How do you deal with Islam?

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Another horrific incident in Iran that will be swept under the rug.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/world/iran-armita-geravand-brain-dead-intl-hnk/index.html

Meanwhile, protestors are not only supporting anti-Israel, but are literally proclaiming Islamic Jihad to take over various places across the Western world. And if that weren't enough, this is a religion that is responsible for 33,769 Islamist attacks that killed at least 167,096 people between 1979 and 2019. We know those figures are now too low, based not only on Hamas' attack, but various other attacks the past couple of years.

You are being redirected...

Is there any other cause that is even close to having this much of a detrimental impact across the globe? Is it racist to feel like Islam and its followers are a lost cause? Obviously the majority of Islam followers are probably not bad people and are getting a bad rap.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Another horrific incident in Iran that will be swept under the rug.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/world/iran-armita-geravand-brain-dead-intl-hnk/index.html

View embedded media

Meanwhile, protestors are not only supporting anti-Israel, but are literally proclaiming Islamic Jihad to take over various places across the Western world. And if that weren't enough, this is a religion that is responsible for 33,769 Islamist attacks that killed at least 167,096 people between 1979 and 2019. We know those figures are now too low, based not only on Hamas' attack, but various other attacks the past couple of years.

You are being redirected...

Is there any other cause that is even close to having this much of a detrimental impact across the globe? Is it racist to feel like Islam and its followers are a lost cause? Obviously the majority of Islam followers are probably not bad people and are getting a bad rap.

How many people died from the Vietnam War because they had a different belief system? How many people have died or suffered from (insert belief system)? Why are "us vs. them" and violence such important parts of humanity? The mirror is a good place to start.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

How many people died from the Vietnam War because they had a different belief system? How many people have died or suffered from (insert belief system)? Why are "us vs. them" and violence such important parts of humanity? The mirror is a good place to start.

Not sure I follow. Why are terrorist attacks and behavior unimportant? In many cases, these aren't military conflicts. In many cases, they are direct attacks against civilians (see 9/11, Israel Oct 7, Boko Haram, suicide bombings, etc.).

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Not sure I follow. Why are terrorist attacks and behavior unimportant? In many cases, these aren't military conflicts. In many cases, they are direct attacks against civilians (see 9/11, Israel Oct 7, Boko Haram, suicide bombings, etc.).

It is an "us vs. them" mentality that creates conflict. Conflict can be violent, and some people haven't evolved beyond violence. Some people think their belief system justifies killing and inflicting violence upon "the others."

The US killed 1-2 million people in Vietnam. That is way more than the 100K-200K estimate of Islam. The US may have went about it a different way, but the motivation and results are the same and the body count is worse.

I would admit there are some religious folk that need to evolve. The US put the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the 8th Amendment because people were burnt at the stake for being the wrong religion. Poverty and lack of education are common fuels for religious fanatacism.

 

[IU_Hickory]

For comparison, how many shootings have occurred in the United States during that same timeframe?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Another horrific incident in Iran that will be swept under the rug.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/world/iran-armita-geravand-brain-dead-intl-hnk/index.html

View embedded media

Meanwhile, protestors are not only supporting anti-Israel, but are literally proclaiming Islamic Jihad to take over various places across the Western world. And if that weren't enough, this is a religion that is responsible for 33,769 Islamist attacks that killed at least 167,096 people between 1979 and 2019. We know those figures are now too low, based not only on Hamas' attack, but various other attacks the past couple of years.

You are being redirected...

Is there any other cause that is even close to having this much of a detrimental impact across the globe? Is it racist to feel like Islam and its followers are a lost cause? Obviously the majority of Islam followers are probably not bad people and are getting a bad rap.

as i've said before, there are two kinds of people in the world.

nice guys and ass holes.

far right wing Islamist ass holes are far and away the worlds biggest ass holes, followed at a distance by other far right wingers.

in every culture, the far right seems to be the biggest trouble makers.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

It is an "us vs. them" mentality that creates conflict. Conflict can be violent, and some people haven't evolved beyond violence. Some people think their belief system justifies killing and inflicting violence upon "the others."

