PC friday question of the day.

[aygart]

After the failed summit did the Jewish settlements continuing to expand rapidly play any part in the second intifada?

There are definitely extremist elements among the Israelis who can rile things up.

[dm123]

Based on your definition, yes.

I Googled and all I saw is that his maternal Great Great grandmother was Jewish. Didn't see anywhere a clear indication that it ran straight through maternal lineage.

According to Aish:

Turns out, Elvis’ maternal great-great grandmother, Nancy Burdine, was believed to be Jewish. Her daughter gave birth to Doll Mansell, who gave birth to Elvis’ mother, Gladys Smith. That, according to a Jewish law, which confers Jewish lineage by way of the mother, makes Elvis technically a Jew.

[CountValentine]

According to Aish:

So, can we put Elvis down as the GOAT Jewish star? 

[jj1000]

So, can we put Elvis down as the GOAT Jewish star? 

NOT A CHANCE!!!!

PortuguesePai never reviewed him!

[Yehuda57]

So, can we put Elvis down as the GOAT Jewish star? 

No way. The GOAT Jewish star is Choni G

[CountValentine]

No way. The GOAT Jewish star is Choni G

NOT A CHANCE!!!!

PortuguesePai never reviewed him!

See signature!!!

[WAM]

Is there more than one legitimate side to the Israel/Palestine issue?

Yes
ETA
Hint: only one side even claims to want peace.

[Yehuda57]

After the failed summit did the Jewish settlements continuing to expand rapidly play any part in the second intifada?

I know this old, but I didn't answer it.

No.

The summit was in July, the intifada started in September, there was no settlement expansion within that month, and certainly not "rapid". Ehud Barak, a strong leftist, was PM at the time, there is no way Israel was expanding any settlements then.

Supposedly, Ariel Sharon visiting Temple Mount triggered the intifada, but there is ample evidence that Palestinian leadership was riling people up and waiting for something to use as an excuse. But even if it was the reason, is a Jew visiting Judaism's holiest site really an excuse to bomb busses and restaurants? The fact that the world called Sharon a provocateur for merely walking up to a holy religious site highlights the absurdity of the whole "debate".

[ExGingi]

Supposedly, Ariel Sharon visiting Temple Mount triggered the intifada, but there is ample evidence that Palestinian leadership was riling people up and waiting for something to use as an excuse. But even if it was the reason, is a Jew visiting Judaism's holiest site really an excuse to bomb busses and restaurants? The fact that the world called Sharon a provocateur for merely walking up to a holy religious site highlights the absurdity of the whole "debate".

They just followed the 1929 playbook.

[CountValentine]

I know this old, but I didn't answer it.

Thanks but stale PC. 

[Yehuda57]

Thanks but stale PC. 

I'm curious, what do you think the Palestinian side is? The "settlements" are called such based on 1967 borders. Yet the PLO (now PA) was formed prior to 1967, and most Palestinian "complaints" stem from 1948. Which is it?

And, as @ExGingi pointed out, the same tactics were in play even before 1948. (The Hebron Massacre is more personal for me, my great-grandmother was born there, her great-grandmother settled there in 1815. Her extended family was driven from Chevron because of the massacre and the numerous attacks prior to the 1929 massacre.) Why were Jews being killed in the 1920s if they hadn't "stolen" any land?

[imayid2]

Why were Jews being killed in the 1920s if they hadn't "stolen" any land?

Because of the Balfour Declaration which had cleared the way for a Jewish State and a host of other excuses for incitement at that specific time

[imayid2]

Supposedly, Ariel Sharon visiting Temple Mount triggered the intifada, but there is ample evidence that Palestinian leadership was riling people up and waiting for something to use as an excuse. But even if it was the reason, is a Jew visiting Judaism's holiest site really an excuse to bomb busses and restaurants? The fact that the world called Sharon a provocateur for merely walking up to a holy religious site highlights the absurdity of the whole "debate".

from the beginning of the conflict the "concern" that the Jews were going to take over their holy sites was a key factor in Arab violence. I suppose that's why that would be viewed as provocation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Another key source of tension concerned the status of the Western Wall and al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.[19] On the one hand, the claim that Jews wanted to retake what Jews call the Temple Mount and Muslims call Haram al-Sharif and destroy the Muslim structures there had been a persistent theme of Arab propaganda.[19] On the other hand, led by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, a campaign had begun in 1928 to reassert Muslim rights over the Western Wall, which was owned by Muslim authorities; al-Husseini ordered new construction in front of and on top of the Wall, and bricks from the construction fell on those who wished to pray there, while excrement from mules befouled the area in front of the Wall.[19] Both sides viewed these developments as symbolically powerful to their respective causes.[20] Jewish leaders appealed to the British authorities to intervene; when they did not, while British authorities were on leave, On August 14, 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall shouting slogans such as "The Wall is Ours" and raising the Jewish national flag.[12] Rumours, apparently part of an organized campaign, spread that Jewish youths had also attacked Arabs and had cursed Muhammad; Husseini's activists handed out fliers that appeared to have been pre-published appealing, with inflammatory religious rhetoric, to Muslims to avenge "the honor of Islam."[21][22]

[Yehuda57]

Because of the Balfour Declaration which had cleared the way for a Jewish State and a host of other excuses for incitement at that specific time

I know what the excuses were, remarkably similar to what is used today. That's the whole point. I'm asking from the Palestinian perspective based on what the legitimate side of the argument would be today.

If the 1929 Massacre was because of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, then attack the British (like the Irgun did).

[CountValentine]

I'm curious, what do you think the Palestinian side is?

I wouldn't answer that on a Friday. 

[Yehuda57]

I wouldn't answer that on a Friday. 

Even though you won't answer my question, I'll add to it. It's not me making up stuff about the Palestinian claims. This is an ambassador of the PA (the "moderate" government who are "partners for peace", not Hamas) who unabashedly doesn't think there is anything wrong with killing Israeli citizens on their way to pray.

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1620724762954661888

[CountValentine]

...who unabashedly doesn't think there is anything wrong with killing Israeli citizens on their way to pray.

I didn't hear him say that.
I take issue with him not condemning the action.

[jj1000]

Even though you won't answer my question, I'll add to it. It's not me making up stuff about the Palestinian claims. This is an ambassador of the PA (the "moderate" government who are "partners for peace", not Hamas) who unabashedly doesn't think there is anything wrong with killing Israeli citizens on their way to pray.

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1620724762954661888

Do you condemn the Warsaw ghetto uprising killing of Nazi's? Isn't that how the PA feels? There is a reason they pay suicide bombers.

[CountValentine]

There is a reason they pay suicide bombers.

Why is that?

[Yehuda57]

I didn't hear him say that.
I take issue with him not condemning the action.

Not condemning it means you don't have a problem with it. That's exactly what he said.

Do you condemn the Warsaw ghetto uprising killing of Nazi's? Isn't that how the PA feels? There is a reason they pay suicide bombers.

I know they don't have an issue with it, they just usually do a better job of hiding it when they speak in English.

You equated killing Nazis with killing civilians.