Fetterman rejects progressive label, as left wing attacks him over his position on Israel and immigration

[ralliann]

Yes...

While it's a deal that I would've taken if I were in his position (as an outsider not personally impacted by it), it's not completely unreasonable that he rejected the deal

Yes, it was a big deal. They already attacked Isael, and went to war with them, along with other surrounding nations. To kick them out of the land. They lost. Then Israel gave them Gaza. Gaza was Israel's land.

if we apply the "put yourself in their shoes" mentality.

If there were some past event that culminated in you getting kicked out of your house/land (that you paid for) and having to move to some crummy little apartment 1 town over with virtually no compensation, and then you and I had serious beefs as a result for the next 10 years....

They started a war to kill them off. That land, as other lands in the world, were by war, and it always has been. Rather than kicking them to the curb, or killing them all (as they wanted to do to Israel) they gave them their land in Gaza for their own. And the palestinians were still angry and wanted the land back and continued to attack them, and would not leave for their own state. The y wanted Israel out, gone dead. These tiny little apartments were nothing compared to that.

Would you be super eager to agree to a "truce" that didn't involve you getting your house back?

They lost a war, in which they started by killing Israeli's wanting them out of the land. What is it you don't understand here? Were we supposed to go get hitler, and then reinstall him in office just to be nice? Even as his Nazi soldiers were attacking off and on?

Would "alright, let's just stop this fighting and try to make the best of it, but I get to keep your house and you still have to live in that little apartment" be a particular tempting offer?


As I've noted before, overall, I'm on Israel's side on this one...but I'm not so naive and blind as to think that the Palestinians were getting offered some sort of "sweet deal" in all of this. They're [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed and I can understand why they're [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed.

You cannot reason with unreasonable people. You cannot make peace with those that refuse to be peaceful. No, Israel was given land, just like the palestinians were. Palestinians were given land by the ottomans an empire which took the land in war. The Israeli's were given land by the Brits. There is no difference between how the Palestinians lived on the land than how Israel was in the land. The Brits controlled it, and Isaelis were also called palestinians. So why you think Palestinians have anymore right to that land than Israel is confusion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You cannot reason with unreasonable people. You cannot make peace with those that refuse to be peaceful. No, Israel was given land, just like the palestinians were. Palestinians were given land by the ottomans an empire which took the land in war. The Israeli's were given land by the Brits. There is no difference between how the Palestinians lived on the land than how Israel was in the land. The Brits controlled it, and Isaelis were also called palestinians. So why you think Palestinians have anymore right to that land than Israel is confusion.

The timeframes in which those land transfers happened are likely major factor.

There's a difference between "land transfers that happened a long time ago as a result of war" vs. "you still seeing the land that you (or your parents) rightfully purchased being occupied by someone else"

Example:

Mexicans in present day seeing Texas land (that used to be part of Mexico in the 1830's) likely doesn't carry the same "sting" as seeing your parents' house being occupied by people after your parents were booted out of it despite doing nothing wrong themselves.


Hypothetical, if some effort was made by outside entities (let's call them globalists since I know that will resonate) to "right old wrongs", and return your house and land back to whatever native tribe happened to occupy it a few hundred years ago (despite you working your butt off to save up the money for it, and doing nothing wrong, yourself), are you or your kids going to be "over it" in 60 years? Or would your position be "no! screw that, that's my house and my land and I want it back!"

 

[ralliann]

The timeframes in which those land transfers happened are likely major factor.

There's a difference between "land transfers that happened a long time ago as a result of war" vs. "you still seeing the land that you (or your parents) rightfully purchased being occupied by someone else"

Example:

Mexicans in present day seeing Texas land (that used to be part of Mexico in the 1830's) likely doesn't carry the same "sting" as seeing your parents' house being occupied by people after your parents were booted out of it despite doing nothing wrong themselves.


Hypothetical, if some effort was made by outside entities (let's call them globalists since I know that will resonate) to "right old wrongs", and return your house and land back to whatever native tribe happened to occupy it a few hundred years ago (despite you working your butt off to save up the money for it, and doing nothing wrong, yourself), are you or your kids going to be "over it" in 60 years? Or would your position be "no! screw that, that's my house and my land and I want it back!"

You do not get it? Israselis purchased land too. As well as Gained land through war because Palestiniaun attcked Israel, Whyich was on British land. No I have no sympathy with all the times they have attacked them out of their own land. And They gave Palestinains land. Do you understand that? And as you said was so close, they should have been thankful they were not taken farther away. In short they are still in the Just a short distance away in different part of it so they could become their own state.
It would be like the indians giving land to Americans, for sale, and Mexicans claiming it belonged to them, and attacking the Americans, the Americans gaining more l;and through war, and then giving Mexicans a parcel of land to become their own sovereign state.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As well as Gained land through war because Palestiniaun attcked Israel,

Israel initiated the 6 Day war with a surprise attack on Egypt in 1967, capturing Gaza and the West Bank. (And Sinai, which Israel later gave back).

 

[ralliann]

Israel initiated the 6 Day war with a surprise attack on Egypt in 1967, capturing Gaza and the West Bank. (And Sinai, which Israel later gave back).

No surprise........ Closing shipping to Israel, considered an act of war.....
Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel[31] and ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel.[32][24]

 

[essentialsaltes]

No surprise........ Closing shipping to Israel, considered an act of war.....

Just as long as we're clear that it's not true that "Palestiniaun attcked Israel"

 

[ralliann]

Just as long as we're clear that it's not true that "Palestiniaun attcked Israel"

It was Palestinians and other nations round about. An alliance.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was Palestinians and other nations round about. An alliance.

That got attacked by Israel by surprise? I'll accept that.

 

[ralliann]

That got attacked by Israel by surprise? I'll accept that.

No. But make it out what you will.

 

[Laodicean60]

No surprise........ Closing shipping to Israel, considered an act of war.....
Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that another Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a definite casus belli. In May 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would again be closed to Israeli vessels. He subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military into defensive lines along the border with Israel[31] and ordered the immediate withdrawal of all UNEF personnel.[32][24]

When I first came to the forum, I thought he was one of the more intelligent one here but after he posted this "Israel initiated the 6 Day war with a surprise attack on Egypt in 1967," I released not so much because he keeps spouting nonsense. I posted the same info on another thread. I guess he's convinced himself of his own fantasies. Egypt knew full well what they were getting into when they blocked the canal, and they weren't prepared for the war they started.

 

[Pommer]

When I first came to the forum, I thought he was one of the more intelligent one here but after he posted this "Israel initiated the 6 Day war with a surprise attack on Egypt in 1967," I released not so much because he keeps spouting nonsense. I posted the same info on another thread. I guess he's convinced himself of his own fantasies. Egypt knew full well what they were getting into when they blocked the canal, and they weren't prepared for the war they started.

Usually, the acceptable answer to “who started the war?” was “who fired the first shots?”
Provocation is part-and-parcel of international affairs; wars are sometimes declared before the shooting starts, you know, like what what happens between (otherwise) civilized nations.

 

[ralliann]

Usually, the acceptable answer to “who started the war?” was “who fired the first shots?”

Usually but not always, and not necessary. As in this case.

Provocation is part-and-parcel of international affairs; wars are sometimes declared before the shooting starts, you know, like what what happens between (otherwise) civilized nations.

They were warned, if they did it again. Egypt as well as their Arab, allies began the war.