Hamas attacks southern Israel

[paleologos]

Did those go house to house, door to door, and slaughter every man, woman, and child they could find? Did they deliberately set babies on fire? Did they kidnap infants to trade them in for convicted murderers? Did they fire thousands upon thousands of rockets at civilian centres of population?
Weak =/= righteous.


Yes, Jews have certainly never been mistreated in Spain, I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

This post and the previous one of yours read like something you would author if you were keeping score on atrocities, with the premise being that if you kill fewer of their civilians than they kill of yours you are on the side of the angels.

After 75 years of doing just that Israel has yet to pacify the Palestinians.
And continues to do what it has been doing while it is evident that the outcome does not change.
Now I have to chose between either believing that Israelis are slow to learn by 75 years and are still not able to absorb any lessons, or that the current outcome is the one originally intended.
I don't like my choices.

[sumskilz]

It seems to me that the problem with Israel is that secularism is little more than just facade.
The actual premise of the state is that Jews are a holy people, their rights are holy rights and their state is a holy state on a holy land and the only good state in the world.

Not so much:



Haredi = fundamentalist Orthodox
Dati = nationalist religious
Masorti = traditional (non-religious people who believe the values and traditions of Orthodox Judaism should be normative)
Hiloni = secular non-religious



55% of Israeli Jews consider Jewish identify to mainly be a matter of ancestry/culture. Only 22% of Israeli Jews consider Jewish identity to be mainly about religion.

The original Zionist movement responsible for the foundation of the state was very secular. Most of the leaders were atheists. At that time, religious Jews were vehemently opposed to Zionism. Many of the Haredi movements still are.

That said, religious Jews have a lot more children than non-religious Jews, and non-Ashkenazi Jews tend to have more children than Ashkenazi Jews, so through demography the population is becoming more religious and more Middle Eastern. There is also the issue that for pretty much all Middle Eastern people, ethnicity and religion are pretty much tied together. For example, Arab Israelis will still identify as Christian or Muslim even if they aren't religious, because they are still affiliated with a community, to such an extent that they very rarely intermarry (and will sometimes get violent to prevent others from doing so).

In my experience, Israelis are less religious than Americans. Although the US is constitutionally secular, whereas Israel has no constitution.

Now I have to chose between either believing that Israelis are slow to learn by 75 years and are still not able to absorb any lessons, or that the current outcome is the one originally intended.
I don't like my choices.

Israeli political factions have never been unified in their vision or their preferred approach. Although, I expect you'll see a different approach now. It just won't be one that anyone will feel very good about.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

This post and the previous one of yours read like something you would author if you were keeping score on atrocities, with the premise being that if you kill fewer of their civilians than they kill of yours you are on the side of the angels.

Nope. It is a question of intent. There's a difference between targetting military targets and civilians getting hurt in the proccess on the one hand, and deliberate targetting of civilians in an act of atrocity reminiscent of the nazis on the other hand.

After 75 years of doing just that Israel has yet to pacify the Palestinians.
And continues to do what it has been doing while it is evident that the outcome does not change.
Now I have to chose between either believing that Israelis are slow to learn by 75 years and are still not able to absorb any lessons, or that the current outcome is the one originally intended.
I don't like my choices.

You're right in that a change of course is required. 18 years ago Ariel Sharon made the mistake of withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza without any deal or guarantee. This has cost thousands of lives, and only made things worse for everyone involved.
Hamas must be annahilated, the Islamic Jihad must be annahilated, the PFLP must be annahilated, the DFLP must be annahilated. Then Gaza must either be handed to the PA, or have some form of interim government established. Then we can move towards peace.
The aformentioned four groups do not want peace, they want a second holocaust.

[mishkin]

Did those go house to house, door to door, and slaughter every man, woman, and child they could find? Did they deliberately set babies on fire? Did they kidnap infants to trade them in for convicted murderers? Did they fire thousands upon thousands of rockets at civilian centres of population?.

