+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Why exposing the Hebron murder benefits Israelis

Both the Israeli Right and Left need ‘rotten apples’ like the Hebron shooter in order to justify their Orwellian worldview. 

A Magen David Adom ambulance attempts to navigate around the body of a Palestinian man who shot in the head by an Israeli soldier in the occupied city of Hebron. The man, who reportedly took part in stabbing another soldier, had already been shot and incapacitated. March 24, 2016. (Screenshot/B’Tselem)

A Magen David Adom ambulance attempts to navigate around the body of a Palestinian man who shot in the head by an Israeli soldier in the occupied city of Hebron. The man, who reportedly took part in stabbing another soldier, had already been shot and incapacitated. March 24, 2016. (Screenshot/B’Tselem)

I waited and waited. Abed Fatah al-Sharif is his name. Not “the Palestinian” or “the terrorist.” I waited and waited for one of Israel’s major media outlets — not including tabloids such as Israel Hayom, Yedioth Ahronoth, or Walla! — but rather Haaretz and Channel 10 to open their items on last week’s the Hebron shooting by including al-Sharif’s name. I am still waiting for something that will likely not come.

It is unsurprising that Israelis will curse and ignore the personal identity of a dead Palestinian who dared to directly challenge the occupation — as if he were born nameless. But how do the majority of Palestinians view the soldier who shot al-Sharif? As a soldier of the occupation, just one of many.

The soldier who shot al-Sharif is just another kid who was brainwashed with hatred and ended up committing a murder. Like every soldier, one can only assume that he would have killed more had he not been caught on camera. The Zionist mentality precludes Israelis from understanding that according to international law, Palestinians have a right to resist military occupation. Israelis are up in arms over one case that leaves no room for doubt, yet in Orwellian fashion they ignore all the other cases in which Palestinians were shot to death — ones that didn’t happen to be caught on camera.

If we are already talking about Orwell, it is unbelievable that Israelis are unable to see through their blinding self-righteousness. Your army will forever be “moral,” while the other side, which fights for its dignity and freedom out of total desperation — to the point where Palestinians choose death over life — will forever be viewed as terrorists. This is how Israelis view reality, and no matter how much we write or speak out — they will prefer to dig their head in the sand. Just like the good people in Orwell’s Oceania.

On blindness

How convenient is it for Israelis to leave the soldier in the lurch, without ever admitting just how badly they need him. They need him because he is the human shield that protects them from themselves — the one who blocks the way to the mirror that’s on the wall. After all, they can always look at this soldier, or say of the Israelis who set the Dawabshe family on fire, and say to themselves: “These are the bad guys, not us. We are moral.” But the fact of the matter is the majority of them are not, whether on the Left or the Right.

Palestinians in the West Bank village of Duma carry the body of 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabshe after he was slain in an arson attack during the early hours of the morning, July 31, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Palestinians in the West Bank village of Duma carry the body of 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabshe after he was slain in an arson attack during the early hours of the morning, July 31, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

The majority of Israel’s political and military echelon — along with its top journalists — love to present Israelis as enlightened, whether they are leftists or rightists. I am speaking about mainstream Israelis: the ones who do not care when women and children are massacred in Gaza, the ones who admit to the crimes of the occupation that began in 1967, yet ignores the crimes and dispossession of the original occupation in 1948 — since it was “necessary for the national project.”

Whether they are racist right-wingers or so-called enlightened leftists, the majority of Israelis need people like the executing soldier or settlers who burn families alive. The rightist can use them as examples to talk about a moral army and an enlightened occupation, and putting people on trial in order to “get rid of rotten apples.” While the leftist, just as he hides behind the occupation in order to ignore the bleeding wound of the Nakba, will exploit them to talk about the “cruelty of the occupation,” which causes Israelis to act like the terrorists themselves.

When even Haaretz, the only mainstream indicator of normalcy here, calls 11-year-old children “terrorists,” Israelis must realize that their very sanity is in danger. While many of the so-called enlightened Israelis stop to talk about the soldier’s Mizrahi identity (and thus hinting that he, somehow, is the victim in this story) the only people at Haaretz who refuse to demonize these Palestinians are Gideon Levy and Amira Hass — two Ashkenazi Israelis.

When Israelis use the execution as an opportunity to talk among themselves about social injustice within Jewish society — as if this matters to Palestinians — or to hide behind rhetoric of a “few rotten apples,” they show us just how badly they have failed to see the bigger picture. Once again.

This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Baladi Akka 1948

      Courage, Rami. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to live in your own land and read and hear this kind of BS from alien settlers and their descendants. And it seems you’re supposed to be grateful too.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        “It is unsurprising that Israelis will curse and ignore the personal identity of a dead Palestinian who dared to directly challenge the occupation — as if he were born nameless”

        What? You expect us to worship people who want to murder us? Isn’t it enough that you people worship and encourage him and other youngsters of yours to murder us? How about cutting your losses and make peace with us instead?

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Gustav: “What?”

          He’s telling you not to depersonalize “the other” merely because they oppose what is being done to them in your name.

          That’s what.

          Gustav: “You expect us to worship people who want to murder us?”

          No, that’s your straw man. He’s expecting you not to depersonalize “the other” merely because they oppose what is being done to them in your name.

          Which is much too much to ask, apparently.

          Gustav: “Isn’t it enough that you people worship and encourage him and other youngsters of yours to murder us?”

          Yet another straw man, and yet another attempt (“you people”) to depersonalize the victims of oppression and dispossession.

          Gustav: “How about cutting your losses and make peace with us instead?”

          That doesn’t appear to be possible, since Israel appears to be a long, long way from being finished inflicting those “losses”.

          Israel still has land to steal, and water to divert, and so it has no interest in cutting a deal that is even remotely acceptable to anyone who isn’t an Israeli.

          Sure, Israel has plenty of incentive to play pretendies. Sure, it does, but “let’s pretend” is a game for Kindergarten Kiddies. No wonder you find it so grown-up….

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            [Yeah Right]:”He’s telling you not to depersonalize “the other” merely because they oppose what is being done to them in your name.”

            So you don’t want us to depersonalize an anemy which depersonalizes us, right?

            OK, Thanks for the lecture on how to be politically correct. we will just call murderous terrorist jerks like that ‘Mr Enemy’ from now on, instead of just enemies.

            Are you ok with that, Mr [Yeah Right]?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”That doesn’t appear to be possible, since Israel appears to be a long, long way from being finished inflicting those “losses”

            That’s just YR pretending that if only we would accept the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) as borders, all would be roses and peace would break out.

            But it isn’t so. That’s not what Hamas says. Hamas says that they won’t stop their war on us till all of Israel would be erased and becomes Arab land. But we cannot accept such a proposition can we now, YR dear?

            …before you come out with your famous “straw man” argument again, ya gotta remember that you can’t just dismiss what Hamas thinks because…

            1. They control all of Gaza…

            2. Over 50% of theOalestinian Arab population supports Hamas…

            … And: even the PLO charter still professes the same objective as the Hamas objectives about Israel. Yes, yes, I know they renounced those plans in their letter to Anerica and Israel pre Oslo. But in the same letters they promised to amend their charter accordingly. But wouldn’t ya know…? …true to form… they haven’t kept that promise and their charter too still promises Israel’s destruction.

            So you see, YR, your claim that there is no peace because of Israel, does not stand up to scrutiny. Nothing unusual about that. You have a long record of making false claims…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “So you don’t want us to depersonalize an anemy which depersonalizes us, right?”

            No, I’m telling you not to put words into someone else’s mouth and then argue against those words.

