities in Congress. And WE desperately need a strong, democratic, technologically advanced ally in the region to confront Iran and keep them worried about retaliation. It's a lot cheaper to fund the Israelis than not.

It isn't about feelings or dislike for any particular party, although I am probably a lot more cognizant of the history of Palestinian terrorism than most on the board here, with all due respect. The Palestinian Arabs are going nowhere. The Israeli Jews are going nowhere. They can solve this problem if they eliminate the radicals.

---

True and also false. You fail to recognize that the elimination of Jews is not a radical position in Islam, the words of Mohammed demand that it is a necessity, and moderate Muslims know this and agree with it on a large scale. We're not talking 1-5%, we're talking 40-50%.

I already posted one Hadith that calls it out, I also posted the Three Noes that were agreed upon and made policy of Arab nations 60 years ago. You should educate yourself further about the roots of the conflict, you don't appear to have much understanding before 1948, and you definitely don't have any understanding before 1880.

DeProfundis said:

---

From the river to the sea the Holy Land belongs to Christianity

---

Dumb

Christians have long recognized and respected the Jewish holy sites as Jewish, and Jews have in turn respected the holy sites of Christianity.

"From the river to the sea" are the words of genocide.

NM.

kb2001 said:

---

"From the river to the sea" are the words of genocide.

---

You know this first appeared in the Likud party's original platform of 1977, right? [1] Therefore you must agree that Likud, who are currently conducting Israeli policy under Netanyahu, has genocidal intentions.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud

If you're referring to protection under Israeli law, I agree with you. I interpreted your note earlier as suggesting they should be protected under Palestinian law, thus my response that is irrelevant in areas controlled by Israel. If I misinterpreted, then my mistake.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

This is a dumb move policy wise. If Israeli courts are to establish credibility they must uphold rule of law in property taking, which they have not done.

---

How is it different from US states granting ownership to settlers on land that native Americans claimed?

---

Or Poland granting ownership to "settlers" on land that was formerly part of Germany.

Losing wars has consequences.

---

There are some incredible old buildings/churches from some of these 'population shifts' or however you want to term it. I went down a rabbit hole following these stories/urbex types of photographers a few years ago online.

kb2001 said:

---

DeProfundis said:

---

From the river to the sea the Holy Land belongs to Christianity

---

Dumb

Christians have long recognized and respected the Jewish holy sites as Jewish, and Jews have in turn respected the holy sites of Christianity.

"From the river to the sea" are the words of genocide.

---

Oh yeah. Tons of respect

https://m.jpost.com/christianworld/article-753659

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-03-26/ty-article/.premium/anti-christian-hate-crimes-in-jerusalem-soaring-this-year/00000187-1b89-d4ca-afff-1b89bd020000

Hmm... almost like it was all planned. Not that israel would be part of any hoax or anything.

UTExan said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

I actually believe in rule of law and property rights. Who on this forum does not?

---

So let's explore that point.

Take Texas for example. As far back as my history window goes, it was called Tejas by native Americans and subject to their laws. Then Spain and France, each claimed legitimacy over the territory and the original native American inhabitants. Then the Mexicans took over and settlers laid claim to it under the laws of Mexico. The Texans eventually revolted, gained independence, and ruled over it for a short 8 years before joining the US, who governs to this day.

The point being that ownership changes, usually driven by armed conflict, and the victor sets the rules for the acquired territory. That doesn't make it wrong, and it also doesn't make it right if you were a previous owner, but it does make it final until a new owner comes along and takes it from the current owner. Any legal proceeding under a jurisdiction while it's in control is usually deemed to be valid.

---

Congratulations. You have just rationalized that Islamic Jihad and Hamas should do what they wish because Palestinians do not have recourse to Israeli courts to redress their grievances.
The problem is that they DO have access to Israeli courts to redress grievances, including the protection offered under Israel's squatter law.

---

The Israeli Supreme Court is the only Israeli institution that Palestinians can go to to challenge individual settlements or defend their rights in land disputes. To date, the Israeli Supreme Court has both enabled and hindered Israeli settlements in what the UN considers Palestinian land. On one hand, many of the court's decisions have facilitated the 144 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and displaced Palestinians in the processes. On the other, the high court has imposed limits on some of the settler right's worst excesses, for instance, by striking down a law enabling settlement construction on Palestinian property.

