War in Israel

[NTorch]

Urban myth.

The Oslo accords were signed in 1993. The height of terrorist attacks were 2001 (182 killed), 2002 (307 killed), and 2003 (156 killed), all in the second intifada that Israeli provocations caused (or at least contributed significantly to), notably Sharon's כוחי ועוצם ידי visit to Temple Mount, and ended in the aftermath of חומת מגן when Israel managed to establish a high quality intelligence network and built the separation wall.

The Oslo accords were a huge success with the Palestinian Authority preventing terrorist attacks and rescuing Israelis on a daily basis. From 1996 to 1993 there were more than 200 Jews killed every year by Arabs (From 1948 more than 80 every year).

In the last 5 years, it is under 100 every year for the first time since 1966.

You are only proving the point, the major withdrawals were in the end of 1994, 1997 and 1998. In the period between 1987-1993, only 200 Israelis total were killed.

And where is the mention of Ehud Barak offering a state on 95% of the West Bank to Arafat, which immediately preceded the 2001-2003 massive wave of suicide bombings when Arafat said no?

[Lurker]

Every problem has a solution. Getting opposite sides to see that is the goal.

Unfortunately, this isn't true.

[jj1000]

What I find interesting about this discussion is you provide insight to both sides no matter how it falls. Others only provide one side. Very easy to tell who has their eyes open and who has their head buried in the sand.

Eh, truth is so relative. We can see clearly as a starting point @PlatinumGuy doesn't value Jews living in Israel the same as how other members value it greatly. Sure it's nice to see articles and posts from both sides, but as already agreed above it doesn't make much difference and I wouldn't say it means it's any more truthful, (for example are 2 lies more honest than 1?)

Imagine someone broke into your home.

How would the narrative go if:

A. You don't value living in your home and feel others can be there all the same. Really you shouldn't be living there anyway. (A concept that likely sounds insane).

B. You feel it's your home that you own, as of course you do.

I'm sure you can see that would change the narrative of someone breaking in.

ETA:

So ask yourself. Is the person defending the guy who broke in to your home really more honest, just because he says it's not your home? Could you imagine this happening in your own home, for real...

[PlatinumGuy]

Then it seems it will never be solved.

The Palestinians will eventually have their own state, and the voices promoting terror will quiet down like the rest of Israel's neighbors did when they recognized it's futility. 

Israel (and the controlling Palestinian elite) prefer the status quo than an independent state, so nobody has real incentive to push for progress.

[Ergel]

The Palestinians will eventually have their own state,

With what borders, prey tell?

[aygart]

Yes they must understand it. They don't seem to care. Was that his point?

[aygart]

Eh, truth is so relative. We can see clearly as a starting point @PlatinumGuy doesn't value Jews living in Israel the same as how other members value it greatly. Sure it's nice to see articles and posts from both sides, but as already agreed above it doesn't make much difference and I wouldn't say it means it's any more truthful, (for example are 2 lies more honest than 1?)

Imagine someone broke into your home.

How would the narrative go if:

A. You don't value living in your home and feel others can be there all the same. Really you shouldn't be living there anyway. (A concept that likely sounds insane).

B. You feel it's your home that you own, as of course you do.

I'm sure you can see that would change the narrative of someone breaking in.

"many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

[Lurker]

Yes they must understand it. They don't seem to care. Was that his point?

He's a US politician.... Points are not required to tweet.

[th0306]

The Palestinians will eventually have their own state, and the voices promoting terror will quiet down like the rest of Israel's neighbors did when they recognized it's futility. 

Israel (and the controlling Palestinian elite) prefer the status quo than an independent state, so nobody has real incentive to push for progress.

Why is that, if the terror will quiet down?

[joe1234]

Eh, truth is so relative. We can see clearly as a starting point @PlatinumGuy doesn't value Jews living in Israel the same as how other members value it greatly. Sure it's nice to see articles and posts from both sides, but as already agreed above it doesn't make much difference and I wouldn't say it means it's any more truthful, (for example are 2 lies more honest than 1?)