            It’s called a “straw man argument”, and it is about as pointless as sitting there doing a Smegal/Gollum impersonation.

            Witness…….

            Gustav: “That’s just YR pretending that if only we would accept the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) as borders, all would be roses and peace would break out.”

            There we have Smegal setting up his own argument.

            Gustav: “But it isn’t so.”

            Annnnnnnd, there is Gollum arguing against Smegal’s statement.

            Meanwhile I’m over here, having no part in that one-man-circle-jerk.

            You do this all the time, Gustav. It is such an ingrained habit of yours that you don’t even realise you are arguing against yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL… didn’t I predict that YR would resort to his trusty “straw man” accusation. He didn’t disappoint…

            But let’s have a reality check. YR now ardently denies the words that I supposedly put in his mouth. Yet this is what he said…

            YR:”Israel still has land to steal…”

            … and what words did “I then put in his mouth”? I said …

            GUSTAV:”That’s just YR pretending that if only we would accept the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) as borders, all would be roses and peace would break out.”

            …now what’s your problem with that YR? Which bit of that does not line up with your earlier accusation? Are you trying to tell me that it hasn’t been your position that any land that Israel wants to keep from the West Bank amounts to stealing lands? That has always been your position. I just showed you though that even if Israel would accept your position, that would not satisfy Hamas. And it appears it wouldn’t satisfy the PLO either…

            So please YR, show me where is my straw man argument? I bet ya can’t show it. You can just keep on asserting it. What is it with you, YR, have you got a split personality?

            …aww shucks, don’t answer that, you’ll just confuse yourself and you’ll end up boring me with your silly word games.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            It is depressingly predictable that I have to point out to Gustav what a straw-man argument is and why it is a logical fallacy because he very clearly is incapable of comprehending the concept without outside help.

            So let’s start from the very beginning, a very good place to start……

            Gustav (1st post): “How about cutting your losses and make peace with us instead?”

            To which I responded with:
            “That doesn’t appear to be possible, since Israel appears to be a long, long way from being finished inflicting those ‘losses’ ”
            and also this:
            “Israel still has land to steal, and water to divert, and so it has no interest in cutting a deal that is even remotely acceptable to anyone who isn’t an Israeli.”

            Mmy response was not a straw man i.e. Gustav put forward a proposition and I pointed out why **that** proposition was demonstrably false.

            Now, someone might want to argue with me (note: with **me**, not with a man made of straw), in which case they could attempt to argue along these lines:
            a) No, you are wrong. Israel isn’t stealing land.
            b) OK, sure, it is stealing land, But that’s no big deal and certainly not something that should stand in the way of “making peace”.
            c) OK, sure, it’s theft and, OK, that’s serious. But the Palestinians just have to suck it up because, you know, because We Rock and They Suck.

            None of those fit any definition of “peace” that I know of, but at least those sorts of arguments would *actually* be addressing the point that *I* was making.

            So they wouldn’t be “straw men” arguments, though attempting to argue them would be pretty much a hopeless brief.

            So instead I got this….
            Gustav: “That’s just YR pretending that if only we would accept the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) as borders, all would be roses and peace would break out.”

            That’s a straw man, precisely because it doesn’t even attempt to address *my* point that Israel is stealing land, and it’s pretty easy to see that such ongoing (and apparently never-ending) land-theft not only dissuades the Palestinians from “making peace” with Israel, it also dissuades Israel from wanting that peace to be made.

            After all….. gobble, gobble, gobble….

            Which leads us to:
            Gustav: “…now what’s your problem with that YR?”

            *sigh*

            My problem with that your statement doesn’t even attempt to address the point that I was making, which is (once more, yet again) that the ongoing and never-ending theft of land by the Israelis prevents any “peace making” because:
            a) The Palestinians don’t want to legitimize the theft that has occured and
            b) Israel is a long way from finished its thievery.

            Now, dude, do you:
            a) Deny that Israel has stolen land and continues to do so?
            b) Deny that this land-theft is any problem w.r.t “peace making”?
            c) Accept that this is a problem, but deny that the Palestinians have any other choice other than to suck it up and accept Israel’s thievin’ ways (“cut their losses”, in Gustav-speak)?

            Which is it?

            Or are you simply going to go off into the corner and argue again with Gollum about something that Smeagel is muttering?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh …

            I am not going down the path of YR’s word games about what is or isn’t a straw man argument. He can argue with himself about that.

            I said that the occupation will end the moment the Arabs agree to make a peace deal with Israel.

            YR then made the accusation that the Arabs cannot make peace with Israel because Israel is stealing their land. By that, he obviously meant what he calls our “settlements”.

            I then corrected him and I said that even if Israel would be willing to give all that up by returning to the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) even then the Arabs would not make peace because Hamas considers Israel itself a settlement and the PLO is not different if one reads their national charter.

            Sooooooo. YR’s accusations about Israel’s land stealing are an irrelevancy. They are an irrelevancy because whatever Israel does or does not do, the outcome is the same as far as the majority of the Arabs. Either way, they want Israel’s destruction as the end result.

            So what is there to talk about? The occupation will continue till the Arabs clearly demonstrate that they give up on their dream of destroying our state. Then we can talk about what is or isn’t land stealing. Not before.

            But tell that to YR and he jumps up and down like a three year old. He says… but I wanna… I only wanna talk about land theft… I want it now…. tantrums anyone? LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Everyone put their hand up when they see Gustav pull a rabbit out of his hat…….

            Gustav: “I said that the occupation will end the moment the Arabs agree to make a peace deal with Israel.”

            Agreed. You did say that, though I will point out that you also added that this required the Palestinians to “cut their losses”, which is a phrase that I suspect you are now regretting using.

            Gustav: “YR then made the accusation that the Arabs cannot make peace with Israel because Israel is stealing their land.”

            Agreed. I did say that, though I will point out that I also said that because ISRAEL is not finished stealing that land that means that there is a disincentive for ISRAEL to “make a peace deal” with the Palestinians. After all, there is no reason for Israel to stop now when there is plenty more land still to pilfer.

            Apparently my argumentative friend missed that point.

            Gustav: “I then corrected him”…..

            [Hands shoot up into the air]

            so sorry, you didn’t “correct” me, you changed the subject.

            Here, you doing it again.

            Gustav: ….”and I said that even if Israel would be willing to give all that up by returning to the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) even then the Arabs would not make peace because Hamas considers Israel itself a settlement and the PLO is not different if one reads their national charter.”

            Again, there is no “rebuttal” there. No attempt at argument. None whatsoever. You have simply changed the subject.

            Now, heck, it is an arguable proposition.

            But as an argument goes it is Not A Response To What I Wrote, and therefore introducing it as a “correction” is…… A Straw Man Argument.

            So go and start a **new** post where you posit your argument – an argument that totally ignores all the past, ongoing and inevitable future theft of land by Israel.

            Go ahead, be my guest.

            Run it up the flagpole in that **new** post and we’ll see if anyone else is interested in engaging you in **that** argument.

            But don’t for a second post it in **this** thread and then pretend that by posting it here you have “corrected me”.

            You haven’t. You didn’t.

            You have simply attempted to change the subject to something that you are more comfortable discussing because, very clearly, you are extremely uncomfortable with acknowledging that Israel is not only stealing Palestinian land but is also showing no sign that it is interested in stopping that practice.

            Are you so delusional that you can not see that? Really?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BS alert. Here is a memory refresher for YR. I am not interested in his you said, he said, she said argument. His games bore me. Anyone interested can read my original post and work out what I am ACTULLY saying without paying attention to to YR’s little tantrums about straw men or women, LOL…

            YR:”That doesn’t appear to be possible, since Israel appears to be a long, long way from being finished inflicting those “losses”

            That’s just YR pretending that if only we would accept the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries) as borders, all would be roses and peace would break out.