Remember, the UN was the organization that partitioned the territory known as Mandatory Palestine in 1948 and legitimized the modern state of Israel. In 2022, a UN Commission of Inquiry declared that Israel's occupation of lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was in violation of international law because of "its permanence and the Israeli Government's de-facto annexation policies" of lands the UN recognize as Palestinian. The UN's court, the International Court of Justice, held public hearings in February of this year concerning the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in what the UN considers Palestinian territories, and a ruling is forthcoming.

From my perspective, it's hard to get the full history on this conflict because there is so much propaganda on both sides. From what I understand, the Palestinians claim that the Jews are illegally settling their land. The Palestinians then committed an act of terror in response.

I know for certain that 10/7 happened, but I can't get a good read on the illegal taking of land. If the land was stolen/occupied by invaders, then that would be an act of war.

In my opinion, there are no rules in war, and there is no such thing as a fair fight. If the Jews actually stole/occupied Palestinian land (an act of war), then any response is warranted. At the same time, Hamas committed terrorism (an act of war), and the Jews can respond however they see fit.

I say let them fight until one is completely destroyed. That is the only way it will end. Both sides claim that the other started it and you will never get them to agree.

The Muslim extremists want the Jews wiped off the map ( per their religion), and the Jews will stop at nothing until they've reclaimed their promised land (per their religion). Unfortunately, this will never stop.

This is just my relatively uninformed opinion based on what I can gather.

I really don't care either way, but the problem seems to go quite a bit deeper than 10/7. There are also quite a few people both home and abroad that don't think the Israelis are the good guys.

I like to believe that people are somewhat rational and that they don't hate others for no reason. Why are the Palestinians/Hamas/Islamists (not sure where they overlap) so upset at the Jews that they would commit such a terrible act?

cevans_40 said:

---

jwhaby said:

---

From my perspective, it's hard to get the full history on this conflict because there is so much propaganda on both sides. From what I understand, the Palestinians claim that the Jews are illegally settling their land. The Palestinians then committed an act of terror in response.

I know for certain that 10/7 happened, but I can't get a good read on the illegal taking of land. If the land was stolen/occupied by invaders, then that would be an act of war.

In my opinion, there are no rules in war, and there is no such thing as a fair fight. If the Jews actually stole/occupied Palestinian land (an act of war), then any response is warranted. At the same time, Hamas committed terrorism (an act of war), and the Jews can respond however they see fit.

I say let them fight until one is completely destroyed. That is the only way it will end. Both sides claim that the other started it and you will never get them to agree.

The Muslim extremists want the Jews wiped off the map ( per their religion), and the Jews will stop at nothing until they've reclaimed their promised land (per their religion). Unfortunately, this will never stop.

This is just my relatively uninformed opinion based on what I can gather.

---

Its really simple and yet we are trying to make it complex. The Israelis are the good guys and our allies and the Palestinians are terrorists. The whole region would be much better off under Israeli control.

---

Nothing is ever that simple. If the whole region would be much better off under Israeli control, then they can be big boys and do it without our help. I wouldn't care what Israel was doing if we weren't giving them money and guns constantly.

jwhaby said:

---

From my perspective, it's hard to get the full history on this conflict because there is so much propaganda on both sides. From what I understand, the Palestinians claim that the Jews are illegally settling their land. The Palestinians then committed an act of terror in response.

I know for certain that 10/7 happened, but I can't get a good read on the illegal taking of land. If the land was stolen/occupied by invaders, then that would be an act of war.

In my opinion, there are no rules in war, and there is no such thing as a fair fight. If the Jews actually stole/occupied Palestinian land (an act of war), then any response is warranted. At the same time, Hamas committed terrorism (an act of war), and the Jews can respond however they see fit.

I say let them fight until one is completely destroyed. That is the only way it will end. Both sides claim that the other started it and you will never get them to agree.

The Muslim extremists want the Jews wiped off the map ( per their religion), and the Jews will stop at nothing until they've reclaimed their promised land (per their religion). Unfortunately, this will never stop.

This is just my relatively uninformed opinion based on what I can gather.