Imagine someone broke into your home.

How would the narrative go if:

A. You don't value living in your home and feel others can be there all the same. Really you shouldn't be living there anyway. (A concept that likely sounds insane).

B. You feel it's your home that you own, as of course you do.

I'm sure you can see that would change the narrative of someone breaking in.

you just picked a specific value that you disagree with him on. that has nothing to do with the fact that in general he provides insight on both sides, which is definitely usually a pretty good sign that the person is being more truthful. obviously its not full proof but its definitely a huge plus...
as to the value of living in Israel, I don't think its an argument about just the value of living there as much as it is a disagreement about the value of living in Israel vs 1 Jewish life...

[CountValentine]

Eh, truth is so relative. We can see clearly as a starting point @PlatinumGuy doesn't value Jews living in Israel the same as how other members value it greatly. Sure it's nice to see articles and posts from both sides, but as already agreed above it doesn't make much difference and I wouldn't say it means it's any more truthful, (for example are 2 lies more honest than 1?)

Imagine someone broke into your home.

How would the narrative go if:

A. You don't value living in your home and feel others can be there all the same. Really you shouldn't be living there anyway. (A concept that likely sounds insane).

B. You feel it's your home that you own, as of course you do.

I'm sure you can see that would change the narrative of someone breaking in.

In general those that can see both sides are being more truthful/objective. Also those that have no skin in the game can see clear as day who is being objective.

[NTorch]

Thank you. I was taught to always question my natural first impression and accept that my mind is crooked but the truth is straight, and I have to bend my mind to conform with reality, resisting the natural urge to attempt to explain reality according to my preconceptions.

I'll often approach something and say 'how do I know, maybe it's the exact opposite'? And to be sure one way or the other, you have to make then best argument for each side to evaluate them accurately.

I would like to understand how you are truly acknowledging that "maybe its the exact opposite" when your response to my statement below about the Jews being driven from Chevron was first "I'm not well versed on the history of Chevron " followed immediately by "one thing most people aren't aware of is that the 1929 massacre was provoked by the British giving Jews more rights in the contentious Jlem old city." (See below for full quotes in context).

For many years, the small community of 800 Jews in the ancient city of Hebron lived in peace with their tens of thousands of Arab neighbors. But, on the night of August 23, 1929, the tension simmering within this cauldron of nationalities bubbled over, and for a period of three days, Hebron turned into a city of terror and murder as the Arab residents led a rampaging massacre against the bewildered and helpless Jewish community.

By the time the massacre ended, 67 Jews lay dead – their homes and synagogues destroyed – and the few hundred survivors were relocated to Jerusalem.  The aftermath left Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.

The summer of 1929 was one of unrest in Palestine as Jewish immigrants were arriving in increasing numbers and the agitations of the mufti in Jerusalem spurred on Jewish-Arab tensions. Just one day prior to the start of the Hebron massacre, three Jews and three Arabs were killed in Jerusalem when fighting broke out after a Muslim prayer service on the Temple Mount. Arabs spread false rumors and libels throughout their communities, saying that Jews were carrying out “wholesale killings of Arabs.”

Hebron Massacre
Collage of massacre photos.

Hebron had up until this time been outwardly peaceful, although tensions hid below the surface. The Sephardi Jewish community (Jews who were originally from Spain, North Africa and Arab countries) in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries. Theses Sephardi Jews spoke Arabic and had a cultural connection with the Arabs of Hebron.

In the mid-1800s, Ashkenazi (native European) Jews started moving to Hebron and, in 1925, the Slobodka Yeshiva – officially called the Yeshiva of Hebron Knesset Yisrael-Slobodka – was opened. Yeshiva students lived separately from both the Sephardi Jewish community and from the Arab population. This isolation fed the Arab view that these “Zionist immigrants” were suspicious. Still, one yeshiva student, Dov Cohen, recalled being on “very good” terms with the Arab neighbors. He remembered yeshiva boys taking long walks late at night on the outskirts of the city and not feeling afraid, even though only one British policeman guarded the entire city.