From their point of view they are at war. Everything they have suffered, seen or perceived justifies their actions (although I do not doubt that some of them might often feel scruples or remorse)

Yes, Jews have certainly never been mistreated in Spain, I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

five hundred years without a Jew being mistreated.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

From their point of view they are at war. Everything they have suffered, seen or perceived justifies their actions (although I do not doubt that some of them might often feel scruples or remorse)

From their point of view, they're killing Jews, and there's no greater pleasure for them than that.

five hundred years without a Jew being mistreated.

Hmm yes, fair point, are you saying Israel should give the palestinians the spanish treatment?

[sumskilz]

New poll:

Trust in the government is at a 20-year low, according to new polling by the Israel Democracy Institute.

Only 20.5% of Jewish Israelis and 7.5% of Arab Israelis polled say they have trust in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, when polled in the aftermath of Hamas’s brutal October 7 terror attack.

In June, these populations polled at 28% and 18%, respectively.

Trust in the ruling coalition was already quite low, due to the "judicial reform", now it's even lower.

[Infidel144]

Yes, Jews have certainly never been mistreated in Spain, I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

Particularly with the undoubtedly reliable information already presented that in Spain:
"I am tempted now to tell you about how much catholics hate the jewish. A big part of our culture."

[Mithradates]

Now imagine that you are not a terrorist, but a fighter against the injustices of an overwhelming/invading state. the same thing that members of ETA, the IRA, or violent movements fighting against apartheid in South Africa have thought.

They are not freedom fighters, they are terrorists who want to kill all Jews.

It's not really a secret, it's in their Charter.

The Covenant proclaims that Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it, and jihad against Jews is required until Judgement Day. Compromise over the land is forbidden. The documents promote holy war as divinely ordained, reject political solutions, and call for instilling these views in children.

[mishkin]

From their point of view, they're killing Jews, and there's no greater pleasure for them than that.

I think that if the people of Israel "simply" decided to pick up their things and leave, they would explode with joy.

Hmm yes, fair point, are you saying Israel should give the palestinians the spanish treatment?

If I remember correctly, the Catholic kings gave the Jews four months to leave the peninsula, not twenty-four hours.

Particularly with the undoubtedly reliable information already presented that in Spain:
"I am tempted now to tell you about how much catholics hate the jewish. A big part of our culture."

Have you read that comment and didn't understand the one in which I offered cordoba as a joke? Do you think PoVG wasn't joking either when offered Thessaloniki?

[paleologos]

The original Zionist movement responsible for the foundation of the state was very secular.
Most of the leaders were atheists.

Here is the fundamental difference of outlook between the two of us.
I define religiosity in a broader sense than mere belief in the supernatural.

For example, the conviction that Israel has the right to exist not as a state for all natives of the territory that is it's domain but as a Jewish Ethno-State in spite of and against the free will and disposition of the non Jewish natives of the land is not commensurate with the secular principles of the enlightenment.
(This sentiment in a nutshell is expressed as: "the Arabs can live in our land as non citizens -and without any hope for a procedure of naturalization- because it's our land.)
Instead it is a fundamental belief, one that Zionists regard as self evident.
That last part makes it dogma.

At that time, religious Jews were vehemently opposed to Zionism.
Many of the Haredi movements still are.

Not unsurprising, they view Zionism as a religion that competes against theirs for the same souls.

Although the US is constitutionally secular, whereas Israel has no constitution.

Not unsurprising either, that Zionists feel Israel does not need a constitution as the unofficial but very real religion of Israel is Israel itself.
It is a state that self-worships and as such it rationally views a constitution as an impediment to self-worship.
How would you guarantee and protect the rights to life, freedom and property, or the right to due process for Jews but not gentiles without giving grounds to accusations of apartheid practices from both foreign and domestic critics?

Nope.
It is a question of intent. There's a difference between targeting military targets and civilians getting hurt in the process on the one hand, and deliberate targeting of civilians in an act of atrocity reminiscent of the nazis on the other hand.