            But it isn’t so. That’s not what Hamas says. Hamas says that they won’t stop their war on us till all of Israel would be erased and becomes Arab land. But we cannot accept such a proposition can we now, YR dear?

            …before you come out with your famous “straw man” argument again, ya gotta remember that you can’t just dismiss what Hamas thinks because…

            1. They control all of Gaza…

            2. Over 50% of theOalestinian Arab population supports Hamas…

            … And: even the PLO charter still professes the same objective as the Hamas objectives about Israel. Yes, yes, I know they renounced those plans in their letter to Anerica and Israel pre Oslo. But in the same letters they promised to amend their charter accordingly. But wouldn’t ya know…? …true to form… they haven’t kept that promise and their charter too still promises Israel’s destruction.

            So you see, YR, your claim that there is no peace because of Israel, does not stand up to scrutiny. Nothing unusual about that. You have a long record of making false claims…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “I am not interested in his you said, he said, she said argument.”

            *chortle* Funny indeed, since that is exactly what you engaged in in your previous post.

            Having problems with your short-term memory, Gustav?
            Perhaps discuss it with your doctor, he might have to adjust your meds.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL now YR is on the “change the subject” bandwagon…

            But really no subject was changed. At least not by me.

            I said that YR’s allegation that Israel is stealing lands is a huge irrelevancy because whether it is true or false, it does not change the fact that it is not as much of an obstacle to peace as the intention of the Palestinian Arabs to destroy Israel.

            Earth to YR… I said that even if one would accept the proposition that Israel’s actions amount to land theft (which is arguable) it does not make an iota of a difference to the prospects of peace because Hamas and the PLO are on the record of saying (in their respective charters) that they consider Israel itself to be stolen land and that therefore it is their intention to destroy Israel. In other words, it does not matter to them what Israel does or does not do in the West Bank, either way their goal is Israel’s destruction.

            I don’t believe that YR does not understand that simple fact, even though he is playing dumb. In fact, I think that he is playing his word games exactly because he is panicking about the point that I am making so he is trying to mask it by his obfuscating word games.

            Never mind, YR dear. Keep playing your games and I will keep on bringing you down to earth every time you try.

            Your turn….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            This “exchange” has been hilarious, and doubly so because the hilarity has been entirely at Gustav’s expense.

            It’s not just that he is trying desperately to change the subject – anything to get off the subject of israel’s ongoing and never-ending theft of land – but even when he does begrudgingly mention it he displays a complete lack of comprehension regarding my argument.

            Here, let me spell it out for him.

            Gustav insisted that the Palestinians should “cut their losses” and “make peace” with Israel.

            Sounds reasonable, right? Except that I have pointed out (correctly) that such a deal is impossible while Israel insists on continuing with its little land-theft exercise.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because logic insists that the flip-side of a Palestinian offer to “cut their losses” must be a commensurate willingness on the part of Israel to “realize their gains” i.e. a willingness on the part of Israel to take what they have already stolen and to make a commitment that they will Take No More Than That.

            But it is indisputable that this is a concept that is anathema to the Zionists, who are nowhere near finished taking land away from the Palestinians.

            Get it now?

            Your call is nothing but a sham, because no matter what current “losses” the Palestinians agree to “cut” they will find that this is unacceptable to the Israelis, precisely because the Israelis gain more by rejectionism i.e. they get to keep on stealing more and more land.

            After all, their aim isn’t “peace”. Their aim is to steal it all.

            It takes two to tango, Gustav, and in this dispute it is Israel that is refusing to dance.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Get it now?”

            Yea I get the fact that YR is being deliberately obtuse and obfuscating.

            Here is what he is essentially saying. Let me personalize it for him with an example, maybe he will have no place to hide after that (note to self: fat chance of that, the guy likes being obtuse but let me try anyways)…

            Say YR and I are in a dispute. Like the Arabs, I claim that all earthly posessions, that YR has are all mine. I also let anyone know that unless he gives it all to me, his life is not worth two bits.

            YR of course is worried for his life and he levels his pistol at me. But unlike me, YR is a reasonable fellow, he says that he is willing to settle the dispute by compromizing and he says that he is willing to give up some of what he considers to be his posessions in order to make peace.

            I however have a loyal brother in law. He leaps to my defence and says to YR… you, YR, are deluded. You can’t make peace so long as you, YR, keep on stealing from Gustav. He says to YR, peace will only be possible if you stop pointing the gun at Gustav and give him the $10,000 that you stole from him…

            YR looks bewildered and says to my brother in law. How can you ask me to stop pointing my pistol at Gustav? He has threatened to kill me unless I give him all my posessions not just $10,000. Can’t you talk some sense into your brother in law? Ask him to stop threatening my life and demand for everything. Then we can talk about the $10,000. So long as he threatens my very existence I will keep him at bay with my pistol and he will get nothing from me…

            Needless to say, in the above little parable…

            YR = ISRAEL (YR must hate that LOL)

            GUSTAV = The Palestinian Arabs

            MY BROTHER IN LAW = YR

            I wonder what YR would really do in such a situation? Give up his life for me? Fat chance of that. He just wants Israelis to be stupid and gamble with our lives and the lives of those we love because according to YR, his Arab brothers in law are such deserving cases, what a clown, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Here is what he is essentially saying.”

            *sigh*

            It is exactly at that point that I – and everyone else who’s name isn’t “Gustav” – can stop reading.

            Because everything from that point on is an argument between Smeagal and Gollum, with Gustav playing both roles.

            As sad as it is predictable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL. Here is where YR stops his discussion coz he knows he has been obtuse and he painted himself into the corner from which he has nothing more to say coz he knows that the more he continues in the same vein, the stupider he’ll look.

            Of course, if he’ll keep talking I’ll keep spelling it out for him as if he is a dumb little clown that he is till he gets the message.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Of course YR being the liar that he is, he believes that the bigger the lie the better. So he has inverted reality. Instead of acknowledging that Hamas and the PLO are the ones who claim in their charter that not just the West Bank But Israel itself belongs to the Arabs. Instead, YR claims that Israel is the one that wants it all. But here is why his claim is a big lie…

            Historically Israel has always agreed to the two state solution. Both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert specifically offered to give up virtually all of the West Bank and to end the occupation in exchange for peace and for recognized borders. The PLO point blank refused and Hamas never even agreed to be part of the negotiation process and threatened dire consequences if the PLO would sign a deal.

            Moreover, there is a compelling reason why most Israelis don’t want to hold onto most of the West Bank. It is because the West Bank is not empty it has several million Arabs. So if we annex the WB, we would either have to make those Arabs Israeli citizens in which case the concept of the Jewish majority state goes out the window. Or we have to forever control a restive population of second class citizens and open ourselves up to the charge of apartheid. We don’t need that. Most Israelis barring a few extremists on the left and the right (for different reasons) would rather have a smaller state and a larger Jewish majority.

            The Arabs know all that. That’s why they are not in a hurry to sign a peace deal. That’s why they hold onto their 67 year old dream of destroying Israel. They hold onto one of two hopes. Either …

            1. Israel’s actual destruction say with the help of powerful allies like Iran…

            Or

            2. Politically twist Israel’s arm to allow the right of return of millions of descendants of refugees and create a one state solution on the entire area of what used to be the British mandate, with an Arab majority.