On Friday, August 23, 1929, that tranquility was lost.

Arab youths began the riots by hurling rocks at the yeshiva students as they walked by. That afternoon, student Shmuel Rosenholtz went to the yeshiva alone. Arab rioters broke into the building and killed him. Rosenholtz’s was but the first of dozens of murders.

On Friday night, Rabbi Ya’acov Slonim’s son invited any Jews fearful of the worsening situation to stay in their family house. The rabbi was highly regarded in the community, and he kept a gun. Many of the Jews in the community took this offer for shelter. Unfortunately, many of these people were eventually murdered there.

Hebron Massacre
Destruction at the Avraham Avinu Synagogue in the Jewish Quarter

As early as 8:00 a.m. on Saturday morning - the Jewish Sabbath - Arabs began to gather en masse around the Jewish community. They came in mobs, armed with clubs, knives and axes. While the women and children threw stones, the men ransacked Jewish houses and destroyed Jewish property. With only a single police officer in all of Hebron, the Arabs were able to enter Jewish courtyards with literally no opposition.

Rabbi Slonim, who had tried to shelter the Jews, was approached by the rioters and offered a deal. If all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students were given over to the Arabs, the rioters would spare the lives of the Sephardi community.

Rabbi Slonim refused to turn over the students.  The Arabs killed him on the spot.

By the end of the massacre, 12 Sephardi Jews and 55 Ashkenazi Jews were murdered.

A few Arabs did try to help the Jews. Nineteen Arab families saved dozens if not hundreds of Hebron’s Jews. Zmira Mani wrote about an Arab named Abu Id Zaitoun who brought his brother and son to rescue her family. The Arab family protected the Manis with their swords, hid them in a cellar along with other Jews they had saved, and eventually found a policeman to escort them safely to the police station at Beit Romano.

Hebron Massacre
Jewish home in Hebron plundered

The Beit Romano police station turned into a shelter for the Jews on the morning of Saturday, August 24. It also became a synagogue when the Orthodox Jews gathered there said their morning prayers. As they finished praying, they began to hear noises outside the building. Thousands of Arabs descended from Har Hebron, shouting “Kill the Jews!” in Arabic. They even tried to break down the doors of the station.

For three days, the Jews were besieged in Beit Romano by the rampaging Arabs. Each night, ten men were allowed to leave the building and go to Hebron’s ancient Jewish cemetery to conduct a funeral for any Jews murdered that day.

Violence throughout Palestine instigated by the Arabs resulted in the death of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs (most killed by British security forces).

Three days after the massacre, the British evacuated the 484 survivors, including 153 children, to Jerusalem. More than 200 Arabs and 15 Jews were tried and sentenced for their role in the unrest in 1929. Out of 27 capital cases involving Arabs, only three of the death sentences  were carried out, the others were granted “mercy” and their sentences were commuted to life in prison. Muhammad Jamjoum, Fuad Hijazi, and Ataa Al-Zir were put to death on June 17, 1930, because they were convicted of particularly brutal murders in Safad and Hebron.

On July 14, 1930, the Palestine Bulletin reported that Arab leaders wanted to honor the men and planned to discuss whether to erect a statue in their memory. The British, however, banned all public assemblies and political speeches to commemorate their death. Today, there is a memorial to the men in Acre and, every year, the Palestinian Authority commemorates the execution of these “heroes.”

A number of Jewish families tried to move back to Hebron, but were removed by the British authorities in 1936 at the start of the Arab revolt.

In 1948, Israel gained its independence from Britain, but Hebron was captured by King Abdullah’s Arab Legion during the War of Independence and ultimately annexed to Jordan.

When Israel finally regained control of the city in 1967, a small number of survivors from the massacre again tried to reclaim their old houses. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan supposedly told the survivors that if they returned, they would be arrested, and that they should be patient while the government worked out a solution to get their houses back.