Not only.
While arguments for a difference in intention can be landed, I was addressing what seems to be an elephant in the room.
Both Palestinian Jihadists and Israelis zealots seem to feel equally justified to kill civilians of the "other side" and as long as they kill "one less civilian" than the other guys, they both claim "good guy" status.

You're right in that a change of course is required.

I hate being right about the bad stuff.

18 years ago Ariel Sharon made the mistake of withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza without any deal or guarantee.

At the time it seems he had very good reasons as attrition was costing more than just tax payer money and Israeli soldiers' lives, it was also costing him international good will and, most importantly, votes.

This has cost thousands of lives...

Mostly Palestinian?

...
and only made things worse for everyone involved.

Not everyone.
Bibi made a fortune from his options in the company that manufactures the Iron Dome system (forgive my inability to immediately link references).

Hamas must be annihilated, the Islamic Jihad must be annihilated, the PFLP must be annihilated, the DFLP must be annihilated.
Then Gaza must either be handed to the PA, or have some form of interim government established.
Then we can move towards peace.
The aforementioned four groups do not want peace, they want a second holocaust.

Perhaps.
However you seem to believe that the "four groups" are distinct entities, unaffiliated from the rest of Palestinian society in the Gaza strip, like droplets of oil in a lake of vinegar.
The fighters that are members of the militant groups are not monks.
They have families.
Their children will be orphaned and will grow up in resentment just like their fathers and become fighters themselves.
Would you approve of "annihilating" the families of militants for the sake of "future peace"?
If the answer is yes I would lament reading the mental contortion one would need to perform to make themselves look like different than the Jihadists who pursue "a second holocaust".

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I think that if the people of Israel "simply" decided to pick up their things and leave, they would explode with joy.

Yes, except those explosions would take place in other countries.

If I remember correctly, the Catholic kings gave the Jews four months to leave the peninsula, not twenty-four hours.

Firstly, they were told to move ssouth, not leave the Gaza strip. Secondly, nothing happened after those 24 hours. The period was extended.

Have you read that comment and didn't understand the one in which I offered cordoba as a joke? Do you think PoVG wasn't joking either when offered Thessaloniki?

You were. He wasn't.

Here is the fundamental difference of outlook between the two of us.
I define religiosity in a broader sense than mere belief in the supernatural.

For example, the conviction that Israel has the right to exist not as a state for all natives of the territory that is it's domain but as a Jewish Ethno-State in spite of and against the free will and disposition of the non Jewish natives of the land is not commensurate with the secular principles of the enlightenment.
(This sentiment in a nutshell is expressed as: "the Arabs can live in our land as non citizens -and without any hope for a procedure of naturalization- because it's our land.)
Instead it is a fundamental belief, one that Zionists regard as self evident.
That last part makes it dogma.

You do realise over 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, right?

Not unsurprising either, that Zionists feel Israel does not need a constitution as the unofficial but very real religion of Israel is Israel itself.
It is a state that self-worships and as such it rationally views a constitution as an impediment to self-worship.
How would you guarantee and protect the rights to life, freedom and property, or the right to due process for Jews but not gentiles without giving grounds to accusations of apartheid practices from both foreign and domestic critics?

What the fk are you talking about man?
Most Israelis agree a constitution is needed. They don't wants these rights to be exclusive to Jews. What are you on about?
Also, you keep using the term Zionist as though it has a negative connotation. Do you understand the meaning of the term?

Not only.
While arguments for a difference in intention can be landed, I was addressing what seems to be an elephant in the room.
Both Palestinian Jihadists and Israelis zealots seem to feel equally justified to kill civilians of the "other side" and as long as they kill "one less civilian" than the other guys, they both claim "good guy" status.

Such zealots you speak of are not decision makers in Israel. They are in Gaza.

At the time it seems he had very good reasons as attrition was costing more than just tax payer money and Israeli soldiers' lives, it was also costing him international good will and, most importantly, votes.