            The above facts demonstrate that YR is lying. It isn’t in Israel’s interest to want it all. Nor did we ever take that position historically. On the other hand, it makes sense for the Arabs to have a one state solution which indeed has been their historic position because that is the way for the Arabs to be lords and masters of this land. And the Arabs being the supremacists that they have always been, cannot imagine being anything but lords and masters. They would rather die than allow some other ethnic group (the Jews in this instance) self determination in a small patch of land which they consider to be exclusively Arab lands. That is the root of the problem.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Of course YR being the liar that he is, he believes that the bigger the lie the better. So he has inverted reality. Instead of acknowledging that Hamas and the PLO are the ones who claim in their charter that not just the West Bank But Israel itself belongs to the Arabs. Instead, YR claims that Israel is the one that wants it all. But here is why his claim is a big lie…

            Historically Israel has always agreed to the two state solution. Both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert specifically offered to give up virtually all of the West Bank and to end the occupation in exchange for peace and for recognized borders. The PLO point blank refused and Hamas never even agreed to be part of the negotiation process and threatened dire consequences if the PLO would sign a deal.

            Moreover, there is a compelling reason why most Israelis don’t want to hold onto most of the West Bank. It is because the West Bank is not empty it has several million Arabs. So if we annex the WB, we would either have to make those Arabs Israeli citizens in which case the concept of the Jewish majority state goes out the window. Or we have to forever control a restive population of second class citizens and open ourselves up to the charge of apartheid. We don’t need that. Most Israelis barring a few extremists on the left and the right (for different reasons) would rather have a smaller state and a larger Jewish majority.

            The Arabs know all that. That’s why they are not in a hurry to sign a peace deal. That’s why they hold onto their 67 year old dream of destroying Israel. They hold onto one of two hopes. Either …

            1. Israel’s actual destruction say with the help of powerful allies like Iran…

            Or

            2. Politically twist Israel’s arm to allow the right of return of millions of descendants of refugees and create a one state solution on the entire area of what used to be the British mandate, with an Arab majority.

            The above facts demonstrate that YR is lying. It isn’t in Israel’s interest to want it all. Nor did we ever take that position historically. On the other hand, it makes sense for the Arabs to have a one state solution which indeed has been their historic position because that is the way for the Arabs to be lords and masters of this land. And the Arabs being the supremacists that they have always been, cannot imagine being anything but lords and masters. They would rather die than allow some other ethnic group (the Jews in this instance) self determination in a small patch of land which they consider to be exclusively Arab lands. That is the root cause of the problem.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Well this has followed a predictable course. YR is entirely correct on Gustav’s inveterate straw man creating, repeatedly demonstrating the case (as Gustav, as usual, has repeatedly afforded ample evidence to make that case). No amount of flailing, by ad hominem, evasion and as running away from the point, obscures this. The weather forecast for tomorrow: 80% chance of “Benny the cheerleader LOL” ad hominem showers and other scattered insults.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnn

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            That is a big yawn…

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Oh yes. So big. The biggest. It’s so great. The greatest yawn. Don’t worry. I’m sure your fingers are so long too and you have ‘no problem down there,’ Gustav Trump.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Benny thinks that everybody has the same recreational activities as himself. Have you heard of women? Benny-leh? Women are much more fun than playing solitaire down there. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Farragut

      It’s so nice to be lectured like this, Rami. Just one thing, if a Jew gave such a talking-to to an Arab audience, the cries of “colonialist paternalism” would hit the roof. For Arabs, however, it’s all permitted.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Carmen

      This is the most honest assessment of the israeli/zionist mentality I’ve ever read. I will not forget Abed Fatah al-Sharif and I hope his execution at the hands of a racist IOF thug, because that’s what he was raised to become, is never forgotten. “Whether they are racist right-wingers or so-called enlightened leftists, the majority of Israelis need people like the executing soldier or settlers who burn families alive. The rightist can use them as examples to talk about a moral army and an enlightened occupation, and putting people on trial in order to “get rid of rotten apples.” While the leftist, just as he hides behind the occupation in order to ignore the bleeding wound of the Nakba, will exploit them to talk about the “cruelty of the occupation,” which causes Israelis to act like the terrorists themselves.” Absolutely, sadly correct Mr. Younis.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        CARMEN:”…his execution at the hands of a racist IOF thug…”

        When a Jew kills an Arab, even if the Arab tried to kill a Jew first, the Jew is a racist. When an Arab kills a Jew he is a hero, at least according to the Carmens of this world.

        But you know what, Carmen deary? YOU are the racist!

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Poor old super parrot/Alex. He demonstrates his primodial hatred.

          Never mind stupid. We are used to coping with petty little impotent haters like you. LOL.

          Reply to Comment
    4. carmen

      A zionist thug murdered Abed Fatah al-Sharif. There are people who are constantly conflating zionism with judaism, which is a dangerous thing and frankly, putting innocent Jews all over the world in danger which I now am beginning to see is the point. Scare the shit of out Jews in say Brussels, Paris, Turkey and then tell them to come to israel to help Booby continue to steal Palestinian land. Got it. Referring to Abed Fatah al-Sharif as an Arab and not a Palestinian is disingenuous and the method in which people try to disavow Palestinian existence and their centuries of living in this land, what was known to the world as Palestine, until the Nakba. “The Jews” did not murder Abed Fatah al-Sharif, an IOF thug did. Why do you want to conflate “the Jews” and the zionists. They are not the same. Many don’t even practice the same religion, which is all Judaism is. And millions of Jews are ANTIZIONIST. So stop dragging world Jewry into the evil being done in Palestine; not every Jew wants to spill Palestinian blood. Abed Fatah al-Sharif was not a terrorist, but he was murdered by one.

      “International law prohibits an occupying power from using force to suppress a struggle for self-determination, whereas it does not prohibit a people struggling for self-determination from using force. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its 2004 advisory opinion that the Palestinian people’s “rights include the right to self-determination,” and that “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” Israel consequently has no legal right to use force to suppress the Palestinian self-determination struggle. Israel also cannot contend that, because this self-determination struggle unfolds within the framework of an occupation, it has the legalright, as the occupying power, to enforce the occupation so long as it endures. In 1971, the ICJ ruled that South Africa’s occupation of Namibia had become illegal because it refused to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation. It is beyond dispute that Israel has failed to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation of Palestinian territory. On the Namibia precedent, the Israeli occupation is also illegal. The only “right” Israel can claim is — in the words of the United States at the time of the Namibia debate — “to withdraw its administration … immediately and thus put an end to its occupation.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        CARMEN:”Millions of Jews are anti zionists.”

        LOL. Only on the planet that you live on Carmen which is not earth.

        CARMEN:”International law prohibits an occupying power from using force to suppress a struggle for self determination…”

        LOL. What does that mean? It means that soldiers need to turn the other cheek when incoted young thugs attack them with knoves? Only in your dreams deary.

        Why don’t your Palestinian Arabs sign a peace deal instead? That would result in them having self determination.

        I’ll tell you why they don’t want to do that thpugh. It is because it would allow Israel to exist and they don’t want that because according to them, Jews are not allowed to have self determination. Only Arabs are. And THAT IS racist!!!

        Reply to Comment
        • Carmen

          A “peace deal”? I don’t have any Palestinians, we’ve been through this before and to continue you really solidifies the jackass persona you’ve developed. You don’t want a peace deal anywhere, there isn’t one. You want the Palestinians to surrender. That you’ll never get. They are stronger than you could ever hope to be.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            If by surrender you mean the Palestinian Arabs giving up their 67 year old dream of destroying Israel, then you are right. That is exactly what I want. I want their total and unconditional surrender. Nothing less will do.