Years later, settlers moved to parts of Hebron without the permission of the government, but for those massacre survivors still seeking their original homes, that solution never came.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-hebron-massacre-of-1929

Your response did not even acknowledge the facts contained in the post, claimed ignorance of it and then responded with this:

There are tens if not hundreds of Arab towns that were taken over by Jews. I'm not well versed on the history of Chevron but one thing most people aren't aware of is that the 1929 massacre was provoked by the British giving Jews more rights in the contentious Jlem old city. Obviously, that doesn't legitimize the Arab response, but it illustrates how oftentimes being smart and pragmatic leads to better outcomes than being (dead) right.

Many Jewish lives could've been spared if we didn't provoke our enemies. From the time of the Churban to events this morning in the old city.

It is also true that many Jewish lives probably could've been spared by better resistance. Knowing how to act in each circumstance is an art professionals continuously attempt to finesse.

[CountValentine]

"many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"

...and many more are based on reality but that is for another thread.

[jj1000]

you just picked a specific value that you disagree with him on.

Who said anything about what I agree with or not?

that has nothing to do with the fact that in general

We are talking about this specifically in the past posts of this thread.

obviously its not full proof but its definitely a huge plus...

Which is why I gave an example to show how it is foolish in this conversation as pointed out and agreed on, this topic is way to complex to understand from a few posts and viewpoints. And I don't want @CountValentine to walk away seeing @PlatinumGuy post a few view points from both sides and assume what he is saying is the truth.

As @aygart put it as eloquently as ever: "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

[PlatinumGuy]

In the period between 1987-1993, only 200 Israelis total were killed.

200 civilians + around 1500 soldiers and the number is exactly the same for the 6 year period following 1993.

And where is the mention of Ehud Barak offering a state on 95% of the West Bank to Arafat, which immediately preceded the 2001-2003 massive wave of suicide bombings when Arafat said no?

The second intifada started with a major riot on Sep 28 2000 on the spot while Sharon was needlessly antagonizing the Arabs in the Temple Mount. 20 policemen were injured there that day and it went on for several days across Israel.

Saying they attacked Israel because of a political concession Barak promised them is highly speculative and hard to piece together logically.

If you look for it you can find major concessions Israel made to Arabs almost every year since 1948, including under Trump and Netanyahu.

With what borders, prey tell?

The green line with minor changes for security and the larger settlement blocs. Israel has no problem evicting settlements when necessary.

[CountValentine]

Yes they must understand it. They don't seem to care. Was that his point?

That nutcase has no point.

[PlatinumGuy]

I would like to understand how you are truly acknowledging that "maybe its the exact opposite" when your response to my statement below about the Jews being driven from Chevron was first "I'm not well versed on the history of Chevron " followed immediately by "one thing most people aren't aware of is that the 1929 massacre was provoked by the British giving Jews more rights in the contentious Jlem old city." (See below for full quotes in context).
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-hebron-massacre-of-1929


Your response did not even acknowledge the facts contained in the post, claimed ignorance of it and then responded with this:

Again, I am uneducated about Hebron and it is irrelevant to this conversation because it is 1 town compared to more than 100 Arab towns. I never claimed to know everything.

I did not say Arabs never seized Jewish land, and my positions in this thread always stood up to scrutiny without fail.

[jj1000]

In general those that can see both sides are being more truthful/objective. Also those that have no skin in the game can see clear as day who is being objective.

I eta'd to ask:

So ask yourself. Is the person defending the guy who broke in to your home really more honest, just because he says it's not your home? Could you imagine this happening in your own home, for real...

[PlatinumGuy]

Why is that, if the terror will quiet down?

Because there's always the risk it won't.

[PlatinumGuy]

Imagine someone broke into your home.

Of course, the question is whose home it rightfully is.

The theological argument is disputed by many Jewish authorities who believe it isn't in force without Moshiach.