This cost him votes. His party split as a result. A right wing government giving up land and forcefully evicting settlers is extremely unpopular. Votes were not a factor here.

Mostly Palestinian?

Yes. Would you rather we let Hamas purge a few thousand more Jews to even the odds?

Not everyone.
Bibi made a fortune from his options in the company that manufactures the Iron Dome system (forgive my inability to immediately link references).

Please do provide a source, this is the first time I hear of this.
Note that I'm no fan of Bibi, he belongs in prison.

Perhaps.
However you seem to believe that the "four groups" are distinct entities, unaffiliated from the rest of Palestinian society in the Gaza strip, like droplets of oil in a lake of vinegar.
The fighters that are members of the militant groups are not monks.
They have families.
Their children will be orphaned and will grow up in resentment just like their fathers and become fighters themselves.
Would you approve of "annihilating" the families of militants for the sake of "future peace"?
If the answer is yes I would lament reading the mental contortion one would need to perform to make themselves look like different than the Jihadists who pursue "a second holocaust".

When the nazis were defeated, were all their children killed to avoid future nazis? no.

[PointOfViewGun]

We get it, you don't think Jews should have a state and should perpetually be at the mercy of other people, just awaiting the next genocide.

Turkey's Jewish population also decreased by over 80% compared to 1948. Perhaps a Jewish state should be established with its borders from Thesalloniki to Istanbul, with Istanbul as its capital? We can rename it to Jerusalem 2: Jews strike back. Make the Hagia Sophia into a synagogue.

I did suggest Cyprus and Central Macedonia (with Thessaloniki) as two possible better cases of an independent Jewish state but sure. You clearly do not see the self-destructive nature of your cringy jab.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I did suggest Cyprus and Central Macedonia (with Thessaloniki) as two possible better cases of an independent Jewish state but sure. You clearly do not see the self-destructive nature of your cringy jab.

While it is very kind of you to propose other peoples land, why would Jews want to have a state there?

[mishkin]

nhytgbvfeco2, I refuse to believe that you believe that, even if the state of Israel disappeared and a new diaspora took place, Hamas members would continue "in the fight" attacking Jews all over the world. You can quote their commandments, principles or precepts to me as many times as you want, the only negative feeling they would have is "great, now what do we do with our lives?"

While it is very kind of you to propose other peoples land, why would Jews want to have a state there?

And why in Jerusalem? (a hundred and something years ago, when all this started)

[paleologos]

You do realise over 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs, right?

Sure.
In any case there is this reputation, perhaps a wrong one, that during the first war Israel encouraged the spreading of Palestinian propaganda that Israeli soldiers were raping Palestinian women in villages the IDF would occupy, causing a great many Arabs civilians to flee to neighboring countries and does not allow them to return ever since.

Maybe that's not exactly how it happened but there are plenty of Palestinian refugee camps in plenty of Middle Eastern countries.
If they, or their descendants are allowed to return Israel will no longer be a Jewish majority state.

What the fk are you talking about man?
Most Israelis agree a constitution is needed. They don't wants these rights to be exclusive to Jews. What are you on about?
Also, you keep using the term Zionist as though it has a negative connotation. Do you understand the meaning of the term?

I used the word "Zionist" in the same manner sumskilz used it in his post #582.
The first part of my post was a response to post #582 by sumskilz maybe he understands what I mean, or maybe he will clear my misunderstandings about Israel.
He will also let me know whether most Israelis would like to extend such rights to all the people who are native, or descendants of natives to all the territories that are under Israeli jurisdiction, civilian or military.
Remember this:
Every time IDF exerts violence Israel claims legitimacy of that violence and illegitimacy of the violence of it's enemies.
Effectively Israel lands the claim of a monopoly to the legitimacy of violence.
To all who know anything about political theory this is effectively a claim to territory.
If a state has the monopoly to legitimate violence in a territory then the territory is at least de facto part of the domain of that state.
Since Israel claims the monopoly to legitimate violence in all of the Palestinian territories then it is only fair that all the natives and their descendants of said territories are granted rights of citizenship.

