War in Israel

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/status/1391893803968057346

[Ver hut gazugt]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shaykh_Muwannis

That is in 1948 years into the fighting.
Saying Arabs where scared in a time of war and there for chased out is a very big stretch of reality.

It’s like two people are on a football field and one pulls out a knife and then the other one pulls out a gun and chases him off the field....

[Ver hut gazugt]

In the simplest sense of the term - they came with guns, the Palestinians ran away, and the Jews seize their houses. Today those neighborhoods are known as Ramat Eshkol, Rechavia, Katamon, Telabiya, to name a few.

There is no problem with Jewish growth. The point is in 1930 the overwhelming majority of Israel was Palestinian. Much of their land was taken away from them.

Who came with guns? When was it? Why did they come with guns?

We can’t just pull out selective information, context matters.

[yesitsme]

I didn't read the whole back and forth, but I remember watching מראות ,קודש In gutnik hall, where the rabbi said Not a single medical professional would halt a surgery because its bleeds and stitch it up and then cut again, it bleeds much more every time you start over, you need to do the full surgery and then stitch it up, he was comparing it to Israel's give and take

https://worldisraelnews.com/police-rescue-israelis-from-arab-lynch-mob-in-jerusalem/

Why do the Israelis allow the Arabs to escalate? If the Arabs lift a finger, clamp down right away. It's as if the Israelis never learn their lesson. The more you appease and allow them to wreck havok, the Arabs will just escalate with impunity. Just "bomb the **** out of them", as Trump said (I'm actually quoting Trump?).

[Lurker]

Can we keep the ideology to another thread and keep this discussion to the actual current events? Don't get me wrong: I love to hear the different points of view, but just not here/now.

[Boruch Parnes]

Sirens just went off again   

[efflpetzel]

In the simplest sense of the term - they came with guns, the Palestinians ran away, and the Jews seize their houses. Today those neighborhoods are known as Ramat Eshkol, Rechavia, Katamon, Telabiya, to name a few.

There is no problem with Jewish growth. The point is in 1930 the overwhelming majority of Israel was Palestinian. Much of their land was taken away from them.

You're a left wing kook who distorts history to suit your apologist narrative.

The Arabs overwhelmingly abandoned their neighborhoods & houses after being egged on by their imams that the Jews will slaughter them, by the time the Israelis came they were long gone.

History has shown over thousands of years again & again, that the only language the Arab understands is the one of force.

Time to change your username to BBC or CNN

[ExGingi]

The point is in 1930 the overwhelming majority of Israel was Palestinian. Much of their land was taken away from them.

And what was North America before the British and the French came? What was Central and South America before the Spanish and the Portuguese came? What was Australia before the British came?

הצד השווה שבהן is that the overwhelming majority of land mass was deserted and undeveloped.

When it comes to EY, all we have to go by is what Rashi brings in Bereishis: אמר רבי יצחק: לא היה צריך להתחיל את התורה אלא מ"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" (שמות יב ב), שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו ישראל. ומה טעם פתח בבראשית? משום (תהלים קיא ו) "כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו הִגִּיד לְעַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם נַחֲלַת גּוֹיִם". שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל: "לסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים", הם אומרים להם: "כל הארץ של הקב"ה היא; הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו. ברצונו נתנה להם, וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו".

It's 100% Theological. Don't try to argue sense or justice.

[Toasted]

So you never vote? Basic math will show the miniscule probability that you affect the outcome.

[Moshe123]

Was always wondering why PG supports Dems so feverishly.

[EliJelly]

When it comes to EY, all we have to go by is what Rashi brings in Bereishis: אמר רבי יצחק: לא היה צריך להתחיל את התורה אלא מ"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" (שמות יב ב), שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו ישראל. ומה טעם פתח בבראשית? משום (תהלים קיא ו) "כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו הִגִּיד לְעַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם נַחֲלַת גּוֹיִם". שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל: "לסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים", הם אומרים להם: "כל הארץ של הקב"ה היא; הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו. ברצונו נתנה להם, וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו".

It's 100% Theological. Don't try to argue sense or justice.

I find it weird that this is being applied as being the basis for Zionist sovereignty over Israel.

[m65]

other instances where Israeli law discriminates against Arabs. And yes, I have no problem with many of those cases including the law of return.

racist! bigot! judeo-supremacist!

an intelligent fellow like u, shouldnt fall so easily into such a simple trap, especially when pre warned

jews and arabs are not equal under israeli law.

they dont have any right of return laws, im sure deep down in your heart u are happy about this. (plz for ur own good, dont try to respond to this specific point)

[m65]

I find it weird that this is being applied as being the basis for Zionist sovereignty over Israel.

this is an intelligent grounded point which can be argued to death by sensible ppl from both sides, not just some post modern fuzzy sounding populist quote meant to make liberals feel warm in their heart as they self righteously recite it

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/simonerzim/status/1391869749303316483

The truth hurts.

[PlatinumGuy]

And what was North America before the British and the French came? What was Central and South America before the Spanish and the Portuguese came? What was Australia before the British came?

הצד השווה שבהן is that the overwhelming majority of land mass was deserted and undeveloped.

When it comes to EY, all we have to go by is what Rashi brings in Bereishis: אמר רבי יצחק: לא היה צריך להתחיל את התורה אלא מ"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" (שמות יב ב), שהיא מצוה ראשונה שנצטוו ישראל. ומה טעם פתח בבראשית? משום (תהלים קיא ו) "כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו הִגִּיד לְעַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם נַחֲלַת גּוֹיִם". שאם יאמרו אומות העולם לישראל: "לסטים אתם שכבשתם ארצות שבעה גוים", הם אומרים להם: "כל הארץ של הקב"ה היא; הוא בראה ונתנה לאשר ישר בעיניו. ברצונו נתנה להם, וברצונו נטלה מהם ונתנה לנו".

It's 100% Theological. Don't try to argue sense or justice.

Did you realize the first half of your post is arguing with me while the second half is repeating exactly what I said?

[PlatinumGuy]

You're a left wing kook who distorts history to suit your apologist narrative.

The Arabs overwhelmingly abandoned their neighborhoods & houses after being egged on by their imams that the Jews will slaughter them, by the time the Israelis came they were long gone.

History has shown over thousands of years again & again, that the only language the Arab understands is the one of force.

Time to change your username to BBC or CNN

That I’m a kook is well established and undisputed, the question is if I’m right or wrong.

There are several Arab towns whose population abandoned at gunpoint after being massacred. An early and famous example is Dir Yassin. https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/פרשת_דיר_יאסין

The idea that Arabs who escaped before the guns arrived at their doorstep did so out of unjustified fear propagated by the imams is classic revisionist history. Sure, the leadership exaggerated the fear, but they didn’t create it.

There is zero historical or empirical evidence that Arabs respond to force or other means more or less than any other race. Christians have hurt Jews a lot more than Arabs over the years.

[PlatinumGuy]

I find it weird that this is being applied as being the basis for Zionist sovereignty over Israel.

To me, the ultimate justification isn’t a theological right to the land, it’s simple survival.

Somebody starving to death who steals a piece of bread may be acting immorally, but it is better to act immorally than starve to death.

It was unfair to evict Arabs and steal their homes, but it was probably the only way Jews could’ve survived safely in Israel.

Sometimes the right thing is injustice.

[m65]

https://twitter.com/simonerzim/status/1391869749303316483

The truth hurts.

what is so deeply horrifying?
that jews want their most holy site back?
that they are happy when those who have been murdering and maiming them for 100 years now, had a little fire?

"genocidal" , what a powerfully meaningless word in this context. nobody died from the fire, nobody was even hurt.
the jews didnt even light the fire, mind u genocidiot.
the arabs did. and they did it while firing fireworks at jews trying to murder and maim them.

but of course it all comes from our "genocidal animus".
u guys are sick, crazy, meek hearted, and self loathing.

i for one am happy that the arabs were not successful in their efforts yesterday to murder and maim jews. i am happy that instead of burning jews alive, they ended burning a stupid tree on har habayis. if only it would have ended up burning the one who fired it off.

if i was there i would most definitely have danced "yemach shimam", with a prayer on my lips that those who try to murder jews die a miserable death, and that their efforts may always backfire on themselves.

i have a healthy sense of wanting to live. i have a healthy sense of being happy when my enemies fail to kill me.

i am normal. u are crazy. period.

[m65]

That I’m a kook is well established and undisputed, the question is if I’m right or wrong.

very sharp and well said line. good job bro.

There are several Arab towns whose population abandoned at gunpoint after being massacred. An early and famous example is Dir Yassin. https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/פרשת_דיר_יאסין

why oh why do u blindly choose to believe the arab narrative of the story? the jews have a totally different version...

is it something that can be healed with pills or are u terminally hopeless?

[PlatinumGuy]

Was always wondering why PG supports Dems so feverishly.

The truth is dearer to me than any position. In almost all major debates there is merit on both sides, but one side is better represented amongst us, so I tend take to defending the other side, and people will tend to remember more of the posts of mine that stood out and associate me with those, which is fine.

Understanding & defending one side isn't endorsing. As in this thread, I often present perspectives that are completely different than my own.  In court, your interest is usually to destroy the opposite side by hook or by crook and portray it as poorly as possible. In intelligent conversation, the goal is to understand the opponent's position even better than they do, and that doesn't preclude you from thinking the opposite view prevails.

Too much of the conversation is primal 'liberalism is a mental disorder', 'media is antisemitic', 'Arabs want to kill Jews', that just cancel the conversation and make us dumber - despite usually being grounded in reality.