The US killed 1-2 million people in Vietnam. That is way more than the 100K-200K estimate of Islam. The US may have went about it a different way, but the motivation and results are the same and the body count is worse.

I would admit there are some religious folk that need to evolve. The US put the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the 8th Amendment because people were burnt at the stake for being the wrong religion. Poverty and lack of education are common fuels for religious fanatacism.

I wasn't alive during Vietnam, so I can't really comment on exactly how I would have felt, but it certainly seemed like a poor decision on many facets, including indiscriminate bombing, napalm usage, etc.

But, do you really think our society is stuck in the same place though as we were in the late 60s or early 70s? Globally, it seems like many developed countries value life and want to avoid significant conflict and casualties more than ever before. That doesn't seem to be the case for many loyal followers of religion generally, but is especially noticeable in Islam, which is focused on targeting civilians as they are military or governmental targets.

There's no question the right wing of Judaism, Christianity, etc. are societal threats and demonstrated violence - but nothing like the level you see from the Islamic right.

 

[BradStevens]

A little different, but here is how the Chinese deal with it:

China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang

More than a million Muslims have been arbitrarily detained in China’s Xinjiang region. The reeducation camps are just one part of the government’s crackdown on Uyghurs.

www.cfr.org

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

I wasn't alive during Vietnam, so I can't really comment on exactly how I would have felt, but it certainly seemed like a poor decision on many facets, including indiscriminate bombing, napalm usage, etc.

But, do you really think our society is stuck in the same place though as we were in the late 60s or early 70s? Globally, it seems like many developed countries value life and want to avoid significant conflict and casualties more than ever before. That doesn't seem to be the case for many loyal followers of religion generally, but is especially noticeable in Islam, which is focused on targeting civilians as they are military or governmental targets.

There's no question the right wing of Judaism, Christianity, etc. are societal threats and demonstrated violence - but nothing like the level you see from the Islamic right.

The US believed it was ok to kill a lot of Asians, including women and children civilians, in Vietnam because of communism and the domino theory. The US also learned no lessons from French failure in Vietnam literally immediately before the Vietnam War. I would like to think the US learned lessons from Vietnam, but the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would say differently. Once again, the history of Russia in Afghanistan should have been enough of a warning to not go to war there.

I think the US evolved beyond many places in the Middle East by the end of the 18th century through our democracy and constitution. There are places in the Middle East where the rights stated in the Bill of Rights do not exist. The separation of church and state is crucial for a rational, peaceful society. Economic development is also crucial to eliminating religious fanatacism. Enlightened people who are doing ok economically normally don't want to fly planes into buildings. Democracy, education, and economy are crucial.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I wasn't alive during Vietnam, so I can't really comment on exactly how I would have felt, but it certainly seemed like a poor decision on many facets, including indiscriminate bombing, napalm usage, etc.

But, do you really think our society is stuck in the same place though as we were in the late 60s or early 70s? Globally, it seems like many developed countries value life and want to avoid significant conflict and casualties more than ever before. That doesn't seem to be the case for many loyal followers of religion generally, but is especially noticeable in Islam, which is focused on targeting civilians as they are military or governmental targets.

There's no question the right wing of Judaism, Christianity, etc. are societal threats and demonstrated violence - but nothing like the level you see from the Islamic right.

There is a difference between a war like Viet Nam and extermination of Jews. Hitler didn’t engage in a war with the Jews. The Nazis intended to rid the world of Jews. Iran is the same and it uses organizations like Hamas to accomplish that.

Viet Nam was a war about policy, economics and control. . The objective wasn’t extermination.

The Anti-semites don't seem to have any interest in coexistence. Arafat had several opportunities to accomplish that and he always walked away. The United States and the West only perpetuates the violence by our constant efforts to work for a peace. We need to take sides, not be a broker for an impossible peace. Maybe Trump had it right.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/10/Palestine-aid.png

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

There is a difference between a war like Viet Nam and extermination of Jews. Hitler didn’t engage in a war with the Jews. The Nazis intended to rid the world of Jews. Iran is the same and it uses organizations like Hamas to accomplish that.