Such zealots you speak of are not decision makers in Israel. They are in Gaza.

And when Palestinian babies die collaterally they will claim with some credibility that Israel is as bad as them and that's exactly what they want.
Why play at their hands?

This cost him votes. His party split as a result. A right wing government giving up land and forcefully evicting settlers is extremely unpopular. Votes were not a factor here.

I never claimed he calculated correctly.

Yes. Would you rather we let Hamas purge a few thousand more Jews to even the odds?

Why do you presume that I take sides?
I don't like Hamas any more than you do.

Please do provide a source, this is the first time I hear of this.
Note that I'm no fan of Bibi, he belongs in prison.

Many years ago I posted about this and at the time I had links.
If I find that post I will re-post the links.

When the nazis were defeated, were all their children killed to avoid future nazis? no.

Were the Germans a tribal society at the time?
Was their religion one that called for a holy war?
Or were they not involved in violent acts of resistance against the Allied occupation forces before they were allowed to become a state again, cutting short the de-nazification process?
The only way to eradicate Hamas from Gaza is to force men and women to live separately until all the women are menopausal.
Try doing that.

[PointOfViewGun]

While it is very kind of you to propose other peoples land, why would Jews want to have a state there?

Of all the forced solutions the ones I mentioned would produce the better outcome, especially given its timing. For Cyprus, it would create a truly multinational society that favoured Jews that also gave them a homeland they could easily defend. It would also mitigate the inter-communal problems among Greeks and Turks of the island. For Central Macedonia, it would have them come back to a place they were the majority for a long time and prospered. The insistence on Jerusalem is nothing but religious obsession that undermines the idea of having a safe place for Jews. Israel over Palestine is not an idea of safe place for Jews.

[sumskilz]

For example, the conviction that Israel has the right to exist not as a state for all natives of the territory that is it's domain but as a Jewish Ethno-State in spite of and against the free will and disposition of the non Jewish natives of the land is not commensurate with the secular principles of the enlightenment.
(This sentiment in a nutshell is expressed as: "the Arabs can live in our land as non citizens -and without any hope for a procedure of naturalization- because it's our land.)
Instead it is a fundamental belief, one that Zionists regard as self evident.
That last part makes it dogma.

These aren’t mainstream Zionist views. These are ideas that are associated with the National Religious Zionist movement who didn’t really exist prior to 1974. They’re the people that identify as Dati in the polls I posted, who make up about 14% of the Jewish population of Israel. Although some do support granting a path to citizenship for Arabs in any area Israel annexes. In any case, it’s anachronistic to apply any such notions to the Zionist movement that established the state. The plan was to acquire a territory via legal means, which they did through the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo conference. The point of establishing a state with a Jewish majority was so that there will always be a state where Jews aren’t persecuted and to where Jews can flee persecution. Subsequent events changed everything, to the extent that there was no other choice but war in 1948. The phrase “Israel has a right to exist” was a response to the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 that defined Zionism as racism. It seemed reasonable to reject the assertion that only Jews aren’t allowed to have a national liberation movement, and considering how most other states were formed, it’s pretty ridiculous to suggest that Israel is any less legitimate than the rest. I’m not certain, but I’m pretty sure the phrase originated in the US anyway.

In any case there is this reputation, perhaps a wrong one, that during the first war Israel encouraged the spreading of Palestinian propaganda that Israeli soldiers were raping Palestinian women in villages the IDF would occupy, causing a great many Arabs civilians to flee to neighboring countries and does not allow them to return ever since.

Some local Arabs at a radio station started the rumor because they thought it would insure the armies of neighboring Arab countries would intervene. They did, the armies of seven countries invaded the mandate, for their own reasons mostly.

He will also let me know whether most Israelis would like to extend such rights to all the people who are native, or descendants of natives to all the territories that are under Israeli jurisdiction, civilian or military.