            And if you think that we will not eventually get exactly that then you are delusional because you don’t know how determined and how strong we are. We are stronger than they and their allies like you ever hope to be. Wanna know why? Because our lives and the lives of our loved ones depend on it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            And do you as well demand the Israeli Jews give up their 67 year old dream of having it all and by less direct but no less determined and violent means destroying a Palestinian state before it is born? And do you think that the Palestinians will not get exactly that because are as strong as you and your allies ever hope to be? Because their lives and the lives of their loved ones depend on it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Your post following ‘why don’t they sign a peace deal with us’ layed out quite clearly why no one in their right mind would. You want piece, not peace. Your wants and needs trump the wants and needs of the Palestinians. Why? You’re no better than anyone else. You get cut, you bleed, you’re happy you smile, sad and you cry. So does everyone else in the world. There’s nothing exceptional about your desires; they are the same as everyone else. The Palestinians don’t have an army, they don’t have the unites states and germany providing its military with state of the art weaponry, missiles, Apache helicopters, nuclear submarines and drones. They have rocks, knifes and scissors. They have something you don’t have. They have sumud. That can’t be bought or sold, it’s in their core, and it scares the zionists to death because their will and their determination is stronger than any weapon of mass destruction you level on them. They have more honor and courage than any IOF thug. Abed Fatah al-Sharif had to know he was going to his death. He wounded a soldier, as was his obligation, and got killed. The IOF would never survive a fight against freedom fighters if the field were level and you and everyone else knows it. Your boasting and bragging about your strength is a joke. BTW, if you’ve got everything at your fingertips – money, power, military weapons up the ass, an american president and senate bought and paid for, you’d better win something. But you haven’t. You ran out of Lebanon with your tail between your collective legs. Life’s a bitch when you face another army and not just civilians, eh Gustav? They shot back – imagine that! You’ve got everything, but you’re losing all the same. Why? You have no honor. You steal and steal some more. Your thievery has made a separate Palestinian state impossible. There will only be one state. for everyone. It won’t be a Jewish state or a Muslim state because on both sides its the minority that are religious idiots; most Palestinians want a secular democratic state, period. For one thing, imagine, being able to marry the person you love, without having to leave the country to do it. And that’s just the cherry on top. I want my neighbors to be Palestinian, Ethiopian and Mizrahki. The problem is, most israelis don’t. You want peace? It’s yet to be proven.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What a rambling post. As if the volume of BS that you manage to churn out wins your argument. It does not.

            Fact: your Arabs don’t want the existence of a Jewish state. They want a 23rd Arab state and NO Jewish state. That’s a show stopper! No matter how much you ramble about who wants to take this bit of land or that here or there, there is always a solution to that. Land swaps have been offered by Israel for lands that we feel we need to keep. But of course that doesn’t work if the position of the Arabs is that ALL the land is Arab land. There is no middle road with a position like that.

            As for your sumud. You don’t think the Jewish people have sumud? We have more of it than you can dream. If we wouldn’t have it, we would not exist. How do you think the Jewish people survived and outlasted mighty empires like Babylon, Assyria, the Greeks, the Romans and in moden days the third Reich? Did we do it without sumud? Dream on deary…

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            “You don’t think the Jewish people have sumud? We have more of it than you can dream.” You even steal their words. Bwwaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahhhhhaaaaahahhhhhhaaaaaaa!

            Reply to Comment
    5. Carmen

      “What a rambling post…..”.

      I accept your defeat jackass.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        You can accept anything you want you dumb bitch. The fact that you resort to name calling testifies to the fact that you have nothing real to say.

        As for me stealing their word, that is just another dumb thing to say. You brought that word into the conversation because you thought that I would be confused by it. I just showed you otherwise. I know what it means and you can bet your worthless little life that we have much more of it than you can imagine with that pea sized brain of yours. There. Ya wanna name call? I can do it too. LOL.

        Reply to Comment
        • Carmen

          Gustav needs to prove how he took this woman down. So glad I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that. It never gets old! You didn’t show me anything except more of the same. I’ve been hip to your game for a while now. Seriously though, most people, even a J.A. like yourself, has heard the word ‘sumud'(Sumud (Arabic: صمود‎) meaning “steadfastness” or “steadfast perseverance” is an ideological theme and political strategy that first emerged among the Palestinian people through the experience of the dialectic of oppression and resistance in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War). It’s hardly something new. I appreciate your eager demonstration of the knuckle-dragging mentality of Netanyahoo’s base – belligerent, thin-skinned, violent, arrogant and incredibly thick, to the point of self-destruction.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            CARMEN:”Gustav needs to prove how he took this woman down”

            Owww now she is playing the helpless woman card. Are you batting your eyelids deary?

            Reality check: I am not even convinced that you are a woman. You sure don’t sound like a woman. Your mouth is too foul. I don’t know any women with a foul mouth like yours. But in case I am wrong, even then I have nothing to apologize for. Wanna know why? Coz if you wanna dish it out then be prepared to take it. This is the 21st century. In case you haven’t heard we all strive for gender equality.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Gustav, honey, you sound like your having the vapors, get a shot of something and calm down. You are a living, mouth breathing stereotype of a 19th/mid-20th century “man”. Like a Mad Men, Don Draper kind of uber-man, iow, a head case. I’m really confounded. How are women supposed to talk? What is foul? Jackass? Knuckle-dragger? Thick? The women you know? Be truthful, the only women you know have to be paid for. You’ve been insulting to me from the start and I’m not going to take your insults without tossing them back. You’re not convinced I’m a woman? I haven’t been trying to convince you; didn’t think it was necessary! But if you don’t think I am, so what? No ser tan jodidamente estúpido!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Back to topic.

            I SAID: There will be no peace till the Arabs give up their dream to destroy Israel.

            CARMEN: then came out with a long rambling post about how the Arabs are human too, that they have feelings too and how strong they are because of their, wait for it…. drum roll… “SUMUD”, LOL.

            From then on things went south because I dared to mention that we are a determined steadfast people too and we will not allow our state to be destroyed because our lives and the lives of our loved ones depend on it.

            Carmen just didn’t like that so she turned abusive. So I got abusive too. No problems. I can take it and I can dish it back. Comprehendo? El stupido?

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Arabs don’t dream to destroy israel. I believe their dreams are your reality, to be able to move about freely, unmolested. To raise their families unmolested. To live on their land, unmolested. To have every freedom and privilege that is only enjoyed by Jews. I’m sure there are some Arabs who would rather all the Jews disappear instantly, but the same is true of the Jews, even more so going by the most recent polls. So stop pretending this is something else. It isn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Really? Hamas does not openly say their aim is Israel’s destruction? And Hamas is not supported by the majority of Palestinian Arabs? Nor are they in total control of Gaza? Or are you saying that Hamas are not Arabs?

            Which is it, Carmen? Which lie are you professing?

            1. That Hamas does not want to destroy Israel?

            2. That Hamas are not Palestinian Arabs?

            I tell you what though. Even the PLO’s aim is Israel’s destruction. Their own national charter which they refuse to amend, says so. Argue with that, not with me.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Carmen

      Charters are interesting.