---

If you are the podcast listener type, I cannot recommend Martyr Made's "Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem" series strongly enough. It is a very very in depth look at the conflict beginning in the late 19th century running up to 1948. Extremely eye opening about the various and very complicated social, religious, and political issues that have led us to where we are. Every bit as good and in many respects better than Dan Carlin's Hardcore History with respect to detail and depth.

Episodes 1-3 are on YouTube but you may need to subscribe to his substack for the rest. For $5/mont my it's a steal at twice the price. Episode 1 here-

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Don't start a war if you don't want to lose land on defeat

---

you can't take land over a war that happened 60 years ago

---

Watch them

Just read your Bible. Israel will take more land before its all over.

RebelE Infantry said:

---

Velvet Jones said:

---

Ok, who let the nazis out of their discord channel?

---

Union mandated smoke break

---

kb2001 said:

---

UTExan said:

---

What is overlooked in this is that if we do not call out Israeli human rights violations (actually violations of their own codified law, not some nebulous UN standard) so they can materially address them, they could be in danger of losing military assistance from us under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (as amended).
That would allow people like Ihlan Omar or her fellow squad cronies to successfully challenge military aid to Israel with Democrat majorities in Congress. And WE desperately need a strong, democratic, technologically advanced ally in the region to confront Iran and keep them worried about retaliation. It's a lot cheaper to fund the Israelis than not.

It isn't about feelings or dislike for any particular party, although I am probably a lot more cognizant of the history of Palestinian terrorism than most on the board here, with all due respect. The Palestinian Arabs are going nowhere. The Israeli Jews are going nowhere. They can solve this problem if they eliminate the radicals.

---

True and also false. You fail to recognize that the elimination of Jews is not a radical position in Islam, the words of Mohammed demand that it is a necessity, and moderate Muslims know this and agree with it on a large scale. We're not talking 1-5%, we're talking 40-50%.

I already posted one Hadith that calls it out, I also posted the Three Noes that were agreed upon and made policy of Arab nations 60 years ago. You should educate yourself further about the roots of the conflict, you don't appear to have much understanding before 1948, and you definitely don't have any understanding before 1880.

---

I recognize that Islamic jihadists will use the hadiths for their purposes. They believe in the simplistic binary division of the world as Dar al Harb (world of war) and Dar al Islam (world of peace). The Jewish tribes in the Saudi peninsula rejected Mohammed's message when presented to them (likely at spear point). But those are the jihadists.
Next door in Jordan you have a stable Muslim constitutional monarchy. It is very friendly to America dating back to Eisenhower sending the Navy to the area to prop up King Hussein in the 1950s. Jordan shot down Israel-bound munitions launched by Iran. They have little affinity with jihadists/fundamentalists even though to this day they place their army on the Jordan River and facing Israel (also to deter smugglers).
The point is that practitioners of Islam act along a spectrum, not a fixed point like the jihadists do. There is certainly a lot of sympathy for Islamic extremists at times but remember that human beings act in accordance with needs satisfaction in general: that's why you may have 200,000 Palestinians working in Israel daily. If the degree of radicalization was as great as we are led to believe, there would be nonstop suicide bombings. There are daily occurrences of violence but not on the scale one would expect if Muslims in general were out to kill Jews. The wall actually helps ablate some nascent attacks, so I am not saying that West Bank Palestinians do not represent a danger. They do. But they are also persuadable to non-violence if their personal welfare is affected.
Ezekiel 38 describes an eschatological scenario in which a coalition of nations attacks Israel, then a land of "unwalled villages". Having spent time there, studying the region for decades and knowing people on both sides, I am tending to believe that there is a real possibility of accommodation between them once the power of the ultra Orthodox on the Israeli side and the jihadists on the Palestinian side is neutralized.
But I would question your proposition that I am not educated regarding the area prior to 1948. I left Bryan, Texas in the 1980s to attend grad school at Utah because they had an actual Middle East studies center. Much of the curricula dealt with pre-Mandate history of the Levant: surveys of the Islamic empires (Umayyad, Abbasid), Byzantine history, Arabic and Persian language courses, political economy surveys of the area and focused particularly on inter-Arab relations and the Islamic resurgence, born out of the failure of pan-Arab secular nationalism.
I focused as well on the Mandatory (1918-48) Levant-the French in Syria and Lebanon and the British in Jordan-Palestine-Iraq including Nazi efforts to make common cause with anti-British Arabs. Please tell me where I can educate myself more.