Israel will never allow right of return of more than a token amount of people for family reunification, because they’re not suicidal. If I recall correctly, a figure of 100,000 was offered. About 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out during the 1948 war. About 900,000 Jews fled or were driven out from Arab countries, the vast majority of whom came to Israel. Israel might consider reparations for the descendants of refugees, but they would never do so as long as there aren’t reparations for the Jews from Arab countries. Nobody paid reparations to the ethnic Germans who had to flee their homes in the 1940s, which Israelis see as basically the same, but mostly Israelis consider that it has already been paid for in blood, since it has been the Arabs who have refused to make peace for so long.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

nhytgbvfeco2, I refuse to believe that you believe that, even if the state of Israel disappeared and a new diaspora took place, Hamas members would continue "in the fight" attacking Jews all over the world. You can quote their commandments, principles or precepts to me as many times as you want, the only negative feeling they would have is "great, now what do we do with our lives?"

I don't believe it, I know it. Read their charter, they're quite open about it.
Also, if Israel would cease to exist, none of its people would survive to become a diaspora. Hamas has shown us exactly what it'd do with every man woman and child they can get their hands on. More Jews would be murdered than during the Holocaust.

And why in Jerusalem? (a hundred and something years ago, when all this started)

Because it is the Jewish homeland, because it is the "Zion" in Zionism, because for two thousand years Jews have been saying "Next year in Jerusalem!" And "If I forget you Jerusalem, I'll forget my right hand!", because it is not some random place, but a land Jews feel deeply attached to, and long to be in. It is not some foreign land taken in desperation, but a triumphant return home.

Sure.
In any case there is this reputation, perhaps a wrong one, that during the first war Israel encouraged the spreading of Palestinian propaganda that Israeli soldiers were raping Palestinian women in villages the IDF would occupy, causing a great many Arabs civilians to flee to neighboring countries and does not allow them to return ever since.

Maybe that's not exactly how it happened but there are plenty of Palestinian refugee camps in plenty of Middle Eastern countries.
If they, or their descendants are allowed to return Israel will no longer be a Jewish majority state.

Why would they return to Israel if they'll have their own state? I thought Israel was the epitome of evil?

I used the word "Zionist" in the same manner sumskilz used it in his post #582.
The first part of my post was a response to post #582 by sumskilz maybe he understands what I mean, or maybe he will clear my misunderstandings about Israel.
He will also let me know whether most Israelis would like to extend such rights to all the people who are native, or descendants of natives to all the territories that are under Israeli jurisdiction, civilian or military.

Those rights are already extended to all people living under Israeli civilian jurisdiction. To extend it to the areas under military jurisdiction would require annexation. Is that what you desire? For Israel to annex Gaza and the west bank? That would mean no palestinian state.

Remember this:
Every time IDF exerts violence Israel claims legitimacy of that violence and illegitimacy of the violence of it's enemies.
Effectively Israel lands the claim of a monopoly to the legitimacy of violence.
To all who know anything about political theory this is effectively a claim to territory.
If a state has the monopoly to legitimate violence in a territory then the territory is at least de facto part of the domain of that state.
Since Israel claims the monopoly to legitimate violence in all of the Palestinian territories then it is only fair that all the natives and their descendants of said territories are granted rights of citizenship.

Nonsense. Israel has not annexed these territories, their occupation is temporary. An annexation would be permanent.

And when Palestinian babies die collaterally they will claim with some credibility that Israel is as bad as them and that's exactly what they want.
Why play at their hands?

What's the alternative? let them murder, rape and behead their was accross Israel with no consequence?
Bombings have to happen, unfortunately.

I never claimed he calculated correctly.

He knew this would cost him votes, this is like claiming that you've emptied your cup of water on the floor to increase the amount of water in your cup. It's obvious.

Why do you presume that I take sides?

Because you've been arguing they should face no consequence.

I don't like Hamas any more than you do.