      The Hateful Likud Charter Calls for Destruction of Any Palestinian State”

      By contributors | Aug. 4, 2014 |
      By Jonathan Weiler

      Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:

      a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
      b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
      c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
      d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

      Too much political discussion in the United States about Israel/Palestine proceeds from the premise that Palestinians have no other interest than to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Therefore, it is said, well-intentioned Israel has no viable negotiating partner for peace. The political reality on the ground does not conform to such a simple-minded tale of good vs. evil. Israeli hardliners in power have repeatedly rejected any basis for a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s qualified statement in support of a two-state solution in 2009 – which his American apologists repeatedly invoke to demonstrate his “moderate” bona fides – was characterized by a member of his own cabinet as “the spin of our lives.” In fact. Likud leaders have said unequivocally that no two-state deal is possible. And just three weeks ago, speaking at a press conference, Netanyahu said: “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

      As David Horovitz wrote in The Times of Israel: “He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance.”

      In other words, no independent Palestinian state. Period. Ever.”

      –Hamas drops call for destruction of Israel from manifesto
      The Guardian
      Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
      Thursday 12 January 2006 00.05 GMT Last modified on Friday 1 January 2016 20.06 GMT

      “Hamas has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto for the Palestinian parliamentary election in a fortnight, a move that brings the group closer to the mainstream Palestinian position of building a state within the boundaries of the occupied territories. The Islamist faction, responsible for a long campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis, still calls for the maintenance of the armed struggle against occupation. But it steps back from Hamas’s 1988 charter demanding Israel’s eradication and the establishment of a Palestinian state in its place.

      The manifesto makes no mention of the destruction of the Jewish state and instead takes a more ambiguous position by saying that Hamas had decided to compete in the elections because it would contribute to “the establishment of an independent state whose capital is Jerusalem”.

      I think its fairly clear the Palestinians have no partner for peace. Likud and Hamas are so much alike, I’m calling them Hakud or Likmas; they are basically 2 sides of the same coin and why is that? Hamas is a zionist invention and as the saying goes “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”, its pretty much blew up (no pun intended) in the zionist state’s face. Hakud or Likmas are the same. The PLO has no leader and is desperately needing to retire Mr. Abbas and replace him with Hanan Ashwari or Hanan Zoabi, but that’s up to the Palestinian people.

      I have no ‘argument’. It’s important to stop the misinformation about Hamas’ charter calling for the destruction of israel because it no longer exists and is only used to keep conversations going around in circles, for ever. Nothing doing. Watched a very good documentary, not in full form as that just came out a few days ago. The portion on Youtube is a half hour short but if one goes to the website there are ways to get the complete version.

      The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=McqVdBm2r7k

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Ok, Carmen, enough BS from you. Read the below…

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant

        The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who “fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors.” The charter states that “our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious” and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[2] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[3][4] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

        http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

        The PLO Charter

        Below is the Palestinian National Covenant, the official charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The text is the English version published officially by the PLO, unabridged and unedited.
        Note, however, that the PLO’s translation sometimes deviates from the original Arabic so as to be more palatable to Western readers. For example, in Article 15, the Arabic is translated as “the elimination of Zionism,” whereas the correct translation is “the liquidation of the Zionist presence.” “The Zionist presence” is a common Arabic euphemism for the State of Israel, so this clause in fact calls for the destruction of Israel, not just the end of Zionism.

        Where subtleties in the original Arabic are important, the Arabic word has been inserted in parentheses.

        So, that’s why Netanyahu says there is no partner for peace right now and no prospects for an Arab Palestinian state. He is being realistic. No one in their right mind would allow the rise of a neighboring hostile state next to them if their stated aim is the destruction is one’s own state. The fact that you don’t get that just betrays your own bias and hatred of Israel.

        PS

        The fact that Abbas pointedly and steadfastly refuses to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people adds further emphasis to the above…

        Reply to Comment
        • Carmen

          Hamas and Likud are the same, which is you didn’t even bring up Likud’s charter. You hypocrite. M. Abbas has gone back on forth on recognizing israel but israel has never ever recognized Palestine and per Likud’s charter (and all the other clones), it never ever will. And recognizing israel is what exactly? That it is a Jewish state? The GoI has done nothing but run around in circles wrt what it expects for peace and always, when it looks like talks will resume, one of the numbnuts in the GoI throws in an extra demand from Abbas. There is no quid pro quo for Palestine. Your kind expects Abbas to bend over and continue to take the abuse. And he does because he is an impotent, heartless dick and has to go. The ziotrash expects the Palestinians to accept the life the ziotrash has made for them. That’s what your ziotrash laughingly refers to as “peace”.

          You are not ever to be taken seriously. Neither is the zionist state.

          Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          …but let’s pretend that Likud and Netanyahu is the mirror image of Hamas. Even then, Israel is not stuck with likud. We are a multi party democracy and we have had all shades of governments. Predictably, given the historic stance of both Hamas and the PLO, none of them were able to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs. So… here is a question to Carmen. What do you think would happen in the next Israeli election if her beloved Palestinian Arabs attitude would at long last change about Israel’s destruction and a new party of peace would arise amongst them and become dominant? Would Israeli voters ignore that and vote for war? Take it from this Israeli, we would not. We have proved that in the past. The only reason we keep on voting for the likud coalition is because we agree with them that there is no one to talk to on the other side and we need a strong government which stands up against our ill wishers who constantly want us to make pointless concessions which does not get us even an iota closer to peace but weaken us. That’s why we have been voting for likud lately. Even then, not all Israelis do.

          Contrast that to the Palestinian Arabs, they have no party of peace. Hamas and the PLO are tweedle dee and tweedle dum. They both strive for Israel’s destruction albeit they use different tactics at least for now. They haven’t always in the past.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            So condescending, dehumanizing and demonizing. So typical. In Gustav’s formulation, the Jewish electorate would shift if the other side shows flexibility but the Arab electorate would not shift if the other side shows flexibility. Because they’re not really human like us, you see. And likewise, naturally, Palestinians should trust that Likud and Jewish Home are not really “us” (Israeli Jews) but Israelis should *not* trust that the PA and Hamas are not really “them” (Palestinians). Naturally!
            So typical.

            “they have no party of peace”
            Please tell me what Jewish “party of peace” existed when the British occupied Palestine? Seriously?

            “they have no party of peace”
            Please tell me what “party of peace” of any consequence is it that exists in Israel? Would that be Bougie Herzog’s party? Seriously?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Benny’s turn, LOL…

            What’s there to trust Benny? All your Palestinians need to do is make (sign) a peace deal. The occupation will then end.

            If we don’t keep our part of the bargain, the peace document that they sign would have no validity. If the occupation would continue, they tear up the peace deal.

            Get it, Benny-leh? Nah of course you don’t, coz you just don’t wanna get it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Ah, but Gustav, it is you who are deploying the ruse, not I, about shifting vs non-shifting electorates, in order to not even get *to* the negotiating table. It is you, not I, who deploy the ruse that you only vote Likud as a temporary tactic but the other side is capable of no such tactics. It’s all part of your delegitimizing, depersonalizing and demonizing of the other side.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL, Benny-leh. I am the one who is depersonalazing and delegitimizing?

            If I do, I learn from experts around here. But I still don’t resort to epithets like Zio-trash as your brainless Carmen did on this very thread.

            What a bunch of hypocrites.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            No, you just resort to calling them “dumb little clowns” and “liars.” If I only had a nickel for every use of “liar.” But hey, what’s the problem? You’re Israeli.
            Or “you dumb bitch…pea brain….”
            “Oooh but she started it, it’s the 100 years war, you see, and I was just minding my own business doing tikun olam but she just hates me for noooo reason and wants to destroy me, that’s the root of the problem…it’s just anti-Gustavism, you inciter, Benny….”