Viet Nam was a war about policy, economics and control. . The objective wasn’t extermination.

The Anti-semites don't seem to have any interest in coexistence. Arafat had several opportunities to accomplish that and he always walked away. The United States and the West only perpetuates the violence by our constant efforts to work for a peace. We need to take sides, not be a broker for an impossible peace. Maybe Trump had it right.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/10/Palestine-aid.png

America was trying to "exterminate" communism from the globe and truly believed they were doing the right thing. Vietnamese were racially different and had different religious and economic beliefs. I would argue the result of a massive pile of bodies was the same. When you indiscriminately bomb and napalm areas where civilians live, you are going to harm and kill them. When you go to war, you are going to kill people.

There are enough bad guys to go around on both the Israel and Palestinian sides, and the extremes on both sides unfortunately have the last say in the conflict. They could learn a lot from the Native Americans and Americans. America helps perpetuate the violence by funding Israel, and Israel has become the oppressor/bully. I don't think either side wiping the other off of the map is a good solution or reasonably possible. Israel leaving the West Bank and making the West Bank Palestine would go a long ways.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There are enough bad guys to go around on both the Israel and Palestinian sides,

This! We will never have a solution with ideal like this.

 

[BradStevens]

There is a difference between a war like Viet Nam and extermination of Jews. Hitler didn’t engage in a war with the Jews. The Nazis intended to rid the world of Jews. Iran is the same and it uses organizations like Hamas to accomplish that.

Viet Nam was a war about policy, economics and control. . The objective wasn’t extermination.

The Anti-semites don't seem to have any interest in coexistence. Arafat had several opportunities to accomplish that and he always walked away. The United States and the West only perpetuates the violence by our constant efforts to work for a peace. We need to take sides, not be a broker for an impossible peace. Maybe Trump had it right.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2023/10/Palestine-aid.png

Much to agree with here. But what does it look like for the US and the West to take a side and forego the "impossible peace" route?

I don't know. I know the best way to solve this whole thing--make one party or the other leave. But that doesn't appear to be a possible answer (even with Florida on the table, Israel!). None of the second-best options seem desirable.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

America was trying to "exterminate" communism from the globe

I think that’s wrong. Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War was about containment. All of our efforts was about showing that capitalism and free people was better.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But what does it look like for the US and the West to take a side and forego the "impossible peace" route?

That’s a good question. I only came to this conclusion in the last week and rereading some of the 8O’s history and Arafat’s tactics. I was a 2-stater last month. The worst attack on Jews since Hitler ought to be a wake up call. Time to choose sides. Time to recognize Iran as the culprit, not a partner.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

That’s a good question. I only came to this conclusion in the last week and rereading some of the 8O’s history and Arafat’s tactics. I was a 2-stater last month. The worst attack on Jews since Hitler ought to be a wake up call. Time to choose sides. Time to recognize Iran as the culprit, not a partner.

If somebody walks into your house, forces you out at gun point, kills some of your family, and then sets up a country based on a different religion/race, what would you think of them? This is what Israel did to the Palestinians: basic conquest. Israel has to give Palestinians some land, rights, and citizenship. Israel has murdered and bombed plenty of Palestinians.

There has been a two state solution supported by the world for decades. Israel won't get out of the West Bank and has increased their presence there.

 

[stollcpa]

That’s a good question. I only came to this conclusion in the last week and rereading some of the 8O’s history and Arafat’s tactics. I was a 2-stater last month. The worst attack on Jews since Hitler ought to be a wake up call. Time to choose sides. Time to recognize Iran as the culprit, not a partner.

Biden and the Dems think they can get along with Iran. Only idiots don’t recognize they want to exterminate us along with the Jews.

We should help Israel destroy their nukes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If somebody walks into your house, forces you out at gun point, kills some of your family, and then sets up a country based on a different religion/race, what would you think of them? This is what Israel did to the Palestinians: basic conquest. Israel has to give Palestinians some land, rights, and citizenship. Israel has murdered and bombed plenty of Palestinians.