I very much doubt that.

Many years ago I posted about this and at the time I had links.
If I find that post I will re-post the links.

Please do.

Were the Germans a tribal society at the time?
Was their religion one that called for a holy war?
Or were they not involved in violent acts of resistance against the Allied occupation forces before they were allowed to become a state again, cutting short the de-nazification process?
The only way to eradicate Hamas from Gaza is to force men and women to live separately until all the women are menopausal.
Try doing that.

Hamas does not represent Islam. Their teaching are not those of the Kuran, bur rather those of Mein Kampf.
Are you trying to say they're too primitive to learn? that's quite bigoted.

Of all the forced solutions the ones I mentioned would produce the better outcome, especially given its timing. For Cyprus, it would create a truly multinational society that favoured Jews that also gave them a homeland they could easily defend. It would also mitigate the inter-communal problems among Greeks and Turks of the island. For Central Macedonia, it would have them come back to a place they were the majority for a long time and prospered. The insistence on Jerusalem is nothing but religious obsession that undermines the idea of having a safe place for Jews. Israel over Palestine is not an idea of safe place for Jews.

Both of those would have about as many Jews as Birobidzhan, and would fail for the same reason the Uganda proposal failed. Jews have no interest in some random land. They want their homeland. They want Zion.

[Ludicus]

To be fair, it took us 500 years.
Is it fair to demand same result in just 75 years?

I was being ironic, fkizz. The difference lies in the irony: Israel, as a non-secular state, will never welcome the return of the Palestinians it expelled.

Everything that is happening was predicted many, many years ago. From "The Great War for Civilizations", chapter 11.

” …By 1938, George Antonius was saying quite clearly that “the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, or of a national home based on territorial sovereignty, cannot be accomplished without forcibly displacing the Arabs . . .” Antonius wanted an independent Arab state “in which as many Jews as the country can hold without prejudice to its political and economic freedom would live in peace, security and dignity, and enjoy full rights of citizenship.”

Fearing “an unpredictable holocaust of Arab, Jewish and British lives,” help for the Jews of Europe, he said, must be sought elsewhere than in Palestine:

“The treatment meted out to Jews in Germany and other European countries is a disgrace to its authors and to modern civilisation; but posterity will not exonerate any country that fails to bear its proper share of the sacrifices needed to alleviate Jewish suffering and distress.
To place the brunt of the burden upon Arab Palestine is a miserable evasion of the duty that lies upon the whole of the civilised world. It is also morally outrageous.
No code of morals can justify the persecution of one people in an attempt to relieve the persecution of another. The cure for the eviction of Jews from Germany is not to be sought in the eviction of the Arabs from their homeland; and the relief of Jewish distress may not be accomplished at the cost of inflicting a corresponding distress upon an innocent and peaceful population.”
It is astonishing that such remarks—so prescient in view of the Palestinian disaster a decade later—could have been written in 1938.

Yet there were others who foresaw future disaster in equally bleak terms.

Only a year earlier, but reflecting upon the future, Winston Churchill had written of the impossibility of a partitioned Palestine and had written—far more prophetically—of how:

the wealthy, crowded, progressive Jewish State lies in the plains, and on the sea coasts [of Palestine]. Around it, in the hills and the uplands, stretching far and wide into the illimitable deserts, the warlike Arabs of Syria, of Transjordania, of Arabia, backed by the armed forces of Iraq, offer the ceaseless menace of war . . .

To maintain itself, the Jewish State must be armed to the teeth, and must bring in every able-bodied man to strengthen its army. But how long would this process be allowed to continue by the great Arab populations in Iraq and Palestine?

Can it be expected that the Arabs would stand by impassively and watch the building up with Jewish world capital and resources of a Jewish army equipped with the most deadly weapons of war, until it was strong enough not to be afraid of them? And if ever the Jewish army reached that point, who can be sure that, cramped within their narrow limits, they would not plunge out into the new undeveloped lands that lie around them?