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            GUSTAV: “Owww now she is playing the helpless woman card. Are you batting your eyelids deary?” (It’s 2016, not 1916 btw, please update your chauvinist remarks and no, you can’t get them from “Anchorman”)
            GUSTAV: “You can accept anything you want you dumb bitch. The fact that you resort to name calling testifies to the fact that you have nothing real to say.” (Wow, you call me names all the time, from pea-brain to dumb bitch, what does that testify to?)
            GUSTAV: “Carmen just didn’t like that so she turned abusive. So I got abusive too. No problems. I can take it and I can dish it back. Comprehendo? El stupido?” (You always have to qualify your BS with Carmen didn’t like it – please don’t assume all women are wired the same way.)
            GUSTAV: “I don’t know any women with a foul mouth like yours. But in case I am wrong, even then I have nothing to apologize for.” (??? Don’t apologize to me; you have plenty other things to be sorry about though.)
            GUSTAV: “your worthless life” “pea-brain”. (seriously? are you still in high school?)
            GUSTAV: “If I do, I learn from experts around here. But I still don’t resort to epithets like Zio-trash as your brainless Carmen did on this very thread.” (see above)

            Gustav, nene. No wonder there’s no peace, huh? I’ve been reading 972 for a while and note how often you boast and stroke your ego; why would you claim you’ve learned anything from anyone, especially from the likes of me. That’s just another lie. You can’t be taken seriously and are just here for the amusement of all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wait a minute Carmen. I am just going to get my violin and play a sad tune for you. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Really, you can play one-handed?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL, see? I told you that you don’t sound like a woman. You seem to have wet dreams.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            What you think you know about women or how they should think, speak, behave is from at least a century ago. It cracks me up when macho types go all Miss Manners when a woman speaks a certain way. I’ve had my suspicions about you and I said before you spend a lot of time stroking your very fragile ego. You’re doubts about my sex are as loopy as the ones you must have about yourself. Can’t help you there.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yep, I know about women. That’s why I know you are not one.

            Who do you think you are fooling, Benny?

            Reply to Comment
          • carmen

            Again?

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            “Yep, I know about women. That’s why I know you are not one.” So cute~

            Have you studied us in the wild Gustav or are you talking about the ones you have in captivity?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Hey Carmen, your mental age betrays you. I would ask how old you are but I just know you can’t count that high.

            Reply to Comment
          • Carmen

            Still gnawing on that bone Gustav, oh wait, something new! Kinda bitchy. Oh well.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            As long as you gnaw, I gnaw, dopey.

            Have you any problems with that? Of course you do. That’s exactly the mentality that you display with your hateful attitude towards Israel.

            You foam at the mouth about everything that Israel does to Arabs but you ignore everything that the Arabs do to bring it on.

            In other words, according to the likes of you, Arabs have a licence to commit atrocities against Jews but Jews just have to suck it up.

            I am here to remind you that we disagree. That things no longer work that way. Jewish blood can no longer be spilt for free. It used to be like that before Zionism. Nowdays, there is a price to pay for it, every time one of your morons tries to prove otherwise.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “In other words, according to the likes of you…Jews just have to suck it up.”

            A classic straw man. Your straw man productivity rate is astounding. You’re not even aware you do it. No one here has said what you say we said. “Jews just have to suck it up”? No, Israeli Jews have to end the occupation.

            P.S.: I know you’re completely losing it (in both senses of the term), G, when you start seeing me everywhere and merging me with others.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You know nothing Benny-leh. This classic Benny-Carmen Waltz in which I post something to Carmen and Benny responds to it…

            …followed by me posting something to Benny and Carmen responds to it…

            … is a dead give-away. Moreover you two sound a lot alike in any case…

            … you fool no one Beny-Carmen, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Ben

      GUSTAV: “So what is there to talk about? The occupation will continue till the Arabs clearly demonstrate that they give up on their dream of destroying our state. Then we can talk about what is or isn’t land stealing. Not before.”

      The egotism of the occupier on full display here. Wow. Rest assured that if the Palestinians recognized Israel as “a Jewish state,” Netanyahu would invent something new to demand. Anything in order to not reach an agreement. And by the way, what does “recognize a Jewish state” mean? Formally assent to Jewish domination of Arab citizens of Israel as for example described here?:
      http://972mag.com/the-tragic-resilience-of-israels-unrecognized-arab-villages/118245/
      Who would ever trust the Israeli Jews to not interpret “our Jewish state that you Arabs formally recognized as Jewish” as a license to double down on this frank apartheid?

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Frankly, Benny, you bore me. But let me say this to you.

        If you want the occupation to end, you better encourage your darling Palestinians to sign a peace deal with us instead of encouraging them to reject all options on the belief that we will ever withdraw unconditionally without a peace deal with which we are satisfied. Unless of course you are not a well wisher of theirs.

        I’ll tell you why. Because no power on this earth will ever force us to allow a Hamas/Plo state to arise next door to us which does not formally renounce their 67 year old policy of trying to eliminate the Jewish state. It is people like you who encourage them to keep their illusions up that they can have their cake and eat it too. That they can keep their hostile policies to us AND have their independent state too. It just won’t happen. Not now and not ever. We are not in the business of trying to commit suicide by a allowing an openly hostile state to arise next to us.

        Even if they sign a peace deal and recognize our borders, we would be taking a chance with them. But at least that’s a calculated risk. But the idea that we should allow them to retain their openly hostile policy to us and still let them build an independent state next to us which would be able to import modern weapons with which to attack us, is just not going to happen.

        Kapish, Benny-leh?

        Reply to Comment
    8. Ben

      So Gustav, before the Palestinians agree to discuss what swaps they will agree to in order to adjust the ’67 lines that form the basis of a final status agreement, and before they agree on how to divide East from West Jerusalem, and before they agree on how to limit and modify the right of return in a mutually agreed upon way, will you agree that the Israeli Jews have to clearly demonstrate that they:
      (1) Give up their widely expressed (at the highest levels) dream of preventing such a viable and fair Palestinian state and that that clear demonstration would involve a radical revision of the Likud Charter and a written commitment to withdraw the Palestinian state-negating settlements in (for example) Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim, Efrat, and East Jerusalem?
      (2) Give up the blatant discrimination they practice against Arab citizens of Israel and stipulate that recognition of “a Jewish state” would involve in return (again, before talking about borders and such) substantial internal legislative and judicial and administrative acts correcting the discrimination of 67 years?

      If not, you are just talking through your hat.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Ben

      Regarding:
      Hyman Rosen Software Engineer at Bloomberg LP:
      “Palestinians have a right to resist military occupation.”
      “They should not, however, expect a right to survive violent resistance. Once resistance moves to using force, the outcome is decided by who has superior force, not by who has superior justice.”

      My reply:
      Hyman, you write as if you never heard of the Israelis’ expert and highly devoted efforts to shut down *non-violent* resistance. I’m not surprised, given your American address.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Of course Arab apologists being the liars that they are, they believe that the bigger the lie the better. So they have inverted reality. Instead of acknowledging that Hamas and the PLO are the ones who claim in their charter that not just the West Bank But Israel itself belongs to the Arabs. Instead, They claim that Israel is the one that wants it all. But here is why their claim is a big lie…

        Historically Israel has always agreed to the two state solution. Both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert specifically offered to give up virtually all of the West Bank and to end the occupation in exchange for peace and for recognized borders. The PLO point blank refused and Hamas never even agreed to be part of the negotiation process and threatened dire consequences if the PLO would sign a deal.

        Moreover, there is a compelling reason why most Israelis don’t want to hold onto most of the West Bank. It is because the West Bank is not empty it has several million Arabs. So if we annex the WB, we would either have to make those Arabs Israeli citizens in which case the concept of the Jewish majority state goes out the window. Or we have to forever control a restive population of second class citizens and open ourselves up to the charge of apartheid. We don’t need that. Most Israelis barring a few extremists on the left and the right (for different reasons) would rather have a smaller state and a larger Jewish majority.

