What is happening in Jerusalem?

And who is the many millions and what purpose does that serve in an argument here where there's nobody from Hamas or ISIS here?  Why could you not have clarified that before when I asked you about that statement again and again?  No, seriously, I thought you just accused all of us other than the Jews in the thread of asking Jews to leave.  And I am not alone.  Steve responded in the same manner.  Hopefully you now understand why I was so infuriated with you because I thought that was very irritating to put it mildly.

I speak 7 FLUENTLY , starting very very young , its not a talent but the power of youth. I am conversational in 4 others. I do not get confused in English , so no, there are no ambivalent situations. maybe looking at my reviews could alter the perception that I have any problem in the language of Shakespeare! 

No, I think what happened here is two people writing with a context in mind that was clear in their head but which wasn't clear to the other party from just reading the comment.  Happens. 

Great news, now I am happy and proud to have you as a friend. I am sure there is a lot we have in common. Arguing is fine but by golly, it shows the drawbacks of going too fast and not reading every word. That is why I try to have a paper and pen handy in order to write down points made by any side (lesson two in History class) . But all is too quick, too knee-jerk reaction which we are all guilty of because of the world we live in. Ted Koppel was asked upon retirement how he saw the future of online media and he was deeply worried his reply: The basics of journalism is to look at the W5 , Who , what , where, when and why. The first 4 are pretty factual (in a crime scene the first thing determined is When and Where. Who and what can be a little more complicated . But in today's lightning quick world, the Why is often of no interest as it takes way too much time, effort and research to figure it out, sometimes never even getting close to the truth. In the end, no ones has PATIENCE to wait. I am glad we had the patience to solve our rather silly argument . 

Sincerely and with extended hand (Covid free) LOL.      Thomas 

You can say what you like, but I don't think it is appropriate that somebody from outside tells people in the thick of things that they "failed to learn from history". History teaches many lessons, most of them ambiguous though. As teacher it is very incomplete, critical thought is also required, and knowledge about what makes situation X different from situation Y in the past.

@Lorenzo: I'm actually in favour of Jewish Against Occupation and many points that you make are valid and valuable, as I wrote before. A very valid point that you are making is also that Israel has more power to change things; on top of that, Israel is a democracy (not a perfect one, but which one is?), and in a democracy there is hope that a good number of people interested in peace and justice can make real change happen. This is actually something positive to say about Israel as opposed to most Arab states (not so positive obviously as long as a majority is behind actions that suppress other people and harm any prospect of peace, but then the Palestinians voted for Hamas in 2006, and after that they didn't vote anymore as far as I know).

So I'm largely behind maybe the main thing that you are saying, but I still can't get around the double standards thing. So some Hamas representatives state X, some others state Y. In order to portray Hamas as a legitimate liberation movement (?) you say that X is what they really want and Y is only negotiating noise, not to be taken seriously. That's not a fact, it's an interpretation, and I am by far not as convinced as you are that they mean X not Y. Actually I rather think if they don't mean Y they better shouldn't say it, particularly given that Y is not something abstract but rather the expression of an intention to eradicate the Jews and their country from the map, but this doesn't serve, in your view, as a valid explanation for Israel behaving as if somebody wants to eradicate them from the map? On the other hand, the UN in your view "made a serious mistake" (once more not a fact but an interpretation; what should they have done instead by the way?) - which in your view apparently serves as a valid explanation/excuse for the Arabs rejecting a proposal that in the current situation would have been rather favourable for them (in your view actually Hamas now wants less than that) and as an excuse to start a war on Israel; however Israel's actions are, as far as I read you, not excused by anything.  Furthermore, you say repeatedly that the land is in fact the Palestinians'; once more an interpretation, not a fact. This is a very complex issue so I will not try to convince you otherwise. Personally I have no clear opinion on that, or rather let's say I don't think there is such a thing as an "objective right" for anybody on anything, rights are generally negotiated between people and don't exist in an abstract objective space. That said, I see how the claim of the Palestinians is justified, there is some sense in this, but there is also some sense in granting the Israelis their own state in that area, so once more, it's not for me to decide. Anyway, in supporting democrat Jews opposing expansive settlement policies and destruction of Palestinian homes, we are together.