-----

On the latest incident, imagine you are the leader of a nation. There is an enemy attack inside our borders that in 48 hours has killed portuguese civilians in the number of thousands. The number keeps growing up and may double or triple if very strong action isn't taken.
What do you do?
1) Do you allow even more portuguese civilians to be killed while contemplating history?
2) Do you give order for a strong action to be taken against the hostile individuals who are out there killing civilians?

Something similar has already happened in a Portuguese "overseas Province". I've already answered that question, check a previous post.

------
The Prime Minister of Portugal and the Ministry of Justice are already speeding up the process for granting Portuguese nationality to Ofer Calderon. On Thursday, the Israeli government formally added the three members of the Calderon family to the list of identified missing citizens held as hostages.

As rightly stated by the family's lawyer, the Portuguese government should do no less than Aristides de Sousa Mendes, the Portuguese diplomat in Bordeaux, France, who saved over 30,000 Jews from Nazi persecution during World War II. Negotiations are currently underway between Israel and Hamas, through Qatar, for the release of 50 hostages with dual nationality, which have already led to the release of two American citizens. It was this development that gave the Calderon family some hope.
--
--
In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated after a peace rally between the state of Israel and the PLO. It was a massive loss for peace and security in the Middle East and the world. The assassin, a religious fanatic, believed in the idea of "Greater Israel," achievable only through the expulsion and/or genocide of all Arabs from the promised land.

Netanyahu is a spiritual heir to the young gunman who killed the greatest hope for peace in the Middle East since the founding of Israel in 1948. He aligned himself with Jewish fundamentalists who have seized land and killed Palestinians in the West Bank to establish illegal settlements.

Netanyahu did not hesitate to make a pact with the devil by financing Hamas to weaken the PLO. He fueled terrorism against his own country to justify the impossibility of implementing the UN's two-state solution for the Palestinian issue. What is happening is not a legitimate defense against aggression but an act of indiscriminate and disproportionate revenge against trapped people.
The real threat to Israel's future is not even Hamas but the increasing degradation of democracy that Netanyahu and his band of fanatical fundamentalists have perpetrated.

When Theodor Herzl founded political Zionism in 1895 with his book "The Jewish State" (Der Judenstaat), he was defending against the growing signs of hatred in Europe against Jews. The state dreamed of by Herzl would be secular, pluralistic in language and belief, and motivated by the conviction that "only knowledge sets us free" (Wissenschaft macht uns frei).

In the Holocaust, the Nazi destruction machine had the complicity of many ignorant and envious individuals. With the six million exterminated Jews, a remarkable part of the European intellectual elite disappeared, and its absence is still painfully felt.The unforgivable horror of the Holocaust cannot be used to silence the little that remains of ethical decency and critical spirit in Europe*

* EU staff members express fury over von der Leyen stance on Israel-Hamas conflict.
In fact, it's easier to pull a tooth out of that woman's mouth than to hear from her a word of solidarity with the Palestinian people.




--
EU capitals fume at 'Queen' von der Leyen – POLITICO
Internal EU discontent grows at von der Leyen's neglect of

Meanwhile in the US Sanders Blocks GOP Push to Make US Humanitarian Aid to Gaza Impossible...

[fkizz]

Something similar has already happened in a Portuguese "overseas Province". I've already answered that question, check a previous post.

Evasive reply.
Let's consider only Continental Portugal. You are the leader of the nation.
Some group killed Portuguese civilians by 1000+ tier numbers. If you don't take fast action, the casualties will keep rising even more.
Do you:
1) Sit back and relax as even portuguese civilians are killed while pondering on things about History while the casualties rise?

2) Summon all the avaliable armed forces to deal with the group that is out there killing portuguese people for both physical and metaphysical reasons?

PS - I'm asking again because the example you gave comes literally from History, or at least only avaliable in History books for many, which has an ironic similiarity with option 1), so from a "present and beyond" perspective, what would you do? It's Continental Portugal.