There has been a two state solution supported by the world for decades. Israel won't get out of the West Bank and has increased their presence there.

Israel is willing to live in peace with Palestinians on the West Bank. Palestians can’t stand the sight of a Jew, let alone live in the same neighborhood with one. . Why do you defend the Palestinians with that? If the United States stands for anything, it should stand for both to get along on the same real estate.

 

[Morrison]

If somebody walks into your house, forces you out at gun point, kills some of your family, and then sets up a country based on a different religion/race, what would you think of them? This is what Israel did to the Palestinians: basic conquest. Israel has to give Palestinians some land, rights, and citizenship. Israel has murdered and bombed plenty of Palestinians.

There has been a two state solution supported by the world for decades. Israel won't get out of the West Bank and has increased their presence there.

You make a very valid point. Israel has tried to kill a two state solution by its ever expanding settlements in the West Bank for decades. Is there a valid security reason for this? I would be fine with a two state solution by strongly encouraging Israel to give up the West Bank if that’s what it takes in negotiations.

The negotiations would also include the elimination of Hamas or other terrorist organizations speaking for the Palestinians. If that two state solution were to come to fruition, but terror attacks continued with Iran’s backing, then all bets are off. I would then be fine with Israel taking back the West Bank,
and any other territory.

However, I also worry that Israel is up against time to deal with Iran directly, if that is what really needs to be done.

 

[DANC]

How many people died from the Vietnam War because they had a different belief system? How many people have died or suffered from (insert belief system)? Why are "us vs. them" and violence such important parts of humanity? The mirror is a good place to start.

Bet you think Israel had it coming, right?

 

[DANC]

If somebody walks into your house, forces you out at gun point, kills some of your family, and then sets up a country based on a different religion/race, what would you think of them? This is what Israel did to the Palestinians: basic conquest. Israel has to give Palestinians some land, rights, and citizenship. Israel has murdered and bombed plenty of Palestinians.

There has been a two state solution supported by the world for decades. Israel won't get out of the West Bank and has increased their presence there.

I wouldn't think much of them, but that's not what happened.

Your view of history is warped.

 

[DANC]

You make a very valid point. Israel has tried to kill a two state solution by its ever expanding settlements in the West Bank for decades. Is there a valid security reason for this? I would be fine with a two state solution by strongly encouraging Israel to give up the West Bank if that’s what it takes in negotiations.

The negotiations would also include the elimination of Hamas or other terrorist organizations speaking for the Palestinians. If that two state solution were to come to fruition, but terror attacks continued with Iran’s backing, then all bets are off. I would then be fine with Israel taking back the West Bank,
and any other territory.

However, I also worry that Israel is up against time to deal with Iran directly, if that is what really needs to be done.

Israel was attacked in 1948 and has been attacked ever since. It's not like they came in, kicked out the Arabs, aka 'Palestinians' (even though there was never a country called Palestine) and expanded on their own. They expanded because they were constantly attacked and took over land to protect themselves.

All it would take for peace is for the Arabs and Iran to recognize Israels right to exist and stop attacking Israel. That's it. Pretty simple. Negotiations could then begin to set boundaries.

But the Arabs brought this on themselves. Israel has every right to occupy conquered territiory.

 

[Morrison]

I wouldn't think much of them, but that's not what happened.

Your view of history is warped.

Danc, why does Israel continue to increase settlements in the West Bank against successive wishes of US Administrations and most of the world, if a two state solution is the goal for stable peace?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The negotiations would also include the elimination of Hamas or other terrorist

I don’t think you can eliminate Hamas or whatever might replace it. We are talking a very long term deal here. I think the starting point is siding with Israel and treating Hamas and similar organizations like the KKK of the early 20th century; which is what it is but worse because of Iran.

 

[DANC]

Danc, why does Israel continue to increase settlements in the West Bank against successive wishes of US Administrations and most of the world, if a two state solution is the goal for stable peace?

Because rockets are continually being fired at them. Stop the attacks, recognize their right to exist, and negotiations can begin.

See my post above. They are occupying conquered territory, which is perfectly fine with me, since they haven't started wars against their neighbors.

 

[Morrison]

Israel was attacked in 1948 and has been attacked ever since. It's not like they came in, kicked out the Arabs, aka 'Palestinians' (even though there was never a country called Palestine) and expanded on their own. They expanded because they were constantly attacked and took over land to protect themselves.

All it would take for peace is for the Arabs and Iran to recognize Israels right to exist and stop attacking Israel. That's it. Pretty simple. Negotiations could then begin to set boundaries.

But the Arabs brought this on themselves. Israel has every right to occupy conquered territiory.

I don’t think you can eliminate Hamas or whatever might replace it. We are talking a very long term deal here. I think the starting point is siding with Israel and treating Hamas and similar organizations like the KKK of the early 20th century; which is what it is but worse because of Iran.

If the Arab world recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace, would you pressure Israel into giving up the West Bank? As Danc said, Israel has a right to keep land it obtained through being attacked, but should it be negotiable for a two state solution?

I go back n forth on this. One day I’m for a two state solution, the next I’m for Israel saying, fu*k it, let’s attack Iran before they get nukes and drive the people in Gaza to Egypt.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

You make a very valid point. Israel has tried to kill a two state solution by its ever expanding settlements in the West Bank for decades. Is there a valid security reason for this? I would be fine with a two state solution by strongly encouraging Israel to give up the West Bank if that’s what it takes in negotiations.

The negotiations would also include the elimination of Hamas or other terrorist organizations speaking for the Palestinians. If that two state solution were to come to fruition, but terror attacks continued with Iran’s backing, then all bets are off. I would then be fine with Israel taking back the West Bank,
and any other territory.

However, I also worry that Israel is up against time to deal with Iran directly, if that is what really needs to be done.

Israel took a bunch of land during early wars, including the West Bank from Jordan. They took the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt. Egypt eventually got the Sinai Peninsula back, and they were fine with the Gaza Strip being used for Palestinians. I believe Jordan is fine with the West Bank being used for Palestinians. The Oslo Accords set up the Gaza Strip and West Bank for a two state solution, and Jerusalem was supposed to be a special area.

If a one state or two state solution occurs, then extremes on both sides would obviouly have to go and be shunned. I think most of the Arab states in the area have backed off of Israel or at least have accepted the fact they aren't going anywhere.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

I wouldn't think much of them, but that's not what happened.

Your view of history is warped.

How do you think Israel came about? I'll bet it is pretty warped. Do you think they asked the Palestinians nicely to vacate their houses and land? Do you think the US asked the Native Americans nicely to vacate their homes and land? Do you believe most of the wars that have been fought haven't been about land and territory?

 

[DANC]

Israel took a bunch of land during early wars, including the West Bank from Jordan. They took the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt. Egypt eventually got the Sinai Peninsula back, and they were fine with the Gaza Strip being used for Palestinians. I believe Jordan is fine with the West Bank being used for Palestinians. The Oslo Accords set up the Gaza Strip and West Bank for a two state solution, and Jerusalem was supposed to be a special area.

If a one state or two state solution occurs, then extremes on both sides would obviouly have to go and be shunned. I think most of the Arab states in the area have backed off of Israel or at least have accepted the fact they aren't going anywhere.

They 'took' that land after they defeated all the Arab countries that attacked them in 1948.

I've explained this - why do you ignore it?

And Egypt got the Sinai back after they recognized Israel's right to exist.

 

[DANC]

How do you think Israel came about? I'll bet it is pretty warped. Do you think they asked the Palestinians nicely to vacate their houses and land? Do you think the US asked the Native Americans nicely to vacate their homes and land? Do you believe most of the wars that have been fought haven't been about land and territory?

It was created by the UN. Jews had lived there well before any Muslims. And they've lived there continuously.

They didn't kick anyone out. Jews bought much of the land from - wait for it - ARABS who sold it to them. You do realize there are Arabs still living in Israel and are Israeli citizens right? You know - the ones who stayed.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I wasn't alive during Vietnam, so I can't really comment on exactly how I would have felt, but it certainly seemed like a poor decision on many facets, including indiscriminate bombing, napalm usage, etc.

But, do you really think our society is stuck in the same place though as we were in the late 60s or early 70s? Globally, it seems like many developed countries value life and want to avoid significant conflict and casualties more than ever before. That doesn't seem to be the case for many loyal followers of religion generally, but is especially noticeable in Islam, which is focused on targeting civilians as they are military or governmental targets.

There's no question the right wing of Judaism, Christianity, etc. are societal threats and demonstrated violence - but nothing like the level you see from the Islamic right.

Don't play their moral equivalency game. You get sucked down a stupid spiral.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Another horrific incident in Iran that will be swept under the rug.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/world/iran-armita-geravand-brain-dead-intl-hnk/index.html

View embedded media

Meanwhile, protestors are not only supporting anti-Israel, but are literally proclaiming Islamic Jihad to take over various places across the Western world. And if that weren't enough, this is a religion that is responsible for 33,769 Islamist attacks that killed at least 167,096 people between 1979 and 2019. We know those figures are now too low, based not only on Hamas' attack, but various other attacks the past couple of years.

You are being redirected...

Is there any other cause that is even close to having this much of a detrimental impact across the globe? Is it racist to feel like Islam and its followers are a lost cause? Obviously the majority of Islam followers are probably not bad people and are getting a bad rap.

How do you deal with it? By making sure you interact with it as little as possible. Everyone is free to practice what they want but if you are a country that isn't already majority Islam you slam the breaks on letting more of its adherents in. You stop doing the GWB lie that it is a religion of peace. It isn't. It is a religion of submission. Judaism is a religion of laws and Christianity is a religion of persuasion/relationships. The government needs to stop propping up Islam every time something bad happens over there and people who follow it over here get their panties in a wad that they are being criticized.

Basically you treat it like communism. Deal with it where you must but keep it mostly locked in its cage. Thanks for trade of your resources but you do you over there and we do us. And eventually, when we no longer need oil see roughly 1:05 to 1:16:

 

[IUCrazy2]

Danc, why does Israel continue to increase settlements in the West Bank against successive wishes of US Administrations and most of the world, if a two state solution is the goal for stable peace?

The same reason the US expands from the Atlantic to the Pacific with the added flavor of the West Bank being home to almost all the towns/cities you read about in the Old Testament (i.e. the most historically Jewish areas on the planet). Bethlehem, Jerusalem (in part), Jericho, Hebron, etc. The Palestinians basically occupy their London/Paris/New York City/Moscow/Boston and the land around it. They have offered them a state and been rejected and met with war each time. At a certain point they decided, "You know what, there is no point in working with these people and that is land I not only want but I have the power to take." And so they have.

Someone up above doing the whole "both sides" thing mentioned that the Palestinians and Israelis could learn from the US/Native Americans. I agree. That person views the relative autonomy the NAs were given and our ability to live in peace NOW while neglecting HOW we got here. One side demolished the other. On the empathy side it sucked for them. From a power politics and order standpoint, we got to that position by responding brutally whenever the NAs reacted to encroachments on their territory.

This is mean and it is nasty but it is reality. You have forever conflict when two civilizations are in competition over land and one of two scenarios exist: each side is close enough to evenly matched so that one cannot deal the death blow to the others ambitions or some outside force restricts the more powerful of the two from striking the final blow. That is the reality and no amount of kumbaya appears likely to change it. So you either prolong suffering and spread out casualties over a long period of time or you let the chips fall, have horrible body counts in the short term, and hope that leads to peace and tranquility in the long. The latter means there will be a definite loser though.

 

[Indianaftw]

The root of the problem. You're not going to ever get around this.

Does the Quran instruct to kill the non-Muslims? - BibleAsk

Let's allow the Quran to answer this question:Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where ...

bibleask.org

 

[Indianaftw]

The root of the problem. You're not going to ever get around this.

Does the Quran instruct to kill the non-Muslims? - BibleAsk

Let's allow the Quran to answer this question:Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where ...

bibleask.org

Also, the word Muslim is not in the kjv Bible. In the old testament, Israel went after baal worshipers and worshipers of molech and any other satanic altars where any type of blood sacrifice was offered. They were torn down and destroyed. Sodomites were also either run out or murdered and destroyed when a good king came along and ruled Israel or one of the heads of the Tribes.

In the new testament that all changes. Nobody is instructed to kill but rather love your enemies.

Keep in mind the jews (almost all of them in Israel) are not believers of Christ. The new testament is disregarded.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Because rockets are continually being fired at them. Stop the attacks, recognize their right to exist, and negotiations can begin.

See my post above. They are occupying conquered territory, which is perfectly fine with me, since they haven't started wars against their neighbors.

Meh, that’s not really true based on the settlements popping up in the West Bank though. It may help security, but it’s not really the rationale for expanding.

Also, who in their right minds would risk their or their families lives to knowingly move to a hostile area? It’s stupid.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Also, who in their right minds would risk their or their families lives to knowingly move to a hostile area? It’s stupid.

Our country was built by people who did just that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Our country was built by people who did just that.

Using your idea, Russia is more powerful than Ukraine so we should just accept Russia taking it?

 

[BradStevens]

You make a very valid point. Israel has tried to kill a two state solution by its ever expanding settlements in the West Bank for decades. Is there a valid security reason for this? I would be fine with a two state solution by strongly encouraging Israel to give up the West Bank if that’s what it takes in negotiations.

The negotiations would also include the elimination of Hamas or other terrorist organizations speaking for the Palestinians. If that two state solution were to come to fruition, but terror attacks continued with Iran’s backing, then all bets are off. I would then be fine with Israel taking back the West Bank,
and any other territory.

However, I also worry that Israel is up against time to deal with Iran directly, if that is what really needs to be done.

This is super complicated. But here's the problem with your idea: if the West Bank and Gaza become a state, that means they have the right to arm to the teeth, prepare an all-out offensive, and go to war with Israel. With a launching point from the West Bank, they'd be closer to Jerusalem than Westfield is to Indianapolis.

The notion that you can negotiate for, or eliminate, the anti-semitism deeply rooted in Palestinians doesn't seem likely. Take the people of Gaza: they at one point elected Hamas. Now maybe their popularity has waned, but if it has, I doubt it has anything to do with Hamas's stated goal of destroying Israel and all the Jews in existence:

https://embassies.gov.il/holysee/AboutIsrael/the-middle-east/Pages/The%20Hamas-Covenant.aspx#:~:text=The%20Hamas%20charter%20is%20the,18%20years%20of%20its%20existence.

Sometimes, when someone tells you what they are and what they want, you have to believe them.

The Palestinians and Israelis cannot live in peace together until and unless the Palestinians change as a culture. That's harsh, but true. And I don't see that happening anytime in our lifetimes.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Using your idea, Russia is more powerful than Ukraine so we should just accept Russia taking it?

I will give you an honest and unemotional response.

I don't think Russia could just take Ukraine with or without our involvement. I do think that Russia would be able to exert control over Crimea and the Donbas without our engagement. I do not believe that Ukraine is showing the capability to completely remove the Russians from those areas with our help. Our help has created a stalemate. We can continue to support Ukraine but we aren't doing it (IMO) with the intention of them truly taking that land back. They are just the grinder we are wearing down as we grind up Russian troops and resources.

So it is my point above, you will have forever conflict because an outside power has evened the scales enough so that it is now basically peer competitors, neither with the ability to push an advantage. We are willing to sacrifice some money (and a bunch of Ukrainian lives) because we believe the cost is so low for us in hurting an enemy. (And I believe having Russia as an enemy is a right thing when you add emotion back into it.)

I think if Western support waned then Ukraine would deal away most of the territory Russia occupies and the Russians would quit for now. I think Russia does its own calculus and the rest of its neighbors in the European theater wouldn't be a proxy fight like Ukraine. That would keep them contained.