        The Arabs know all that. That’s why they are not in a hurry to sign a peace deal. That’s why they hold onto their 67 year old dream of destroying Israel. They hold onto one of two hopes. Either …

        1. Israel’s actual destruction say with the help of powerful allies like Iran…

        Or

        2. Politically twist Israel’s arm to allow the right of return of millions of descendants of refugees and create a one state solution on the entire area of what used to be the British mandate, with an Arab majority.

        The above facts demonstrate that Arab apologists are lying. It isn’t in Israel’s interest to want it all. Nor did we ever take that position historically. On the other hand, it makes sense for the Arabs to have a one state solution which indeed has been their historic position because that is the way for the Arabs to be lords and masters of this land. And the Arabs being the supremacists that they have always been, cannot imagine being anything but lords and masters. They would rather die than allow some other ethnic group (the Jews in this instance) self determination in a small patch of land which they consider to be exclusively Arab lands. That is the root cause of the problem.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Yep. You’re talking through your hat.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            And you are in denial, Benny. Oh and you are a habitual liar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            As I said above, if only I had a nickel for every cheap use of “liar” by you. I’d make a nice tidy extra gift of it to +972 Magazine, if you’re wondering. Have you donated to +972 Magazine, Gussie? It’s the least you could do for all the bandwidth of theirs you take up. They certainly provide you a platform for strawmanning (pardon my neologism). They oughta charge you a Strawman Tax.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poooooor, pooooor Benny. He is feeling sorry for himself and his kind.

            One of me, all of you and you can’t cope. What a pathetic lot you all are. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Another straw man.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            When it comes to facts, extreme lefties like to push their little faces into the sand and ignore facts.

            For instance, I posted a post about Sharon’s unilateral evacuation of 10,000 Jews from Gaza in 2005. Many of those Jews were kicking and screaming and resisted. Nevertheless, Sharon, a co-founder of Likud went ahead with the evacuations.

            I asked Benny, what gesture for peace is he aware of which Hamas made?

            I posted that post at least 10 times. Not once was it published. Censorship will make facts go away, huh? Ok guys. Have it your way. There is no one to talk to…

            Reply to Comment
    10. Gustav

      Likud was the party that signed a peace deal with Egypt’s Sadat as far back as 1975. That involved the withdrawal from ALL of Sinai.

      In 2005, Sharon, one of the founders of Likud unilaterally withdrew 10,000 Jews from Gaza from their homes. Many of those Jews openly resisted their removal. They were literally kicking and screaming.

      Now tell me Benny, tell me what gesture for peace did Hamas ever do?

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        “For many years I’d been looking for a general who would place himself at the head of the peace camp and persuade the public that only peace would ensure the country’s security for the generations ahead…. Sharon was an odd candidate for this task. He was responsible for the 1953 mass murder in the West Bank village of Qibya, and for the mass executions of dozens of armed Palestinians who were seized in the Gaza Strip after the Six-Day War. … Sharon’s goal was always to fill the West Bank with settlements. Holding the Gaza Strip diverted forces from that goal and hampered it. Hence the disengagement. It wasn’t a means to peace, but to war. The settlers didn’t get it.”
        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/books/.premium-1.710806

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          And the Bennies of this world are the ones who are sarcastic about our Hasbarah…

          You people are always on about how we should dismantle our settlements. Well, Sharon did exactly that in Gaza. You don’t accept that as a gesture for peace? You consider that as just a ploy? You guys just cannot be satisfied, nothing less than mass suicide by Jewish Israelis would satisfy you right? Come to think of it, you’d call even that as just another Zionist plot. LOL.

          Like I said. There is no one to talk to. Extreme lefties like you Benny are just clowns. You cannot be taken seriously. Keep on yelling the place down. We will just keep on ignoring you. Ok?

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            …and Benny-leh, since you so glibly dismiss Sharon’s unilateral dismantling of the Gaza settlements…

            …maybe you could answer my earlier question which of course you ignored….

            …can you think of any gesture of peace which Hamas ever made to try and meet us half way?

            …I sure as hell can’t. Have you got an explanation for that? Does that make Hamas peacenicks? Or war mongers? Can you give us the benefit of your “wisdom”? Or should I say foolishness? Maybe malice? I think it’s the last one. Do you blame me?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Correct. I do accept that as a gesture for peace. Because it wasn’t. Uri Avnery knows far more than you do. And truth matters. It was a ploy. Done in bad faith. The Israelis actually had zero interest in true peace. Their “peace” is always the peace of surrender. You’ve been frank about this yourself when forced to be candid for two seconds. I can think of many “gestures” that the PA has made that crucially go beyond the empty, imperious conflict managing gesturing of the Israelis. For example being the Israelis faithful and competent security subcontractor for years on end and getting in return quiet praise from the Israel security echelons but nothing but hostility, scorn and contempt from the Israeli political echelon. While having to prove to their own people that they are not quislings. And Hamas has said they will accept an agreement signed by the PA. And have shown flexibility when it is in their interest. And the Israelis, like you, pose as having this fake fear of Hamas when they know full well that if they put even a tenth of the will and ingenuity and problem solving and effort that they put into occupation into preparing, structuring and maintaining a permanent final status accord, they could easily make it work. Not only work. They could make it thrive. And they know it. And they know that that would be true security. But then Netanyahu would have nothing to manipulate voters over. And who wants that, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            TYPO CORRECTION:
            “Correct. I do NOT accept that as a gesture for peace….”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You people, Benny, are always on about how we should dismantle our settlements. Well, Sharon did exactly that in Gaza. You don’t accept that as a gesture for peace? You consider that as just a ploy? You guys just cannot be satisfied, nothing less than mass suicide by Jewish Israelis would satisfy you right? Come to think of it, you’d call even that as just another Zionist ploy. LOL.

            BEN:”The Israelis actually had zero interest in true peace. Their “peace” is always the peace of surrender. You’ve been frank about this yourself when forced to be candid for two seconds.”

            Are you retarded Benny? Or are you just making things up?

            First of all, you guys cannot force me to do anything. But yes I did say that when it comes to recognizing the nation state of the Jewish people, I expect nothing less from the Palestinian Arabs than total surrender. I stand by that comment and being candid has nothing to do with it. I stand on the top of the hill and yell the place down with it.

            BEN:”And Hamas has said they will accept an agreement signed by the PA. And have shown flexibility when it is in their interest.”

            Awwww shucks. But the PA’s charter too talks about the elimination of the Jewish state. Yes, as part of the Oslo agreement, they said they would delete that from their charter but they have not kept that promise. So Hamas does not compromise their own stance by showing the “flexibility” that you atribute to them.

            BEN:”And the Israelis, like you, pose as having this fake fear of Hamas when they know full well that if they put even a tenth of the will and ingenuity and problem solving and effort that they put into occupation into preparing, structuring and maintaining a permanent final status accord, they could easily make it work.”

            Make what work? Hamas’s stated plan to dismantle the Jewish state and replace it by the 23rd Arab Muslim state? We don’t want to make that work.

            As for Hamas renouncing such an aim. Do you think that they crow about that aim because they just want to end the occupation of the West Bank? Or do they want to end what they call the end of the occupation of ISRAEL + THE WEST BANK? No prizes for “guessing” what they want. Hamas are very open about it. It’s the latter. And I am afraid that we don’t see any common ground with them so long as they maintain that stance.

            Ploys anyone?

            Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter