Mr. President, Don’t Forget The Nakba

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/mr-president-don-t-forget-the-nakba.html

Lake Success, a township on Long Island, was home to the United Nations long before it moved to its iconic eastside headquarters. There, on March 19, 1948, ambassadors and delegates were gathered to discuss the implementation of the 1947 Partition plan for Palestine. The British mandate was drawing to a close within weeks. Many people know that the U.N. passed a general assembly resolution in favor of partitioning Palestine in November 1947. Few people know, however, that on this day, the United States—which had originally voted for partition—withdrew its support for the plan and favored instead something closer to a one-state outcome.

There was another plan, of course. It was called Plan Dalet. The military plan for the conquest of Palestine was adopted by the Zionists days earlier. Ben Gurion, in response to America’s withdrawal of support for partition, was defiant. He declared that “the tactical establishment of the Jewish state depends on Jewish strength. It is by our power, mobilized to the utmost, that the state will arise.”

If the international community wasn't going to give the Zionists a state of their own in Palestine at the expense of the natives, the Zionists were determined to take it by force. Mobilization was key. It was during this period that Zionist militant activity, both by the Haganah and the Irgun, aggressively increased.

[oberliner]

1. (Mis)Interpreting Zionist History

When I first came to teach at the University of Texas at Arlington, I was asked by a colleague whether I was uncomfortable using the term “Zionist” in my courses on the Middle East and on Israel. My response was, of course, “no,” since although some have tried to tar the term with racist, murderous overtones, it is as legitimate a nationalism as American, British, German, Turkish, and Chilean nationalism.

This tarring fits with an ideological or political agenda, but it is a misunderstanding (for some, willful) of what Zionism is and what its leaders and thinkers sought to build and how they wanted to do so. Yousef Munayyer’s piece in these pages is a good example of this.

Munayyer is not un-informed, but his article is tendentious. He has a particular point to make—that Barack Obama needs to account for the nakba, too, while in Israel—and his explanation of Zionist history is made to squeeze into that particular framework of blame. It is a very partisan and one-sided reading that might work for those (like Munayyer) who advocate for a one-state solution, but it is incomplete.

There are four main problems/gaps/misinterpretations in Munayyer’s piece. First, Zionist thinking was far more varied and complex than Munayyer allows. In a conversation about the piece on Twitter, Munayyer explained that he was referring to the main actors in control of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) at the time. That makes sense, but even the labor Zionists were divided into factions. And they simply weren’t “anti-Palestinian” in the way Munayyer implies. Though he doesn’t repeat the tired (also misunderstood) complaint that the Zionists believed in a “land without a people for a people without land,” he ignores the fact that many Zionist leaders (not all, to be sure) were not bloodthirsty villains but rather saw the Palestinians through a paternalistic lens, and were simply naïve and deluded enough to think their efforts in Palestine would be welcomed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/19/mis-interpreting-zionist-history.html

Good that The Daily Beast actually gives voice to dissenting opinions within the progressive community on these topics.

[Scootaloo]

4. So... the Nakba never happened?

Or if it did, it as totally deserved?

I've seen these arguments before... Seems that Sasley can't make up his mind if he's going to go with the David Irving "NEVER HAPPNED!" angle or the Ernzt Zundel-style "They brought it on themselves!" angle.

Which do you support, Oberliner?

[aranthus]

6. As the Palestinians claim? No.

And your citation to Holocaust deniers is insipid, offensive, and a cheap way to avoid having to deal substantively with the issue. Let's review. The Palestinians claim that they, the Palestinians, are entirely innocent, and that the Jews intentionally evicted them for no reason other than to take their land, so that Israel could exist. That's almost entirely false in every detail. The true facts are:

1. The Arabs of Palestine initiated the war that made them refugees, for the purpose of taking all of Western Palestine for themselves and denying the national rights of the Jewish people living in the region.

2. Only a minority of displaced people were intentionally evicted, and most of those people were moved to other areas of Palestine, so it's hard to call them refugees.

3. Most of the refugees ran from front line combat zones.

4. A minority left on orders from their leaders.

5. All of the refugees can trace their status to the war that their side started.

6. Israel could have been created just fine with the Palestinians in place. What it couldn't stand was such a large population that was hostile to the existence of a Jewish state.

Yes, there are refugees, but the problem was created by Arab chauvinism and greed, and not by Israeli rapaciousness.

[Scootaloo]

7. So, you go with Zundel. Gotcha.

Red-letter day for Zionists on DU. We've got Oberliner advocating mass murder of Iranians in another thread, we've got Obama nose-deep in Netanyahu's crack, and now we're erasing any and all Israeli responsibility for the Nakba and blaming the victims instead.

C'mon you Jabotinskyite goofballs, the day is still young! let's see what else you've got!

[aranthus]

9. And you go with denial and smear tactics. n/t

[Scootaloo]

11. Not much to smear.

You look at the victims of ethnic cleansing and say "Your own fault!" I figure you've smeared yourself.

I'm trying to see if you have even an ounce of shame in your body. if I can squeeze out even the thinniest, oiliest sheen of self-awareness from you, while you pat yourself on the back for your obvious and wholehearted support for the aforementioned ethnic cleansing. I'm trying to see if, even for a moment, I can get you to understand that your own argument have some really fucking ugly parallels in the rhetoric of the two semi-men I use as examples.

This is apparently a lost cause, as it requires you to apply human empathy to Arabs. That's clearly asking too much.

[aranthus]

16. You think I'm a bad person because I don't buy into the lies.

You say that the Palestinians are "victims of ethnic cleansing," but this isn't true for the most part. I don't deny that some Palestinians were forcibly uprooted, but the claim that all 700,000 or so of them were "victims" of intentional expulsion is just nonsense. First, the term "victim" suggests that they have no responsibility for what happened to them. Again that is nonsense, unsupported by any serious history of the conflict. But if you would agree to answer some questions, maybe we could at least clarify some things.

1. Do you agree that the Palestinians started the war?

2. If so, do you think that they have some responsibility for what happened during the war?

3. Do you think that every one of the Palestinians claiming refugee status was intentionally evicted?

4. If not, then how many?

5. Do you think that any existing refugee as that term is applied to Plaestinians from any war has the unfettered right to return to where they were living before the war started? Does that include Germans driven out of Eastern Germany in World War II? Hindus driven out of Pakistan? Msulims driven out of India? Greeks and Turks in Cyprus?

[Scootaloo]

26. Oh yes, those lying dirty Arabs and their pallywood "Nakba Industry"

Would you like a shovel? If you're going to dig at this pace, I figure i might as well offer.

1) No.

2) I do not believe that noncombatants should pay the price in a conflict, regardless of their ethnicity or politics.

3) No.

4) Irrelevant. The rationale behind the flight and the numbers of people thrown out by force vs. the people who simply hauled ass away from the front lines does not change the fact that they were refugees. Nor does it change the fact that those who fled, and those who were evicted, were summarily locked out, their homes and property sold to olim as "abandoned property," and a narrative of Palestinian (who never existed, if you recall Golda Meir's claims, that's one of her less repulsive ones) just... disappeared one day. Poof.

5) And Jews from assorted middle eastern nations they were expelled from, yes, if they so desire. I further feel that even if the people themselves decide to not return, or there is some truly mitigating factor preventing that return (and not just "don't wanna, fuck off&quot then they should be entitled to material recompense. But hey, I also support slavery reparations. I do not accept "You were forced from your homes by violence, tough cookies, now go die, motherfucker" as a response to refugees.

I think you're a bad person because you choose to swallow another brand of lies, that tell you these people are awful, that these people deserve what happened to them, that they deserve continual, generational penalty for it all, and the people responsible actually aren't responsible. I think you are a bad person because you stand in the place of the perpetrator, and you tell the victims, "look this is how it really is." I think you're a bad person because you take a clearly documented horror of history and you turn it into your own self-righteous pat-on-the-back justification for yourself and the people who perpetrated it.

I do not think you would accept someone throwing this shit at Jews. I don't think you'd accept it being thrown at Armenians or Darfuris. I don't think you'd go out to the Creek rez in Oklahoma and say it, and I don't think you'd sit a black man down and say "look, you black people, you've got it all wrong."

But you clearly feel you are privileged to narrate for Palestinians, to Palestinians, about how their suffering is totally justified and they just need to shut the fuck up and get over it.

That's why I think you're a bad person. Not because you "don't believe the lies," but because you DO.

[shira]

30. Talk about denial. The Palestinians DID start the war in 1947. Pathetic!

I really and truly do not believe you guys can EVER get the story right. It's just not possible. I see this in the other thread about the NYT magazine article on Nabi Saleh and the Tamimis where you guys just have to see the Tamimis sympathetically as freedom fighters and victims. You refuse to see them as they truly are (right on board with the most vile Hamas genocidal intentions).

And here you are denying what the Jews in 1947-48 were up against, pretending Holocaust survivors and recent refugees looking for asylum and freedom just decided to one day get rid of the Arabs b/c they were mean racist SOB's.

How low can you go?

[Scootaloo]

32. Yes, everything was completely peaceful until 1947!

And then the evil Jew-hating rats, those tent-dwelling camel-fucking monsters, decided they needed more Jewish blood for their falafel, and well, there you go!

...Right?

After the passage of 181, already-present tensions and violence escalated into riots, which swept into a civil war. There was no Fort Sumpter, no sudden green flag announcing the start of the civil war. It was a series of violent clashes, then terrorist acts by Husayni's irregulars and Irgun and Lehi, and from there developed into a conflict between a budding Jewish army and the Arab Liberation Army.

I'm denying two things, Shira.

1) That Palestinian forces are solely responsible.
and
2) that every Palestinian must pay the price.

But your argument is that all Palestinians are always monsters, and all Jews are always helpless hapless victims. This is what you believe, to justify your denial of the Nakba.

So, that's apparently two for Ernst Zundel's perspective!

[shira]

34. What were the evil Zionists up to until 1947?

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 07:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Well, it turns out the Palestinian leadership of the time (Haj Amin al-Husseini) was busy doing what he could to be Hitler's favorite Mufti. Meanwhile, the conniving Jooooooz were busy doing what? Buying up plots of earth, re-building their historic homeland?

You're denying Palestinians are responsible in any way for 1947-48. And yes, Hitler's Nazi Mufti and his minions were solely responsible - without any f-cking question. What's difficult about this? And you want to compare Nakba deniers to Ernst Zundel while you're busy whitewashing the Mufti's Naziism by pointing to Zionist Holocaust survivors and asylum seekers? How vulgar! But not surprising. So tell me, how can you speak of the events of 1947-48 without considering the Mufti's Nazi connections? Seems you're the denier here...

And not every Palestinian "paid the price". I count around 2 million living within Israel today, enjoying freedoms no other Palestinian has in that part of the world.

[Ken Burch]

407. Most of those making the decisions on the Zionist side in 1947 weren't Holocaust survivors

There were some survivors(more were still in the DP camps in Europe, where they were being treated horribly)in what would soon become Israel, but the leadership of the Zionist movement was made up of people like Ben Gurion who'd been there since the World War One era or earlier, people who had been totally insulated and protected from the Holocaust. Many of those who'd been in Palestine for the longer period had little, if any sympathy with Holocaust survivors, and at least tolerated(if not openly encouraged)rhetorical attacks on Holocaust survivors as weaklings or cowards(when the Mandate SHOULD have been the place in the where the survivors would be most likely to get unconditional compassion and support, not that their treatment everywhere else was excusable, of course). While there were some survivors in the movement and the various Zionist armies, most of them were not taking part in strategic or military decisions in the struggle(this is all documented in "The Seventh Million", by Tom Segev.

Therefore, it's not fair to imply that people who are questioning the some of the choices the Zionist leadership made are attacking Holocaust survivors. They aren't, and you damn well know it. Don't use the Shoah for emotional blackmail in this discussion.

[shira]

409. The argument is that prior to 1947, the Jews were invaders....

...confiscating homes and land, purging Palestinians from Jewish territory prior to the war of annihilation the Palestinians started in 1947, and that this war was a response to the Jewish invaders.

Scoot just made this argument a few days ago:

Except the Palestinians were being invaded, their homes and land were being confiscated, and the invaders had already started purging them from what someone in New York had arbitrarily decided would be "Jewish territory." It's intriguing that you regard an armed response to ethnic cleansing, to be "starting a war of annihilation." I suppose "fighting back" is intolerable behavior in your mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=54093

[JoDog]

31. Wow. Don't know whether to laugh or cry

The Arab nations did NOT start the 1947 war? This post is partially satire, right?

I mean, there is room to debate the opening shots of the 1967 war, the Lebanon incursions, and everything that has ever been shot at the Gaza strip, those may be fair arguements. But the 1947 war? Please. I won't even touch the mention of Golda Meir and Palestinian history. Discussing that has gotten me verbally assaulted before.

Everyone gets to have their own opinion, but no one gets to have their own facts. Everyone can disagree with me all they like all day long, unless those opinions are not based on history. Then, we have a problem.

I am sorry, Scootaloo, but I cannot now take anything you say on this topic seriously. While I wish nothing but the best for you personally, I am afraid I must now disregard your posts because I cannot trust your judgement.

[Scootaloo]

33. No, the Arab Nations did not start the war in 1947

1947 was the start of the Palestinian civil War, between Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There were a few hundred border-crossing fighters, but no, the Arab League nations didn't step in until May 15 1948.

Also, there's no debate on who fired the opening shots in 1967. Not within Israel, not within Egypt or Syria, not by historians, by no one. The only debate is whether Israel was justified in firing those opening shots. And rather amazingly, it's a complex enough situation that "yes, but also no" is the only acceptable answer.

While I'm sure you expect me to be upset that you can't take me seriously and must disregard my posts, the truth is... I really don't give a fuck. You clearly don't have the first clue what's going on, and are chiming in with a body of knowledge that appears to be based off a loose second-hand interpretation of the evening news. So please, disregard all you like, it's not as if I'm lacking for ignorant people to argue with.

[shaayecanaan]

46. Its called fake historiography

You take one isolated incident that no one perceived to be particularly important at the time and then retrospectively dress it up as some fundamental sea change.

Accordingly, the typical Zionist line is that the Palestine Civil War began on 30 November 1947, when Arabs attacked a bus carrying Jews. The implication is that prior to "the war" there was peace.

Which is complete bullshit. In fact, the tit-for-tat cycle of violence began some time before November 1947:-

Jan. 12—Four killed by Irgun terrorist bombing of British headquarters.
Jan. 13—Arab kidnapped and castrated by Jewish terrorists.
March 1—Sixteen Britons killed by Jewish terrorists/Britain invokes martial law
March 10—Jewish informer killed by Jewish terrorists.
March 11—Two British soldiers killed by Jewish terrorists.
April 8—British constable killed by Jewish terrorists.
April 8—Jewish boy killed by British troops.
April 8—Jew beaten to death by Arabs.
April 22—Eight killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of the Cairo-Haifa train.
April 25—Five killed in Jewish terrorist bombing of British camp.
April 26—British police official killed by Jewish terrorist.
May 8—Three Jewish shops in Tel Aviv whose owners refused to contribute to Jewish terrorist groups burned down by Jewish terrorists.
May 8—Jew killed near Tel Aviv by Arab terrorists.
May 12—Two British policemen killed in Jewish Jerusalem.
May 15—British policeman killed in terrorist ambush.
May 15—Two British soldiers killed in terrorist Stern Gang attack.
May 16—Two British police officers killed by terrorists.
May 18—One Jew killed, one wounded by Arab terrorists.
June 5—Jewish terrorists introduce letter bombs in Middle East.
June 28—Four British soldiers killed in Jewish terrorist raids.
July 3—“Anti-terrorist” Jewish families beaten up by Irgunists.
July 18—British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.
July 19—Another British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.
July 20—Yet another British soldier killed by Jewish terrorists.
July 23—65 Jews killed when Haganah sinks immigration ship.
July 26—Two British soldiers killed in booby trap.
July 29—Three Jews executed by hanging. Jewish terrorists retaliate by hanging two British soldiers.
Aug. 5—Three British police killed by bomb; plot discovered to poison the water supply of non-Jewish parts of Jerusalem with botulism and other bacteria.
Aug. 10—Four Jews killed in Arab terror attack on Tel Aviv café.
Aug. 12—Five Jews, four Arabs killed, others injured, in spread of violent incidents over three days.
Aug. 15—Twelve Palestinians killed in raid by Haganah troops.
Aug. 18—Shops of five Jews in Tel Aviv destroyed by Jewish terrorists.
Aug. 23—Five Arabs of one family—two men, a woman and two children—killed by Jewish terrorists.
Sept. 7—French foil Stern Gang plot to air bomb London.
Sept. 21—British messenger killed by Jewish terrorists.
Sept. 26—Four British policemen killed in Irgun terrorist bank robbery.
Sept. 27—Illegal Jewish immigrant killed by British.
Sept. 29—13 killed, 53 wounded in Irgun terrorist attack on British police station.
Oct. 4—Two Jews killed in ambush, two Arabs killed in retaliation.
Oct. 13—Two British troops killed by Jewish terrorists in Jerusalem.
Oct. 26—Jewish settlement policeman found killed near Gaza.
Nov. 3—Jewish policeman killed, reportedly by Stern Gang after refusing to reveal secret police matters.
Nov. 12—21 killed in British-Jewish clashes.
Nov. 14—Jewish terrorists kill 4 Britons in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
Nov. 30—Violent riots erupt throughout Arab world following adoption of U.N. partition plan. In Palestine, seven Jews killed and eight wounded in the first day. All told, during the first week at least 159 persons were killed in the Middle East, 66 of them in Palestine.
Dec. 2—Palestinians begin 3-day protest strike; 20 Jews, 15 Arabs killed. Five Arabs and seven Jews were killed the next day during a six-hour battle on the Tel Aviv-Jaffa border.
Dec. 13—35 Palestinian civilians killed in Jewish terrorist attacks.
Dec. 14—14 Jews killed by Arab Legion in retaliation.
Dec. 18—Palmach (“assault companies”) kills 10 Arabs, including 5 children, in nighttime raid on northern Galilee village of Khissas. The following day Haganah troops blew up the home of the village elder of Qazaza in central Palestine, killing several inhabitants. Wrote The Times of London: “While the Jews are suffering mainly through sniping at their road convoys, the Arabs have lost many lives through Jewish assaults on their villages.”
Dec. 20—Haganah raid on village of Qazaza kills one Palestinian.
Dec. 24—Stern Gang member killed for betrayal of another member.
Dec. 25—16 Arabs, Jews and British killed on Christmas.
Dec. 25—Palestinian landowner killed for selling land to Jews.
Dec. 26—Ben-Gurion proposes major offensive to reduce Arab population.
Dec. 26—Jewish terrorists get $107,000 in heists of diamond plants.
Dec. 29—14 Arabs killed by Irgun bomb in Jerusalem.
Dec. 29—Irgun flogs British major and three sergeants.
Dec. 30—41 Jews, 6 Arabs killed in riot sparked by Stern Gang.
Dec. 31—Irgun claims to have killed 374 Arabs and British during year.

http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/283-washington-report-archives-2006-2010/may-june-2006/5987-hamas-a-pale-image-of-the-jewish-irgun-and-lehi-gangs.html

The other fundamental dishonesty implicit in the Zionist narrative is that "the war" began in 1947 between Palestinians and Jews and culminated in 1948 with the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arabs. But in fact, the tipping point did not involve the Arabs, but involved the British instead. In fact, the British-Jewish war ran far hotter than the conflict between the Jews and Arabs.

The precipitating event for the Arab exodus was not anything the Arabs did, but was instead the British withdrawal. This freed up the Jewish militias from having to devote their main energies towards fighting the British and allowed them to expel Arab populations without British interference.

I am sorry, Scootaloo, but I cannot now take anything you say on this topic seriously. While I wish nothing but the best for you personally, I am afraid I must now disregard your posts because I cannot trust your judgement.

I am sorry, but I never took anything you post seriously in the first place. You have to earn your credibility around here, and right now you don't have any. If you take the time to actually back up your flim-flam with some facts, then maybe you can start making aspersions about others.

[shira]

327. You quoted from WRMEA? Why not Rense or Stormfront?

You gotta love their promotion of Gilad Atzmon:

http://www.wrmea.org/interview-with-gilad-atzmon-by-prof-norton-mezvinsky.html

The Washington Report believes that no writer or thinker should be shunned in the United States—or anywhere—and we stand by our decision to host his DC events.

Yes, of course they do. And they may as well host David Duke while they're at it.

Hell, they just loved Helen Thomas....especially after her anti-Jew tirade.

Classy source there.

[Voice for Peace]

352. re obama reference

I don't believe for one moment that's where he's at.

Unless your reference is to the way a dog will learn about
another dog by sniffing its butt.

Getting up close and personal, you can find out what
the other dog's been eating, where they sit down,
whether they are a healthy dog or not. Or so my
doggie friends have told me, I haven't tried it.

[aranthus]

15. No, he agrees with me

1. The Arabs of Palestine initiated the war that made them refugees. According to Wikipedia, citing to Morris: The first casualties of the war were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin at 8:20 on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa, led by Seif al-Din Abu Kishk, ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. Later that morning, Arab snipers began to fire from Jaffa's Manshiya neighbourhood into southern Tel Aviv, killing at least one person. Shots were also fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#cite_note-Morris_2008.2C_p._76-7

2. Only a minority of displaced people were intentionally evicted. Where in your post does Morris say anything to the contrary? He doesn't say all. He doesn't say most.

3. Most of the refugees ran from front line combat zones; 4. A minority left on orders from their leaders; and 5. All of the refugees can trace their status to the war that their side started. Morris says nothing contrary to this.

6. Israel could have been created just fine with the Palestinians in place. What it couldn't stand was such a large population that was hostile to the existence of a Jewish state.

From your post:

Q:
Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

BM:
Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.

The operative word for Morris, as for me, is "hostile."

[aranthus]

18. Indeed, more.

Q:We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

Of course Morris agrees with me. There would not have been a "Nakba" if the Palestinians had not tried to destroy the Jewish state.

[aranthus]

22. Nonsense.

That last quote of his that I posted makes it quite clear what he believes. The reason there was an expulsion is because ot Palestinian hostility to Jewish national existence. The reason I put Nakba in quotes is not to pretend that it didn't happen. That would be silly. It's to point out that it didn't happen the way that the Palestinians say that it did. The entire pro-Arab argument is based on the false charge that the problem is all israel's fault. Most of us on the pro-Israel side, myself included, acknowledge that there is fault on the Israeli side. But your side is totally inwilling to acknowledge reality.

[Shaktimaan]

36. Your argument...

...is one based on the path you assume history would have taken had the Palestinians not initiated the war. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're basically saying "The war doesn't matter because even though it provided a useful excuse for the expulsions, those expulsions would have happened regardless. So we should not be analyzing these actions from the position that the war caused the expulsions as simple cause and effect."

Aside from the fact that you can never evaluate history that never happened, you are misunderstanding the point Morris and others are making here. It is not that the nakba would have been necessary to create Israel under ALL circumstances. They are saying that the the creation of Israel required winning the war, which required the expulsions.

Evidence supporting this would be the fact that Plan Dalet did not even exist until the second phase of the war. If it was always a necessary part of the plan to create Israel then we would have seen it implemented right at the war's start, right? Not as a policy that they were forced to draw up when they were getting badly beaten as an alternative to their own extermination.

It was necessary to Israel's creation, sure. Because without it Israel would have lost that war and never come into being.

[Shaktimaan]

39. Interesting.

I am familiar with this interview, it is quite famous. But I can only assume that you aren't very familiar with Morris's other work. As perhaps the most famous of the "New Historians" Morris was responsible for bringing Israeli atrocities during the 48 war to light and greatly altering what was then the generally accepted narrative of that war amongst Israelis.

I'm sorry but just about everything you are asserting here is simply not true at all. You are misinterpreting even this single interview, slightly altering his statements and then wildly extrapolating from there.

hat interpretation requires me to overlook the massive influx of Zionists with a very definite political agenda over the previous few decades

Yes, but that is one of the causes of the war. It is not a war itself.

Propagandists who would assert that the war started at year/month/day/hour/minute at some exact location may disagree.

On this particular matter there is no disagreement, nor is it the work of propagandists. The "war" itself did not start immediately following the UN's decision on partition, that's when the formal rejection and the strike and the riots occurred on the part of the Arab contingent. The Jewish side officially accepted the resolution. We know for an absolute fact that it was the resolution's passing which triggered the Arab strike and riots. And we know that it was this activity that grew to become what is called the Palestinian Civil war of 1947.

To such black and whiters what happened before that, and before that, and so on, never matters.

The fact that we know when the war started is evidence that the details matter. Historians have never ignored all of Palestinian history prior to this one war. I assure you.

What matters is placing the blame for the whole shebang, all the atrocities, squarely on the enemy of the day. In real life it is never so clean.

That's absurd. What matters is factual accuracy. Benny Morris was invaluable in unearthing atrocities on the part of the Israelis that has been all but lost to history. And I don't mean some one sided propaganda historical view. I mean the universally accepted understanding of what happened. Morris changed it, in such a way that benefited the way people considered them.

He is saying that to that end he has no, repeat, NO, humanitarian feelings for the Palestinians killed, terrorized, and driven out to achieve it.

Look, just NONE of this stuff is true at all. You didn't read this article and learn about Morris. You came to the article trying to find evidence that'd support your beliefs about Morris and Zionism and whatever else you're working on. He is looking at this from the point of view of ensuring Israel's survival. He is describing a situation that only offered Ben-Gurion hard choices.

But even if what you are saying were 100% true it does not matter at all. The reality is that the Palestinians did still start the war. The reality is that Israel did not expel all of the Arabs, not even close in fact.

Enough? Is that enough for you?
Or do you want to add to Benny fucking Morris's litany of racist evil.

Nothing he wrote was remotely racist or evil. In fact, I agree with most of it. Almost all, in fact. Nowhere does he excuse his actions on the basis of race.

[Shaktimaan]

41. Ok

Then please point out exactly where he stated the following.

He is saying that to that end he has no, repeat, NO, feelings for Palestinians killed, terrorized, and driven out to achieve it.

[shira]

43. So sickeningly disingenuous of you. Ernst Zundel would be proud....

Q:
They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

BM:
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Q:
And that was the situation in 1948?

BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

Morris couldn't be more explicit about the choice:

Jews faced genocide or else they had to expel a certain amount of Palestinians. There was no other choice. And here you are denying the Jews faced any such threat. But it gets even worse! Not only do you not think the Jews were under threat of annihilation (which every Arab commander and leader was threatening at the time) you are arguing the Jews just did this for no other reason other than racism.

How low can you go?

Zundel would definitely be proud.

For fucks sake, the Jews had nowhere else to go! Nowhere!

[Shaktimaan]

47. What would you call it?

Cleansing, expulsion, it doesn't matter. Once the Arabs attacked the Tushie they had to expel them. It has nothing to do with racism or superiority at all.

Benny Morris' article was very clear. He sympathized with the refugees but there was no choice whatsoever. It was literally a question of cleansing the Arabs or losing the idea of a state.

[Shaktimaan]

49. Not genocide, no.

They were attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state anywhere in Palestine, they were doing so violently. We know what they would have done because they won the first half of the civil war with the Jews in 1947. Any town they overtook they tended to murder almost everyone and expel the rest. The Jews only began to win once they implemented Plan D. They literally had no other choice. It was in no way racist.

Had the Palestinians not attacked then there would have been no war and no need to empty villages that were logistically necessary to destroy for the war.

Yes, Benny Morris' article was very clear, he wouldn't have felt a twinge of conscience ordering such a cleansing himself.

I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them.

They were civilians caught up in a racist war for territory, and were cleansed from the land of their ancestors.

Technically most were just internally displaced anyway. You know, they went from one part of Palestine to another. The war created new borders, then they couldn't go back to the original place. It must have sucked but it wasn't the same as the European refugees or anything.

But out of curiosity, what exactly would YOU have done in ben-gurion's place?

[Shaktimaan]

45. You condemn what you do not understand.

I get it. If you call it racist and its motivation an ethnically pure state then it is simple to decry because you've painted a black and white narrative with easily identified good and bad guys.

But by doing so you serve a fiction. The reality was not what you describe, as your own quotes clearly show.

But beyond that, you have a lot of nerve. To look at a very volatile time of war where nothing was certain and everyone was struggling for an ensured existence, and date assume to judge their moral character?

Read: Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Winning the war so the state could exist. So what is your alternative? Is ethnic cleansing 50,000 wrong if needed to rescue 300,000 lives? Can you condemn those people to death to save the homes if 50,0000?

Look more closely at what Morris is asking and describing.

So I no more want to discuss issues further with you than I'd want to discuss issues with Ernst Zundel, or any other sociopath.

No? Dose someone like yourself who is unable to talk with anyone who holds a different perspective then have any right to ask that Israelis and Palestinians sit down and not merely talk, but negotiate?

Because this disagreement. That's peanuts. That's bupkis. Try tackling east Jerusalem or Hebron. Till then, enjoy speaking to everyone who mirrors your views. Sounds very enlightening.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

285. No matter how the BM quotes are spun by the apologists and the cheerleaders you can't

get away from their implicit meaning.

[shira]

328. What's the implicit meaning? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

330. Just go away, Shira. I have no intention of going a few round-e-rounds with you

Just to get back to your same lame argument/denial/deflection tra la la over and over.

[Voice for Peace]

353. people can say "you started it" "no you did" forever but who will end it?

[aranthus]

354. Knowing who started it and why illuminates how to end it.

Peace talks are never about peace. They are about what each side wants more than it wants peace. So knowing why each side fights is important, because those issues need to be addressed for peace to exist. And usually the initial reason of the side that started it has to be resolved first before peace can become real (otherwise they will just continue to fight).

[oberliner]

20. Huh?

I just posted an article that someone wrote in response to the OP at Daily Beast.

[Scootaloo]

25. I know

Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The article's thrust amounts to "there are some inconsistencies, so the whole thing is a fake."

I've seen this approach to history before, most tellingly in Holocaust denial - "the claims of making soap were false, so what else is faked, hmmmm?"

My response is wondering whether the author fits into the "never happened" mold, or the "they deserved it" mold. Your fellow liberal Zionist Aranthus seems to hold to the "they deserved it" approach. I was just curious about your own.

And please don't bat your eyes and feign innocence. People don't post denialism unless they support the argument presented.

[aranthus]

136. Zionism is Jewish nationalism.

So technically you are correct, in that Zionism is an ideology. However, since Jewish is an ethnic (national) identity, can you see the relation now?

[aranthus]

148. You are simply terribly wrong.

You> Jew is a sect whereas America->American, Germany->German, relate country to citizen of that country.

[font color=blue]From Wikipedia: "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]); (בני ישראל, Standard: Bnai Yisraʾel; Tiberian: Bnai Yiśrāʾēl; ISO 259-3: Bnai Yiśraʾel, translated as: "Children of Israel" or "Sons of Israel&quot , also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites (Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East." Underlining and bold by me. Of course there is a world of legitimate historical and sociological material out there on the Jews, and Jewish identity, but apparently you haven't read any of it.[/font]

You> Don't feed me the lame lie that Israel->Jew is like America->American. After all, not all Israeli citizens are Jews.

[font color=blue]And not all citizens of France are French. Some are Arab, who aren't thought of as French. Not all citizens of Germany are German. Some are Turks. The United States is quite different from most countries in that citizenship is co-equal with national identity. Although the US and Israel are much closer than most countries because both hold that the national identity is purely ideological and not a tribal or blood relation as in most countries.[/font]

You> Here's my problem with you hasbarists: you repeat the same lies over and over, and you're immune to common sense.

[font color=blue]And before you again accuse anyone of lying or hasbara, you might want to correct your own ignorance and narrow mindedness. I have no idea what kind of person you really are, but it needs to be said that the denial of Jewish peoplehood is per se antisemitism. Not to mention how incredibly presumptuous it is for you to be telling Jews who and what they are, when you clearly don't know anything about us.[/font]

[aranthus]

155. You've never been to France have you?

Because the ignorance in that statement of yours is astounding.

[aranthus]

160. As Shaktimaan already wrote, you condemn what you do not understand.

And at times I fear that you condemn what you don't care to understand. This isn't about the Constitutional law of any country. Even on that score, you're wrong. An Arab citizen of Israel is an Israeli citizen, just as an Arab citizen of France is a French citizen. But that is not the same thing as being culturally French, or being thought of as French by the ethnic French. Does that mean that the French are not a nation? Of course not. There is a difference between citizenship (membership in the polity) and nationhood or peoplehood (membership in a cultural or ethnic group). It has nothing to do with the constitution of any of these countries. Jewish is a peoplehood.

[oberliner]

163. It is the same

This is the crux of the problem that you anti-hasbarists can't get around.

Israel is just the name that was decided on for the Jewish state.

[oberliner]

165. It's a basic and undisputed fact

Look at the founding documents of Israel. Look at the UN transcripts at the time. The reference was always to a Jewish State. That was what it was called up until the point that Israel was decided on as the name of that state.

I'm not even sure what argument you are trying to make.

[aranthus]

172. Actually it's identical.

All citizens of France are not ethnically French. However, French culture and peoplehood are the foundation of the French state. So there are citizens of France who don't share the majority culture. Not all citizens of Israel are Jewish, but Jewish culture and peoplehood is the foundation of the state. The only difference is that the Jewish state is not named after the current name for the culture. It's named after the ancient name for the Jewish people, Israelites. So France is a French state the way that Israel is a Jewish state. That is they are dominated by a particular ethnic and cultural group.

[aranthus]

176. You clearly didn't read what I wrote

Saying that not all French citizens are culturally French says nothing about the French Constitution and laws. It is the reality of French society. By the way what's the difference between being a French citizen and a French national. I believe they mean the same thing; citizenship. But Being a French national doesn't mean being ethnically or culturally French. It's just a citizenship status.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

185. They seem to be falling apart trying to defend the indefensible lately.

Those that aren't defending the indefensible are trying to defend their confederates with moral shortcomings.

Neither one is working. It's just a lot of keystone cops.

[aranthus]

186. Sadly, I was right.

You do condemn what you don't care to understand.

I will try to make this as clear as I can for everyone else though.

US citizen equals US national. French citizen equals French national. Israeli citizen equals Israeli national. No difference. IN that sense, "national" is synonymous with "citizen." Just to clear, however, "nation," is also the synonym for a peoplehood. That's why they are called Nation States; because they are built around a peoplehood.

But French citizen does not equal ethnically or culturally French, and it is French culture that is the foundation of the French state. Non-ethnic French have the same civil rights as ethnic French, but they don't get to control the culture, and the French state has the right to, and does, pass laws to protect, maintain and nurture French culture, because that's what states are about. Just as France is the culturally French state, Israeli is the culturally Jewish state.

I hope that's clear enough for everyone else.

[azurnoir]

187. You speak of culture as though it is a static thing in that you are wrong

all cultures are quite dynamic, meaning they change as the population that lives within them change

also I note you talk about nationality so let's take the French for instance is someone who's Great-grandparents were born in say Germany not French by nationality at this point? Same goes for someone who's ancestors were born in Algeria over time what is considered a 'nationality' changes or how far back in your mind must one be able to trace their ancestry to France to be able to qualify as French in your opinion?

[aranthus]

189. Believe me I know this.

But there is a huge difference between a culture changing on its own and being destroyed by conquest or other outside forces.

As for your question, the answer depends on the culture you are talking about. In the US, you can be considered "American" within a generation. In Japan, unless you are ethnically Japanese, you are likely to always be considered "gaijin," an outsider. Europe stands somewhere between those extremes, depending on the individual country.

[azurnoir]

258. Interesting comment

"But there is a huge difference between a culture changing on its own and being destroyed by conquest or other outside forces. "

that's nice except for one thing, when a culture is changing as they are now quite rapidly those opposed to that change make the exact same claim-in fact you may not know this but in America we have a newish political faction that bases itself on the same principle-they call themselves the Tea Party they are based on steeped in fear of this

http://proof.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/17/visualizing-change/

I would say the same is true the world over even in Japan

[oberliner]

191. "Menachem Begin explains..."

Wow.

[azurnoir]

2. so the US withdrew it's support of the partition in favor of one state

yep that certainly is glossed over

[oberliner]

3. It's glossed over because it's BS

This author is shoveling a lot of crap - this is one of the many.

United States Proposal for Temporary United Nations Trusteeship for Palestine
Statement by President Truman, March 25, 1948

The United States has proposed to the Security Council a temporary United Nations trusteeship for Palestine to provide a government to keep the peace. Such trusteeship was proposed only after we had exhausted every effort to find a way to carry out partition by peaceful means. Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C3AFF48D711D26158525715400730A30

[azurnoir]

5. actually it's not BS your own link shows that

and while it says temporary weren't the land divisions in the Oslo accords supposed to be temporary too?

[aranthus]

8. Where do you get that?

There is nothing in the link that even suggests support for a one state solution. Instead, the US sought a trusteeship to create a peaceful partition.

[azurnoir]

10. oh word mince yummy what kind of sauce goes with that? is served with rice or pasta?

[aranthus]

12. So you made it up, can't defend it, and now retreat to derision. n/t

[azurnoir]

13. Nope but you are welcome to claim that :)

[oberliner]

19. Maybe read it again

I don't think you understood the text.

[azurnoir]

23. I understood the text vquite well maybe you hope if you keep this up long enough

the separation between the comments will be great enough so that no one else knows

[oberliner]

24. OK

To the half dozen or so people following our exchange, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

[azurnoir]

29. you text which I will repost here suggested a temporay trusteeship

over Mandate Palestine in effect making it temporarily one state

Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan but as an effort to fill the vacuum soon to be created by the termination of the mandate on May 15. The trusteeship does not prejudice the character of the final political settlement. It would establish the conditions of order which are essential to a peaceful solution.

how this would have wound up is anyone's guess, and as I pointed out above like Oslo just how temporary would it have been?

[Shaktimaan]

35. Yes, but it clearly states...

"Trusteeship is not proposed as a substitute for the partition plan"

meaning the US expects the partition plan to be implemented following this stop-gap solution.

"how this would have wound up is anyone's guess, and as I pointed out above like Oslo just how temporary would it have been? "

So what? That's not relevant to the point we are debating. You said that the US withdrew its support for the partition in favor of one state. What part of the quote above stating the exact opposite in clear terms are you misunderstanding. We aren't discussing what MAY have occurred if history cleaved in a different direction. That's a nonsensical debate. We are just talking about US policy, which was clearly not abandoning partition for single state.

[azurnoir]

38. yes and Oslo accords weren't supposed to be permanent borders either

but they are being treated as though they are, at least by one party, and no I did not say that it was worded as a question to the OP which does state that, someone else latched on too it, as you

[Scootaloo]

28. That's actually a really interesting document. Thanks, Oberliner.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. Thanks for the kick.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

92. I understand that game, delrem, and thank you.

[shira]

101. You miss me? Seems I'm in your head....

You just don't like having your views challenged or exposed as bigoted and hypocritical. I think you need to ask yourself WHY your views are so easily discredited and exposed for the crap they are. It's because they're not in any way progressive or leftwing. That's what you get from quoting pro-PLO and Hamas sources and drinking that Kool-Aid. The views you espouse here about I/P are about as batshit regressive, rightwing, and vile as it gets. Duh...they're coming from regressive, zany and vile rightwingers in the Hamas and PLO camps, so there's no surprise there.

You're on a liberal board here where rightwing, regressive views like those easily get trashed, daily. You need to realize your views are in no way leftwing, progressive, or liberal and THAT's why your views are not shared by any elected Dems in the USA. THAT's why your views are so easily debunked. THAT's why it's so difficult for you guys to answer the simplest questions. You have no answers. You know your views are shit, but like religious fanatics who can't justify their views you keep on.

I personally think it's fascinating to see this type of mentality here on a liberal board. On rightwing, bigoted boards I expect it. Here, not so much...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

309. Shira, just because you scream something is true does not make it so.

You've been getting fairly shrill with your unfounded personal accusations.

Perhaps you need a break from DU?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

303. Yes, I remember it well, and the only thing I can impart is that every time

they want to play that game you have to break from their game. Restate the OP and call them out on their horse shit for all DUers to see.

[King_David]

111. "I have the entire hasbara on ignore, so to read threads I use incognito"

LOL

Yes this makes sense , you have them on ignore but you read them " incognito "?

[King_David]

199. You should try the DU lounge,

Seems the depth of debate your looking for....

[King_David]

203. Try the lounge , you will like it there

Hollywood , magazines , gardening , hobbies , flower arranging , bird watching all are also enjoyable .

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

210. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[King_David]

215. I may just do that BUT with you guys ,

All the oobladi oobladah ... Hasbaridah Hashanah ha tovah hasbarah hasbaristaaaaaa..broken record.

And the apartheid apartheid apartheid gefilta fish geshmeerte matzah shuffle ...

The repeated pronouncement from the Abbott and Costello duo of ignoring all of us and then kibitzing heavily thereafter ...

It looks like you guys really need some light conversation .. Hence my advice to you and Delrem ...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

216. You can always put us on ignore, dave, if the truth is uncomfortable to you.

[King_David]

223. That's you 2... that keep telling is we all on ignore

LOL

I don't have anyone on ignore

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

226. "That's you 2... that keep telling is we all on ignore"

More disinformation from you. I guess that is what passes for honesty with you?

[King_David]

228. ' have the entire hasbara on ignore,'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49020

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

235. That's not me, dave. That is somebody else.

Perhaps I was wrong about your being close to royalty. You certainly wear the crown of the court jester with magnificent grace.

[bravenak]

251. Oh, snap!

[King_David]

274. What do you mean ?

[shira]

52. When 800,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands, including Judea/Samaria, was that a Nakba?

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Does that Nakba continue when Jews are denied living within an area (Judea/Samaria) they had lived in for thousands of years, until they were ethnically cleansed in 1948?

Or is that not a Nakba?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

54. There you go again, poor Shira, with the false equivalency BS again.

And for the DU audience...


Shira seems to want to use the bankrupt argument that it is justifiable for the Nabka, or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis, to happen simply because other countries did it to them.

That is as absurd a policy as I can think of; especially coming from a person that has never accepted that Israel is in violation of basic human rights with its brute-force colonization of the West Bank.

The term "Never again" only applies to some while others can feel the full wrath of apartheid.


Shame on you, Shira for ignoring the obvious.

[shira]

55. Not an answer. You deflected. So once again....

Was it a nakba for the 800,000 Jews ethnically cleansed out of Arab lands, as well as those tossed out of historic Judea and Samaria?

[azurnoir]

56. Jews tossed out of Arab countrues along with those tosse out of

Judea an Samaria the settler name for the West Bank found homes recently vacated by Palestinian Arabs waiting for them in Israel, so a Nakba yes but with different results

[oberliner]

57. I hope you realize the irony of this post

It is replete with it.

[azurnoir]

58. spell it out for us please :)

[oberliner]

59. Will do

Jews were forced out of countries where they had lived in some cases for many generations. But rather than living as refugees and holding on to the keys and the deeds of their homes, they started a new life in a new country and came to terms with the fact that they would not be able to live in the land where their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents had lived.

[azurnoir]

60. yes but there was no one place where the former Palestinians could go was there?

no one in the area was looking to make a rapid change in demographics other than Israel

[aranthus]

61. The only reason that Egypt, Jordan and other places were closed to them

is that the Arab states wanted to perpetuate the problem to use as a weapon against Israel. Of course there were places that they could go.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. "Of course there were places that they could go."

Unfortunately none of them are known as Palestine.

But please proceed, aranthus. Tell the DU community why the Palestinians should be kicked out of their ethnic homeland.

[aranthus]

64. First they weren't "kicked out of the their ethnic homeland."

Most were moved from one part of Palestine to another. so your premise is false. Why did Jordan and Egypt not allow the Palestinians to have a state in the part of Palestine controlled by them? Better yet, why did the Palestinians not demand it?

As to the rest of your question, the Palestinians would not have become refugees if they had not tried to take all of Palestine for themselves and make the Jews refugees.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. Tell that lie to the Palestinians that Israel refuses to allow back onto their own lands.

And then you come back with this...

Most were moved from one part of Palestine to another...

This isn't about Jordan or Egypt, nice try at deflection, but it is about Israel destroying what is Palestine.

Jesus, what a bunch of amateurs I have to argue with. You guys are really the gift that keeps on giving.

[aranthus]

69. It's about exposing your ludicrous rhetoric.

You claimed that the Palestinians were "kicked out of their ethnic homeland." But most ended up in the West Bank and Gaza, which is Palestine. Your original claim was completely false.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

71. You're really not that good at this.

In act you are downright horrible at it.

Firstly I said this.

But please proceed, aranthus. Tell the DU community why the Palestinians should be kicked out of their ethnic homeland.

Instead of addressing why you believe that it is alright for Israel, or other cheering on Israel, to treat Palestinians as other countries have treated Jews you doubled down on being disingenuous about what I had written.


You really are an amateur. Perhaps you can be the first mate to Cap'n SoS on the floatilla to Tibet.

[aranthus]

74. No, I pointed out that the assumption in your question was false.

It's not my fault that you didn't ask a good fair honest question. Second, the Israelis didn't treat the Palestinians as Jews have been treated. As has already been shown, the Jews were compelled to expel some Palestinians because of the war that the Palestinians made on the Jews. In fact, all of the Palestinian refugees, expelled or not, became so as a direct result of the Palestinian war against the Jews. Did the Jews make war against any of the countries that expelled them (and worse). No they did not. So again, your equivalence is completely false.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

84. All I see from you is excuses.

the Israelis didn't treat the Palestinians as Jews have been treated

Yet that is what SOS Shira was alluding to, and you came to her defense.

the Jews were compelled to expel some Palestinians

all of the Palestinian refugees, expelled or not, became so as a direct result of the Palestinian war against the Jews

And Israel continues to take their land, erase their very existence.

[aranthus]

90. You don't have an argument here.

Me: the Israelis didn't treat the Palestinians as Jews have been treated


You: Yet that is what SOS Shira was alluding to, and you came to her defense.

[font color=blue]No. That is not what Shira alluded to. that is the false motive and argument that you attributed to Shira. All Shira asked was whether the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was "Nakhba." Again, the Jews in Arab countries were not making war against their home countries. The Palestinians were making war against the Jews. That is a huge difference.[/font]


Me: "the Jews were compelled to expel some Palestinians" and all of the Palestinian refugees, expelled or not, became so as a direct result of the Palestinian war against the Jews"

You: And Israel continues to take their land, erase their very existence.

[font color=blue]So instead of dealing with what I actually posted, you sidestep and bring up something else. The fact that the Jews had to expel some Palestinians or else lose the war for their country and their lives is not an excuse. It's a reason. Or do you think that the Jews should have simply surrendered to the mercy of the Arabs?[/font]

[King_David]

108. Some choice quotes and real 'mature' debating technique from R. Daneel Olivaw on this thread alone .

'what a bunch of amateurs '

'You're really not that good at this'

'In act you are downright horrible at it. '(sic)

'You really are an amateur.'

'Amateurs, all. '


'You really are horrible at spreading the BS around'

'Just go away and be lame someplace else'

'

Yes real mature

[azurnoir]

75. interesting it seems you'd like to see the Palestinian people disappear via dispersal

sort of like the victims of Katrina

[aranthus]

77. The fact that you have to make up false motivations for me shows the bankruptcy of your argument.

So let's be clear. Most Palestinian refugees moved to other parts of Palestine. Specifically Gaza (controlled by Egypt), and the West Bank (controlled by Jordan). Or they could have got there if those areas were allowed to become a Palestinian state. But Egypt and Jordan kept those areas for themselves, prevented the creation of a Palestinian state, and kept the Palestinians in camps. If it is anyone that wants the Palestinians to disappear it's the Jordanians and Egyptians.

[azurnoir]

78. sorry but I am not suggesting that Palestinians be dispersed and absorbed by countries spanning

the ME region an when it comes to assigning motive one would have to really work to beat your post

[aranthus]

79. Nor am I. You are making a false accusation

I'm pointing out that the Palestinians were denied a place to go in Palestine by their brother Arabs.

[azurnoir]

80. sorry I thought this was your comment

The only reason that Egypt, Jordan and other places were closed to them

is that the Arab states wanted to perpetuate the problem to use as a weapon against Israel. Of course there were places that they could go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=48992

both dispersal and nefarious motive assigned

[aranthus]

81. Because Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza.

I'm talking about the areas that they controlled.

[azurnoir]

82. yes hindsight is quite 20/20 isn't it? n/t

[aranthus]

83. Huh? n/t

[azurnoir]

113. yeah how inconvenient the Arab states did not solve Israel's problem for them

perhaps though there is more to it than that the entire region was coming out of Colonial rule after a war ya know WW2 and then perhaps there are the Palestinians themselves who wanted to go home and had every right to do just that, but were not allowed

If indeed the Arab states wanted a political weapon to use against Israel then Israel has fulfilled that wish, with some gusto I may add, all it had to do to defang was allow the Palestinians back into their rightful homes as it was ordered to do in 1948 by UN resolution 194

[oberliner]

114. I hope you realize the irony of your post

The subject line alone is rich with it, but this:

"after a war ya know WW2 and then perhaps there are the Palestinians themselves who wanted to go home and had every right to do just that, but were not allowed"

Serious steeped in it.

[azurnoir]

115. yes lot's of people wanted to go home some were not allowed in the aftermath of WW2

but that does not erase UN resolution 194 does it?

[aranthus]

116. This one is just breathtakingly wrong.

Excuse me, but the Palestinians attack the Jews sparking the war that made them refugees and it's the Jews' problem? The Arab states join the war against them causing more refugees and it's Israel's problem? Egypt and Jordan conquer territory that the Palestinians claim for theirs, and instead keep it for themselves and it's Israel's problem? The Arabs are the major cause of the refugee issue and it's Israel's problem? That's some of the most nutball logic I've ever read. Not to mention wickedly ironic as oberliner has already written.

And you have been on this board too long to be ignorant of the UNGA 194. It's a General Assembly Resolution which means it doesn't order anything. It's a suggestion. It doesn't state rights and it's not law.

[azurnoir]

117. thanks for the history lesson or at least your version of history and legal proclomations too

I've been on this board long enough to know a few things and one is that the version of how the Palestinians became refugees is about as accurate as the pre1980's version of Custer's Last Stand and what led up to it taught in American schools

[aranthus]

120. Your denial is noted.

Do you have any proof that my history is wrong? I presented evidence, both from Morris and from DuPuy. You haven't shown me anything except denial. And are you at least willing to admit that your claim that the UN "ordered" Israel to take back refugees is pure fantasy?

[azurnoir]

125. I believe honest historians including Morris have admitted most Palestinians fled in fear of their l

and Resolution 194 is not pure fantasy it is fact

[aranthus]

128. All refugees flee in fear of their lives.

Wars cause refugees. Most refugees aren't intentionally expelled. They run for their lives from the war zones. That is exactly what happened in most cases in the 1947-49 war. That means that the responsibility for the refugee issue rests on a number of people, but definitely on the Palestinians who started the war.

As for 194, either you are deliberately ignoring what I posted because you know you've been caught, or else you are simply not paying attention. You claimed that the UN "ordered" Israel to allow return of the refugees by way of 194. That is nonsense, and you know it, or at least should. The General Assembly can't order any member state to do anything. So assuming that 194 even says what you claim, so what?

[azurnoir]

130. here is the part of resolution 194 in question and how it has been spun by Israel

But here is the the part of Resolution 194 in question it's article 11

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations

Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees "should be permitted" to return to their homes at the "earliest practicable date" and this recommendation applies only to those "wishing to... live at peace with their neighbors".The one exception was at the Lausanne Conference, 1949, where a Joint Protocol was accepted by the Israeli government and the Arab delegates on May 12, 1949. After Israel had become a member of the United Nations, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees, but this number included 50,000 refugees who already found their way back to their homes in Israel. This offer was quickly withdrawn by Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

[aranthus]

137. 194 is not the specific issue.

What is at issue is your claim that a UN General Assembly Resolution is an "order." why do you believe that the General Assembly has the power and authority to order any government to do anything? Answer that, and then we can talk about 194.

[azurnoir]

139. co-operative governments follow the UNGA's resolutions

however short of a military action or possibly sanctions really there is not much that the UN can do to enforce it's resolutions,
military action is a bit overboard, however sanctions would have happened by now save one thing that being the US's veto power, which it has used a number of times, in much the same manor as Russia protects Syria albeit that is more recent and less on going as the US's protection of Israel

considering all this though why all the whining about how the UN is so so mean to Israel, when all it can do is talk and well the response is a sort of nose thumbing?

[aranthus]

156. Governments do what they want or what they are forced to do.

[font color=blue]Let's get down to the nitty gritty. One of the differences between us is that you believe that if the UN General Assembly suggests that a government should do something, then that is the right thing for that government to do. In other words, that the UN General Assembly can make moral declarations, and can declare that peoples have rights. Why do you believe what you believe? I believe that the UN has no such authority at all. Of course, my position opens me up to your question.[/font]

considering all this though why all the whining about how the UN is so so mean to Israel, when all it can do is talk and well the response is a sort of nose thumbing?

[font color=blue]This is a very good question. Here is my honest answer. Because there are many people who believe as you do. Because of that, UN resolutions have tremendous propaganda value, even though they have no actual moral value. They are a major weapon in the war against the existence of the Jewish state. And please don't accuse me of hasbara. That is the fundamental nature of the war as perceived by my side of it. That propaganda must be fought. Jews have been victimized by lies too many times in the past to let them go unchallenged now.[/font]

[azurnoir]

158. citing an actual UN resolution is nothing but anti-Jewish propaganda and victimization?

okay then I'll leave it at your comment because it speaks volumes

[aranthus]

161. Not always, but often unfortunately.

The "Zionism is racism" resolution for example was blatantly antisemitic. But the larger point that you fail to acknowledge or resond to is that UN resolutions are primarily propaganda tools rather than moral statements. So if they are anti-Israel simply because of the politics of the time, they still need to be countered.

[shira]

118. You're conversing w/ someone who blames Israel for Lebanese apartheid vs. Palestinians

Children of refugees worldwide (including those within Lebanon) are recognized as CITIZENS of such nations, except for Palestinians whose offspring (several generations now) are denied professional jobs, land ownership, public schooling, etc.

All Israel's fault, mind you.

I get the feeling if Lebanon were to just kill all the Palestinians there, that would be Israel's fault as well according to our opponents.

[aranthus]

121. Not the only one.

Scootaloo compared me to Ernst Zundel for daring to dispute the propaganda version of the Nakhba. Delrem and R. Daneel are of a piece. Same MO.

[oberliner]

112. The West Bank and Gaza

Which is where most of them did end up going. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Either of which could have established an independent Palestinian state in one or both of those territories at the time if they so chose.

[sabbat hunter]

70. and conversely

wouldn't there have been vacated homes in what is the west bank to be found by Palestinian Arabs? After all the Jews that left the WB during the war for independence didn't take their homes with them.

[azurnoir]

76. are you claiming that 700,000+ Jews were living in the WB prior

to 1947? Interesting because that's the number needed for the sort of parity your speaking of here be sure to provide with those numbers now okay?

[sabbat hunter]

94. obviously not

but there were some homes correct? so couldn't at least some have moved in to the homes?

Bottom line is, there is not going to be a RoR for Palestinians who lived inside the green line prior to 1947. But what should happen instead is monetary compensation for land lost. And any Jews who lost their homes either in the West Bank, or any Arab countries should be compensated as well by the various governments.

Anyone who thinks that there will be a snowballs chance in hell of a RoR for the 700k Palestinians (plus of course their families) to Israel is deluding themselves (And for the record I do not think you are one of them).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. And again Shira wants to conflate what Israel does and what other nations do...

It's the only way Shira can justify Israeli brute-force occupation.

Again, Shame on you Shira.

[aranthus]

65. No. Shira is merely pointing out the blatant double standard on your side. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

67. Shira is entering into a false equivalency, and you are carrying the water for her.

Amateurs, all.

[aranthus]

68. It's not a complete equivalency, but how is it false?

After all, the Jewish victims were completely innocent. They, unlike the Palestinians, hadn't started a war against their neighbors. So the question remains. If what the Palestinians experienced is a "Nakhba," then why isn't the treatment of the Jews considered the same by your side?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

72. "After all, the Jewish victims were completely innocent."

But I guess that Palestinians are all guilty?


You really are horrible at spreading the BS around.

[aranthus]

73. You'd do better responding to what I actually wrote.

It may seem easier to just make things up to respond to, but it doesn't look good.

So let's start again. How is Shira's equivalence false?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. Oh, I can easily read into what you are implying.

[aranthus]

86. But you can't seem to answer a simple question.

How was Shira engaged in a false equivalence?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

87. I already posted my answer.

Just go away and be lame someplace else.

[aranthus]

88. No. You evaded a serious question.

This is as close as you have come to giving an answer. From your post #54.

"Shira seems to want to use the bankrupt argument that it is justifiable for the Nabka, or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis, to happen simply because other countries did it to them.

That is as absurd a policy as I can think of; especially coming from a person that has never accepted that Israel is in violation of basic human rights with its brute-force colonization of the West Bank."

See. This is why you should actually respond to what people post instead of making up false motives to smear them with. Shira absolutely did not make the argument that the Nakhba was justified by what the Arab states did to the Jews in those countries. You made that up to evade the question. All Shira asked was if the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was also a Nakhba? It does not follow that either one justifies the other, and nothing Shira wrote made that argument. So you haven't answered Shira's question at all. You just claimed that it was a false equivalence. And you haven't answered my question either. If you really think that you have, then at least state the number of the post so I can see what it is you are talking about.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

91. Well excuse me all over the place that my answer doen't fit into your self righteous outrage.

If you go back to the OP that Shira does her best song and dance to deflect from you would see that the Nakba refers to the Palestinians suffering under the Dalet Plan, etc.

But sure as shit, Shira has to make it about about "800,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab lands, including Judea/Samaria"; which conflates two different things in order to obscure Israeli ethnic cleansing.

To Shira it appears that nobody suffers as much unless it is her tribe, and any post that actually shows how bad the Palestinians have had it over the last 60 years under Israeli meets with her screams of outrage.

She could have acknowledged the Nakba, but that would have been too honest. She could have tried to talk about it, but that would have been too brave. So instead she does what she does best, and that is complain about anything else to distract and distort away from the original OP: creating false equivalency.

And along comes aranthus into the mix to defend her rambling nonsense while stumbling far from the finish line.

Even a crumbling block of cement would have done a better job of arguing Shria's position than you have been able to do. All you have done is reinforce the narrative of distort and distract.


So how about that Nakba that some want to distract from...?

[aranthus]

93. You didn't answer.

All you did was accuse Shira of saying something that she did not say. Shira's point was that the pro-Palestinians think it's perfectly good to jump and scream about Palestinian refugees and then they are completely silent about the similar number of Jewish refugees. It's a double standard.

Excuse me but where does Shira deny that there were refugees? I certainly don't. What we deny is the claim that all of the refugees were intentionally expelled by the Israelis simply to get rid of them. We deny that claim because it isn't true. So shira wasn't being dishonest at all. And please, when any one of us tries to explain what really happened, we get compared to Ernst Zundel simply because we don't swallow Palestinian propaganda whole. Go to the top of the thread and see how I and Shaktiman were treated for doing exactly that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. Now back to the Nakba...

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

[King_David]

106. You can not answer Aranthus can you?

Your answer to him was real intelligent and substantial....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

107. "Your answer to him was real intelligent and substantial."

Thanks, dave, of course it was.

Now let's all get back to watching the hasbara smokescreen try and disrupt discussion from the Nakba.

[aranthus]

109. You don't want to answer my question? Fine. Let's talk about the Nakba.

Here is what really happened.

1. The Palestinians started a war against the Jews of Palestine. See, Elusive Victory (1992), Trevor DuPuy, pages 20-23. Also, according to Wikipedia, citing to Benny Morris: The first casualties of the war were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin at 8:20 on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa, led by Seif al-Din Abu Kishk, ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. Later that morning, Arab snipers began to fire from Jaffa's Manshiya neighbourhood into southern Tel Aviv, killing at least one person. Shots were also fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#cite_note-Morris_2008.2C_p._76-7 .

2. In order to win that war, and maintain their state and their lives, the Israelis had to expel some, but not all of the Palestinians who became refugees. See Morris. http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

3. Most of the refugees were moved to areas still in Palestine, that is the West Bank and Gaza, which came under the control of Egypt and Jordan respectively. Those countries simply kept the territory for themselves, in part to insure that there would not be a Palestinian state.

Does this mean that Israel is blameless? No, it does not. It does mean that the version of the Nakhba portrayed by Arab propaganda is a lie. Does that mean that the refugees "deserved it?" No, it does not. It does mean that they started the war that caused their refugee status. There would not have been any refugees without that war. Did the Palestinians get a raw deal? Yes, they did, primarily from their own leaders and their supposed brother Arabs. Does some solution need to be found? Of course. But falsely placing all the blame on Israel and demanding full right of return, which would effectively destroy the Jewish state, doesn't move the ball forward. It just gives the Israelis reason to believe that the Arabs still seek their destruction above all else.

[shira]

119. They don't want to discuss the Nakba either. They hate having their views challenged. n/t

[aranthus]

157. Their views can't tolerate contact with reality. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

167. Yeah, from Benny Morris...

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

BM:
I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Q:
You do not condemn them morally?

BM:
No.

Q:
They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

BM:
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Q:
And that was the situation in 1948?

BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.


Source: Whose Holy City?: Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
By Colin Chapman



Question. Can anybody really take you seriously?

[aranthus]

188. Shaktimaan has already beaten your argument to death.

See the argument above beginning at #36. I'm not going to rehash it. You are misreading Morris and history. He's quite clear that the expulsions were necessary to win the war. A war that he contends that the Palestinians themselves started. He's not saying that the expulsions were necessary under every possible circumstance; only the one where the Jews had to win the war. No war, no expulsions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

195. The excuses build up pretty fast with you guys.

You should all give yourselves a pat on the back for at least trying.

[shira]

96. You still haven't answered a simple question. It's obvious u don't give a shit about the 800K....

....Jewish refugees of that same era.

I've repeatedly stated I'm for Israel offering the original refugees return, and I have no problem with monetary compensation, so long as the Jewish refugees receive compensation as well.

Do you have a problem with that?

Also, do you have a problem with Arab regimes using the refugees and their offspring as political pawns for the past 65 years?

Simple questions. Simple answers.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

97. See reply #89 for reference. ;)

[shira]

99. IOW, you guys don't like when your views are challenged & exposed as hypocritical or vile.

You'd be better off with your fellow anti-zio cultists at Mondoweiss, where no one will challenge you.

As it is, you're at DU where no elected congressional democrats or senators agree with your extreme fringe, ignorant, hypocritical and vile views. And you wonder what's wrong with your opponents here whose views on I/P actually match that of elected Dems.

Must frustrate you to no end that there's no one in the Democratic Party you can relate to on I/P.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

100. Now back to the Nabka and your long attempts of untruths....

[shira]

102. What about it? What else would you like to know? I've already told you....

...I'm for the original refugees right of return. I'm for compensation for all the families of the refugees.

Now why can't you answer simple questions directly related to refugee issues?

You can't justify your views. Perhaps you've never been challenged before on any of your beliefs, whether in grade school, college, or the real world. Tell me, do you ever challenge other people's views....question them, show them how hypocritical, obnoxious, bigoted, or ignorant they are? Have you ever done that? Or do you just accept any random argument other folks make? Do you hate people who have the audacity to question your most cherished beliefs? I'm not even talking I/P now....

Tell you what - let's discuss a topic not at all related to I/P. I'll play devil's advocate, challenge you on it and force you to justify and defend your views. Is that alright with you? Are you up to it?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

103. "I'm for the original refugees right of return." What a convenient joke.

The Nakba took place 60 years ago, and you are lovingly on record for the surviving original refugees to return. How many are still alive?

And as for compensation of the outcast families what are you suggesting that Israel offer them? A middle finger salute? A pittance compared to a homeland?

What a convenient joke.

The specter of the Nakba is still freakishly and comically strong with the 500k illegal Israeli settlers now living in the West Bank (with plans for another 500k invaders) on ground once belonging to Palestinians, and the ever so well-meaning Shira ignores the descendants of the refugees.

What a convenient joke you tell, Shira.

And speaking of return why is it that the descendants of the refugees are barred from return while people who have never lived in that area of the world for millennium are welcomed back without question? It's just the continued double standard that you protect with your counterfeit caring for the refugees of the Nabka.

[shira]

104. Only the originals are refugees. In no other situation worldwide are offspring considered refugees.

There is no law on the books, no UN resolution...nothing calling for a legal RoR for descendants of refugees.

I'm for whatever fair compensation is agreed upon, so long as there's also compensation for 800K Jewish refugees from that era that's included in an Arab/Israel peace agreement.

And speaking of return why is it that the descendants of the refugees are barred from return while people who have never lived in that area of the world for millennium are welcomed back without question?

And with this question, it appears you're against the existence of a Jewish state. Israel is a haven for anyone who would've been targeted as a Jew by the Nazis (whether half Jewish, 1/4, 1/8 or whatever).

=======

And you still refuse to answer the simplest questions.

What does that tell you about your views, when you find yourself utterly incapable of defending them?

Tells you your views are indefensible shit that can't be justified, right? You could scour every vile anti-zionist website out there and not find decent answers to the simplest questions posed to you here. Ask yourself why that is. How embarrassing for you. I almost feel sorry for you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

105. Another convenient untruth from Shira. Let's look at UN Resolution 3236. C. 1974.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3236

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;
4. Recognizes that the Palestinian people is a principal party in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;
6. Appeals to all States and international organizations to extend their support to the Palestinian people in its struggle to restore its rights, in accordance with the Charter;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to establish contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization on all matters concerning the question of Palestine;

Let's see that again. inalienable right of the Palestinians to return Palestinians. Not your limited view of the world, Shira.


I applaud your Godwinning the thread so soon; crying about imagined anti-Israel nonsense when it is really about Israeli brute-force colonialism. I guess that some believe that it is alright to shove their settlers, settlers that have been removed from the region for scores of generations, down the throat of another people while at the same time denying the second and third generations of Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes.

It's really amazing that you bring up the UN...the same UN that you hate and have called...crap, bigoted, discriminatory I believe.

What is even more amazing is that you are getting sloppy, Shira.

You freely admit that, and I quote you here regarding entrants to Israel "whether half Jewish, 1/4, 1/8 or whatever" holds more weight than the right of return of the Palestinians that were chased out of their homes and villages in Palestine 60 years ago. One group of oppressed people seem to be more valid than another group that they themselves oppress.


But please proceed, Shira. Tell DU how a few generations of Palestinians have less or no rights of return in your eyes while settlers are seemingly encouraged to occupy their land: outside the borders of Israel.

[shira]

110. UNGA resolutions are suggestions, not law. Try again...

There is no law on the books making refugee children refugees themselves. The only people in the history of this planet who are wrongly considered that way are Palestinians.

Find another people in the history of this planet whose parents or grandparents were refugees and that status was then passed onto them.

Can you do it? Of course not.

One group of oppressed people seem to be more valid than another group that they themselves oppress.


But please proceed, Shira. Tell DU how a few generations of Palestinians have less or no rights of return in your eyes while settlers are seemingly encouraged to occupy their land: outside the borders of Israel.

Now this is rich coming from you, as someone who doesn't believe 800,000 Jews have the same valid rights as Palestinian refugees. Jewish refugees are less human to you.

Hell, you don't even believe the refugees in Lebanon suffering under apartheid conditions are worth your time.

So why don't you explain the following to DU:

1. Why you could care less about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon suffering under apartheid conditions for generations
2. Why you could care less about 800,000 Jewish refugees who acquired that status about the same time as Palestinians.

I mean, if you don't care about refugees...and it's clear you use them only as a stick to beat Israel...then why should anyone else care about the Nakba and some Palestinian refugees?

Oh yeah...you don't answer questions. You can't. You don't like it when others challenge your views. Now go on and cry to an administrator because Shira criticized your views. Think of a reason, any reason. I can almost see the tears streaming down your outraged, pouting face.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

122. That's nice dear. God bless your soul. Bye bye.

There is no law on the books, no UN resolution...nothing calling for a legal RoR for descendants of refugees.

-SoS Shira

[shira]

131. UNGAR 194 isn't International Law and it doesn't mention offspring of refugees....

It can actually be taken to mean refugees in general (including the 800,000 Jews of that era who were also recent refugees). IOW, it doesn't even mention Palestinian or Arab refugees.

Wrong again.

Umm, derp?

[oberliner]

123. Do you know which countries voted against that resolution?

Most of North America, South America, and Europe voted no or abstained.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

124. Ah, the water carrier has arrived.

I believe that SoS Shira needs a spritzer with a twist.

Now that s/he has been tied up in a little knot with all the spin without verification along comes that home team to distract from his/her flub.

Shall I bring up UN Resolution 194 or others to swat the silly out of SoS Shira's retort and your "fools rush in" can do spirit?

[oberliner]

126. I don't know what anything you wrote here means

I was just pointing out that there was a decided lack of support for that resolution across much of North America, South America, and Europe.

Also, it was a General Assembly resolution and thus not binding.

And I'm not sure if you are making this claim or not, but I don't believe it is meant to include the refugees' descendants - but I could be wrong on that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

127. Thank your for your personal beliefs.

It is personal beliefs that have given the Palestinians the gift of the Nakba and stolen land, raised olive groves, being shot in the back, being tortured and being ejected from their homeland.

but I don't believe it is meant to include the refugees' descendants - but I could be wrong on that.

It is downright fucking freakishly and horrifically comical that a group of people can demand their return to a land that they have not inhabited, as a fractious nation at best, for near two thousand years while denying the very same for a group of people that they have helped criminally push out who still remember their homes and country. What is even worse is for you to extrapolate what the UN really means by right of return while one, if they are Jewish would be able to obtain citizenship in Israel almost automatically while Palestinians who remember their homes live in modern day ghettos.

Really. Fucking shame on your mindset. Yes, you are fucking wrong on that. Israel has created the Palestinian diaspora, and continues to do so with colonialism and apartheid, while welcoming home people who have no modern ties to Israel.

Fekking hypocrites.

[shira]

132. Wow, nice rant. There's still no law on the books where descendants of refugees are refugees....

....who must be considered refugees and taken in. There's no historical precedent for it, ever. Not even once. Kids of refugees born in other nations are citizens of those nations. THAT is international law. If you don't support that (and you don't when it comes to Palestinians who desire citizenship in those lands) you're for apartheid vs. those refugees and their offspring.

But who cares how pissed off you are at the Jews; Jews who must take the blame for Palestinians starting a war that resulted in their refugee status?

You don't give a rip about 800K Jewish refugees from that time period, nor do you care about Palestinian refugees living in squalor and apartheid throughout the Arab mideast. So why should anyone else here care for Palestinian refugees when you apparently only use them as sticks to beat Israel?

====

To throw your own hypocrisy right back at you, take for example Jews ethnically cleansed from Judea/Samaria in 1948. I don't see you or your fellow orcs leading a campaign for Jewish refugees from those areas who have some lawful international right to return there. Why not? They're not human enough for you? The laws don't apply to them? Have they morphed into Nazi/Apartheid oppressors of Palestinians who are now unworthy of return?

Go on now, cry to mommy for being exposed here once again.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

134. "There's no historical precedent for it, ever." ...except for the creation of Israel...

You really are the gift that keeps on giving.

[shira]

140. Oh really? Jews inherit refugee status going back to the Babylonian/Roman expulsions?

No one inherits refugee status legally.

You're confused.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

142. No, shira, you are clutching at your hasbara pearls.

I just blew your feeble argument out of the water.


Explain the creation of Israel if not to give the Jewish diaspora a place to return to: thousands of years after their mass expulsion from the region.

After you cease hyperventilating, trying to find a way to drama yourself out of such a simple answer, please tell the DUers watching why Palestinians should be denied the right of return, as both living refugees and their progeny, to their own homeland: the very same right that Jews the world over can take for granted.

Nobody is confused, Shira, unless perhaps you are trying to confuse other DUers for dubious motives.

You are simply caught between my truth and your occupational dishonesty.

[shira]

143. You claim children of refugees are legit refugees themselves. There is no IHL stating such a thing.

So whenever you continue to refer to IHL and UN resolutions about children and grandchildren of refugees being refugees themselves, remember from now on that you're peddling bullshit and lying.

Now that THAT's out of the way...

Israel isn't keeping Palestinians out of their historic homeland when the vast majority of Palestinian refugees were, at worst, internally displaced WITHIN Palestine as a result of a war they initiated. So the vast majority of Palestinian refugees are ALREADY in their historic homeland, within Gaza and the W.Bank.

Your refusal to see it that way goes beyond mere ignorance. It's blatant denial.

And then there's your hypocrisy.....which refuses to allow Jews into parts of THEIR own historic homeland (Samaria/Judea). Why should anyone here lend an ear to your crying when you're WORSE than those you accuse of supporting ethnic cleansing?

Finally, when one people initiates a war against another, gambles, loses, and is expelled from that land, they cannot claim innocence, victimhood, and moreover, cannot say with any credibility they have the same legit rights to return as Jews expelled from Judea and Samaria, for example.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

147. My poor, poor frustrated and decpetional Shira....

My poor, poor frustrated and fallacious Shira....

When you compound deceptive misstatement after misstatement like these...

Israel isn't keeping Palestinians out of their historic homeland...

and

the vast majority of Palestinian refugees were, at worst, internally displaced...

and

which refuses to allow Jews into parts of THEIR own historic homeland

Here's the colonialist in Shira folks.

and the winner of tonight...

Finally, when one people initiates a war against another, gambles, loses, and is expelled from that land, they cannot claim innocence, victimhood, and moreover, cannot say with any credibility they have the same legit rights to return as Jews expelled from Judea and Samaria,

I guess that SoS Shira has forgotten that the Jews were expelled by the Romans for "initiating a war against the Romans", and they cannot claim innocence or victimhood, as Shira asserts that the Palestiniains can't; although her version of history needs a little clarification and a lot more truth.

Ahem...ethnic cleansing...

So in Shira's warped view of reality Palestinians living today have less rights than the descendants of revolting Israelites of two thousand years ago.



Now that's a nice way to twist logic into an otherwise frayed pretzel knot.

You heard it here from sectarian Shira folks. Living Palestinians have no rights compared to the ancestors of expelled Israelites, from millenniums past, who apparently have whatever rights they so desire.

[azurnoir]

141. about the status of children born to refugees from UNHCR

The well-being of children without citizenship is seriously at risk," said Ágnes Ambrus, UNHCR's protection officer in Hungary. "Without a legal bond with the state, they could be denied basic rights and services – including access to education and health care."

Glody caught one break when he was two months old. To help maintain family unity, he was granted refugee status, which ensures him the same rights Hungarian children have, with a few exceptions.

But while refugee status may seem to be the solution, it is not a lasting one.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child both state that everyone has the right to a nationality. In many cases, as with Congolese law, children automatically acquire the citizenship of their parents. But the situation of refugee children is particularly tricky because they are outside their home countries and cannot contact their authorities for proof of this legal bond. While many refugee families are never able to return home, some families still hope to do so one day.

Fortunately, Glody's refugee status provides him protection. For other refugees who are stateless, however, it is important that host countries grant citizenship to stateless children born on their territory.

http://www.unhcr.org/4efc695f6.html

it seems the children of refugees are granted refugee status

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

144. It appears that she has ignored you twice now.

[shira]

145. Descendants of Palestinian refugees somehow retain their refugee status even if....

...their parents became citizens of another nation (and they are citizens themselves). The Palestinian refugees are the only refugee population that has grown exponentially. When you can show another refugee population growing over the years, with children inheriting that status - and not just an individual case here and there - lemme know.

You have no problem with the Palestinian refugee problem getting worse over the years. You don't believe host nations have any responsibility to grant Palestinian children citizenship (despite your article saying so). That goes to show you support them remaining stateless & without equal rights.

Hell, most Palestinians were originally made "refugees" within Gaza and the W.Bank, which are parts of historic Palestine that make these "refugees" internally displaced at worst. It'd be like me being expelled from Massachusetts, having to settle instead in Rhode Island....claiming victimhood status along with my children, like forever and ever. Total bullshit.

[azurnoir]

146. soooo Ray Hanania is a refugee?

yes or no and proof please and your statement makes the constant whining about Arab countries not allowing Palestinians to become citizens simply and obviously just anti-Arab propaganda, because according to you it would not make any difference right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

149. "Arab countries not allowing Palestinians to become citizens"

Strangely, Israel has more in common with their Neighbors then perhaps they would like to admit?


Not really. Palestine doesn't exist in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

Palestine exists in the West Bank, Parts of Jerusalem and Gaza, but the Israelis will act like the hypocrites that they accuse their neighbors of being.

Oh, here's a map.





Let's watch the hypocrites whine.

[aranthus]

151. The "map" is utter nonsense.

Effectively debunked here: http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/andrew-sullivan-revises-history-again/37401/

To which I will add that the 1946 map is a blatant lie. According to the legend of the map, the green area represents "Palestinian owned land." Except most of the land of Western Palestine was owned by the government, not Palestinians. In fact, the amount of Arab owned land in Western Palestine was only a little more than that owned by the Jews, and the amount owned by Palestinians was only a fraction of that owned by the Arabs. Most of the Arab owned land was held by people living outside Palestine.

[oberliner]

153. Why is the second map of a "plan" that never actually happened?

Why is the the West Bank and Gaza labelled "Palestinian land" in the third map when those areas were actually occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively at that time?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

314. The Nakba took place against Palestinians by Zionsistas, shira.

You can go on, and on and on about what happens in other countries, but the fact remains is that the Nakba directly resulted in the Palestinian Diaspora.

[shira]

317. At the same time as the Palestinian Nakba, there was a Jewish Nakba as well....

More Jews than Palestinians were expelled from their lands.

It appears you think FAR less of the Jews of that time period than you do the Palestinians, when both populations suffered greatly.

Why is that?

Do you view them as oppressors who cannot possibly be victims?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

318. And again you conflate the twain.

Thank you for admitting that the Nakba happened and that it seemingly was at yhe hands of the zionistas.

[shira]

319. Conflate, how? Are the 800,000 Jews from that time period who were expelled....

...not to be compared in any way with Palestinian Nakba sufferers? If not, why not?

Do you see those 800,000 as the same zionistas responsible for the Palestinian nakba? So they cannot be victims too?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

320. Since it wasn't the Palestinians who were

expelling them the contrast is a poor one built on deception and revenge.

The excuse of "Somebody else expelled some of my brethren in a different country so I can do it to an indigenous population where I live" is a poor excuse; even for you.

But we understand that is how you operate.

[shira]

322. Who do u think expelled Jews out of the W.Bank and Gaza if not Palestinians? Come on.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 04:28 PM - Edit history (3)

Also, what happened to the Jews of that time was arguably worse. They didn't start a war anywhere, and yet they were kicked out.

Most Palestinians left on their own and some have come back into Israel over the years. Did u know there were refugee camps in Israel, but Israel chose to make citizens of Palestinians, unlike neighboring Arab states?

Not enough refugees were taken in by Israel for your tastes, but that courtesy wasn't extended to Jews and still isn't in Gaza or the W.Bank, where Palestine is destined to be Jew-free.

Not that you care, b/c some refugees have more rights than others. But that's what we've come to expect from the anti-Israel brigade, which pretends to be progressive and humane.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

323. Thank you, shria, for dancing from distraction to untruth to distraction in order to

try and muddy the waters of the reality of the Nakba.

Try and muddy the waters by portraying the zionistas as humanitarians when they forced out the Palestinians.


Keep it up, shira. Maybe someday somebody will believe you.

[shira]

324. All I'm saying is that there were 2 nakbas in that era. You only see one.

I understand why.

Noam Chomsky acknowledges what's at the root of your activism and it's in no way humane. It doesn't help Palestinians. It's bigoted and hypocritical. It's so ridiculously obvious.

Watch and learn:

#t=598

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

325. Bless your soul, shira. I guess that nobody ever told you that two wrongs don't make a right.

This is I/P shira, and I was posting about what pertains to I/P whereas you want to, IMHO, assign some rationalization why the zionists forced out the Palestinians.


But please try and explain how it is just for anybody to ethnically cleanse a group of people; whether they be Muslim, Jewish or Christian? I never said it was BTW, but again this is about the Nakba. Perhaps you missed that.


And then you start in with "But, but, but, it happened elsewhere so it is okay for the zionists to do it too."

[shira]

326. The 2 different nakbas are connected. Both are tragic...

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:34 PM - Edit history (3)

You only acknowledge one and for some reason fear acknowledging the other one.

The humane thing to do is acknowledge both. Both peoples are victims, especially when you consider half of Israel's population of Jews comes from neighboring mideast regimes due to ethnic cleansing. Much of the other half were refugees from Europe. To paint all these people as racist oppressors is beyond vulgar.

You can't even acknowledge that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza and the W.Bank....by Palestinians. You don't care either. So why care about Palestinians? Chomsky says you and yours don't even care about the Palestinians. So who cares what you think?

=====

And I never said 2 wrongs make a right. That's your spin.

=====

Finally, there's this:

Israel allowed some West Bank Arabs to return. In 1967, more than 9,000 families were reunited and, by 1971, Israel had readmitted 40,000 refugees.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html

Does that seem evil and racist to you?

How about this?

Despite Israel’s decision
in June 1948 not to permit the return of any refugees, it initially proposed at Lausanne to
annex the Gaza Strip with its 200,000 refugees. When this was rejected by Egypt, Israel
made the suggestion, which it subsequently withdrew, to take in 65,000 to 100,000 refugees
with an additional 600,000 to be absorbed by the Arab states. (Morris, 1999) This too was
rejected by the Arab states. At a 1950 reconvening of the conference the Israeli position
became, and has since remained, that the refugee issue could be resolved only within the
context of a peace agreement. [4]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/isdf/text/golan.pdf

Evil Zionistas, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

329. shira, the hypocrisy drips from you with every post.

You cite Noam Chompsky when you have been quoted as saying that he can't be trusted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=224043&mesg_id=224178

chomsky has a history with holocaust deniers and has been quoted as saying holocaust denial is not anti-semitism. He cannot be taken seriously on any matters concerning Jews.

You, shria cannot be taken seriously on matters concerning anything.

[Shaktimaan]

476. Um

The term never again is about genocide not apartheid.

And Israel isn't apartheid anyway. They are under occupation. You must pick one. Apartheid and occupation are mutually exclusive you know.

Words mean nothing to all to you do they? Apartheid, racism, occupation, colonialism, fascism.

If we took just a single example and compared them honestly you'd be forced to either admit to double-standards or change your opinion.

Ethic cleansing by the Jews becomes genocide. Ethic cleansing by the Palestinians is just enforcing international law. And that's a problem. I have no issue with you criticizing Israeli policy. But you're being dishonest, and it doesn't bother you at all. If you think never Shaun's main function was to insult people it's not surprising you can't remember what it even refers to.

[shira]

133. No hasbarists here support ethnic cleansing. That's your bs...

If anything, it's the AIB (anti-Israel brigade) who supports ethnic cleansing, as you guys don't even recognize the 800,000 Jews who didn't start a war and were ethnically cleansed during the same time era.

Furthermore, it's you guys who support (and let me make that clear as you do support it) Arab apartheid vs. Palestinian refugees throughout the Arab mideast. Not one of you will so much as even label it apartheid. You simply cannot be bothered by it.

How else to interpret the above other than that you are for apartheid vs. Palestinians and for ethnic cleansing vs. Jews....including those ethnically cleansed from historic Judea and Samaria (who no longer belong in those areas in your view)?

Takes some nerve for you to accuse others of your own neurosis.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

150. "No hasbarists here support ethnic cleansing."

They just deny its very existence.

[aranthus]

152. No we don't.

For a true statement of what we are saying, see my post #109, to which you have still not responded.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

168. Yeah, from Benny Morris...

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

BM:
I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

Q:
You do not condemn them morally?

BM:
No.

Q:
They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

BM:
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Q:
And that was the situation in 1948?

BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.


Source: Whose Holy City?: Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
By Colin Chapman



Question. Can anybody really take you seriously?

[shira]

170. The most important part of Benny Morris' quote is the following...

but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing.

Who the hell here actually disagrees with that?

Who prefers to have their people annihilated rather than ethnically cleansing some or most of their enemies?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

171. The most important thing that Duers can take away from your post, Shira, is that

you have approved of Benny Morris and his embrace of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.



You really are a piece of work.

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.

[aranthus]

173. Let's be clear.

Morris recognizes that the alternative to moving some of the Palestinians was that the Jews would lose the war and be slaughtered. So what would you have them do?

[shira]

177. The Palestinians were winning the civil war at first....

Each town in which they defeated the Jews, they massacred and/or expelled the inhabitants.

Hitler's Mufti al-Hussayni was leading the Palestinians against the Jews. His genocidal ambitions are no secret.

Morris was right about the choice being genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Between the 2 choices, it wasn't much of a decision just a few years after the Holocaust.

[shira]

182. Do the research yourself. Palestinian civil war, 1947, Haj Amin al-Husayni. n/t

Last edited Mon Oct 21, 2013, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[aranthus]

178. You really need to learn how to read what people post instead of what you want to read into them.

Neither Shira nor I claim that a genocide was perpetrated by the Palestinians. But they intended to, as shown by the fact that when they captured Jewish villages, they massacred the Jews. A genocide was prevented because the Jews won the war. If they had not won the war, then the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states would have massacred the Jews.

You misread Morris. he claim s that the moving of Palestinians was necessary to win the war, without which Israel would not have come into being. He does not say that it would have been necessary even if there had been no war.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

183. ^^^This!

delrem gets it, and understands not only the Zionist pogrom committed against the Palestinians but also the hasbarist propaganda that attempts to soften such heinous acts.

[shira]

184. The Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini made it clear that genocide of the Jews was his goal.

If the Jews of that time chose not to ethnically cleanse any Palestinians, what do u truly and honestly think would've happened as a result to the Jews of Palestine and the rest of the mideast?

You're on the clock.

Or will you just punt once again?

[shira]

198. There were other Palestinians who didn't like al-Husseini for various reasons....

The problem is that he was in charge back then and was extremely popular throughout the Arab mideast. He and his hordes are who Israelis had to deal with back then.

So, had Jews lost the war (no Jewish state, no expulsions voluntary or forced) then al-Husseini would've been in charge and even more popular than ever before.

What do u honestly think would have happened to the Jews as a result?

[shira]

204. You seem disappointed coming to grips with the Palestinians' Nazi leadership of that day....

Benny Morris was right.

The choice was between Jews being massacred wholesale or having to expel some Palestinians. They made the only reasonable choice they could.

It's quite clear your advice to them back in that day would have been to drop dead, slit their own throats...

=============

And in related current events:

Hitler’s ally, Abbas’s hero, Netanyahu’s response
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-answers-abbass-gowing-praise-of-hitlers-ally/

On January 4, 2013, Mahmoud Abbas, spoke via video link on a wide screen to the masses in Gaza, who gathered to celebrate the founding of Fatah, (Arabic for conquest) otherwise known as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In his new year’s speech, Abbas spoke glowingly of the legacy of the godfather of the PLO, the Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Muhammad Amin Al-Husseini, who during the 1920’s and 1930’s instigated pogroms against the Jews of Palestine and who during his residence in Nazi Germany actively plotted a Final Solution to be carried out once his German allies would win the war. Abbas praised the Mufti as a man whose ways should be emulated by all Palestinian Arabs.

“We must remember the pioneers, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Hajj Muhammad Amin Al-Husseini, as well as Ahmad Al-Shukeiri, the founder of the PLO,” Abbas said according to a translation of the speech made by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Be careful the side you choose in this conflict.

History will certainly not be kind to those siding with the Mufti and his agenda.

[shira]

208. How else am I to see it? You could just say....

...that given the Mufti's history and the very real threat the Jews faced back then, that they had extremely limited choices. You could say the Jews couldn't afford to lose that war. They faced the very real threat of another genocide. You wish they could've made a better choice, whatever that was, but they weren't the aggressors looking for some power grab against "victims" like the Mufti and his hordes.

Let's start there, actually.

You could stop pretending that al-Husseini and his minions were poor, innocent victims doing what was "understandable" back then, fighting aggressive zionist colonialism, imperialism, racism. You could instead acknowledge that he was a Nazi and his hordes were Nazis and they wanted Jews completely gone or dead.

Can you do it?

[shira]

316. If you can't condemn real naziism, and you just can't relate to the Jews of 1948...

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

...who were forced to defend against the naziism of the Mufti and his fellow travelers, what kind of progressive are you?

[shira]

169. That's right, we don't support it. But you do. Why are you denying it? n/t

[Israeli]

202. The Nakba in the New Yorker....

http://muzzlewatch.com/2013/10/17/the-nakba-in-the-new-yorker/

It’s a startling admission that strangely points to where hope, if there is to be any, will be found: in Israeli recognition of the Nakba and the demand that Israelis either embrace a history as ethnic cleansers or work toward a future in which Israel becomes a democracy of all its people. There is a choice there.

[shira]

205. Now the question to you. What should the Jews of 1948 have done?

Benny Morris says the choice was between being massacred wholesale by Hitler's Mufti and his Palestinian hordes, or expelling some Palestinians.

Had the state of Israel never come into being, what would have happened to the Jews of that region in 1948?

What should they have done differently?

[shira]

209. You're in denial? The Mufti and his hired minions weren't Nazis? That wasn't the threat....

....Jews faced back then?

So correct me, please. Where am I wrong?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

211. You've now used two epithets to describe the 700,000 Palestinians that the

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

zionists forced out of Palestine: hordes and minions.

Anybody that reads your pablum can easily see how you view the Palestinians: minions and hordes.


Has anybody ever asked you directly if you're a racist?

[shira]

214. Right, we all know the Zionists were the nazis. And Hasbarados today act like nazis too. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

217. Well, shira, you definately Godwin a lot, but some times you mght just be on to something.

[shira]

218. So it's racist to call 1947-48 Palestinians under al-Husseini Nazis, but perfectly fine....

...to do that with Zionists.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

221. You poor, poor soul. You kep on contradicting yourself horribly now.

Firstly you called the Palestinians Nazis and a horde then contradict yourself; only now you have come full circle in your deception once again to paint them in your racist manner.


Shame on you.

[shira]

222. You're lying. All the lies and propaganda from you are just adding up. Not good....

But dig yourself deeper.

I'll note that you have thus far been incapable of finding anything wrong with Hitler's Palestinian Mufti Leadership and his agenda WRT the Jews of Palestine.

You've only acted as an arm of propaganda for him.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

224. You've already been exposed, Shira. I hope many DUers read your nonsense...especially

when you are caught in your own spin.


By your fruit they will recognize you.

[shira]

232. Oooooh. I've been exposed by a propagandist smear-artist. Wow! n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

236. DUers can be the judge of that.

[shira]

238. The very few reading this will be. Don't underestimate their intelligence. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

233. "You're lying. All the lies and propaganda from you are just adding up."

No, shira. Sadly I will leave that nonsense up to you.

[shira]

237. You lied about Morris. You quoted him out-of-context. You can't even suggest a better....

...choice that the Zionists could've made back in 1948, which goes to show those you're attacking really had no better choice. Anyone honestly attacking others for poor choices would suggest a reasonable alternative at the very least. You can't and you know it. All you have is propaganda and smear-tactics.

Lame.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

241. It was a direct quote, SoS. Live with it in utter embarrassment.

[shira]

247. Out-of-context cherrypicking, which is exactly what u accuse your opponents of doing.

You're so dishonest that all you do is smear Zionists for making the only reasonable decision they could've made within a decade of their own genocide.

How low can you go?

I'm surprised you haven't yet accused the Zionists of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of war crimes against the Nazis.

Maybe tomorrow you'll start with that one?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

267. No, shira, you are just clutching at your pearls again. I hope that DUers pay close attention how

SoS Shira likes to attempt to move attention away from the OP in order to deceive and obscure.

[shira]

230. Quite rich, coming from someone who always makes false cries of APARTHEID, APARTHEID, APARTHEID....

Has anyone ever told you that overuse of the APARTHEID accusation makes light of....actual apartheid?

[shira]

239. By definition? What definition? Here's Kenneth Meshoe of S.Africa calling bullshit on you...

And here's Richard Goldstone doing so...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander.html?_r=0

The fact is Palestinians were led by a Nazi leadership against the Jews back in 1948. The PA today still venerates al-Husseini. The same Palestinian "resistance" against the Zionists that you and your like-minded "progressive" friends support.

[shira]

245. Then America, Canada, and Australia are apartheid states....

...that ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants in order for the white population to become the majority. Without this, the 3 aforementioned nations wouldn't exist. That they give equal rights now to the few aborigines that still live after mass genocide is of small consolation. None of those countries, like Israel, would accept being demographically overrun and conquered, therefore they're as bad....actually worse than Israel. Israel doesn't come close to doing to the Palestinians what these 3 nations did to their natives.

By your bullshit definition.

[shira]

249. I'm using your own definition. If Israel is apartheid, then America, Canada, and Australia...

Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2013, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

...are far, far worse. They absolutely destroyed the native populations that lived there. Israel hasn't come remotely close to that kind of racism and apartheid, have they?

I'm sorry you don't like when your faulty reasoning is shown to be bullshit.

[shira]

250. Israel didn't require ethnic cleansing. They agreed to the 1947 Partition which required...

...nothing of the sort. No Palestinians had to move.

Once the war had started, the Jews had no choice but to defend themselves or die. The decision to go to war was the Palestinians' choice. Once that war had started, it was demonstrated that the 2 populations simply could not co-exist together in one nation without endless war and strife.

When you attack the Jews of 1948 in Israel for the only rational choice they could make, just shortly after the Holocaust when they faced yet another genocide, you sink about as low as one can possibly get. The fact that you cannot present a reasonable alternative for the Jews of Palestine in 1948 goes to show you believe the best choice for them to have made would've been to become victims of genocide again.

How much lower can you go?

[shira]

254. So provide one reasonable alternative to that for 1948. I'll wait. n/t

[shira]

256. Then they lose the war and there's genocide. Not a reasonable choice. n/t

[shira]

259. Here's a typical video. Hamas & the PA support and encourage views like this...

That goes back to the 1929 Hebron massacre.

Now check out the threats here in a UN document dating back to that time period. Start around the bottom of page 3 and then look at the top of page 4....
http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21JA12.pdf

The Jews of that day had no reason to take threats of extermination and a momentous massacre seriously?

If that's what you believe, explain....

[shira]

261. You're deflecting. The UN document shows that in 1947-48, the Jews were definitely...

...under threat of annihilation and genocide had they lost the war. The video is typical of mainstream Palestinian views that the PA and Hamas encourage and support. It's not like that video is an extreme POV that is frowned upon in Palestinian society.

So what could the Jews of 1948 reasonably do, other than allow themselves to be massacred?

[azurnoir]

262. That was NOT a UN document it was written by the then "Jewish Agency"

presumably as a justification for Israel's first land grab, we hear often that Israel oh so accepted the partition but that doesn't seem evidenced by it's subsequent actions which still go on to this very day

[shira]

263. Unreal denial by you. Engaging you is pointless. So for the lurkers...

I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine ... You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

— "A War of Extermination", Mustafa Amin, Akhbar al-Yom, October 11, 1947

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azzam_Pasha_quotation

[azurnoir]

264. shira it was plainly labeled as being written by the Jewish Agency

no denial needed but I see you once again used this as a vehicle to post more antiArabism

absolutely no surprise though in fact I expect it

[shira]

276. And the quote comes from an Egyptian newspaper, so? Here it is from MEF...

How a genocidal threat from an Arab League leader is anti-Arab is beyond me...

http://www.meforum.org/pics/azzam_3082.pdf

[azurnoir]

277. you claimed it was a UN document and it wasn't then you post an old clipping in Arabic

and mumble some nonsense about it being proof and oh BTW the pdf doc locked up my computer briefly interesting that

[shira]

278. Are you denying Azzam Pasha made such a threat?

That way, there's nothing for you to condemn? You'll just keep deflecting, right?

[azurnoir]

279. I don't read Arabic do you?

you got busted making a claim that the document you originally posted was from a source it was not- period

[shira]

280. LOL....you do deny the Azzam Pasha quote. Unreal. n/t

[azurnoir]

281. I can't confirm or deny I don't read Arabic again do you?

oh and could you answer this question please

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49943

you can do it here

[shira]

282. No one's disputing the Arabic. Not even Tom Segev who responded to the quote. n/t

[azurnoir]

283. what you posted was an old newspaper clipping in Arabic nothing more nothing from Tom Segev

or anyone else for that matter

[shira]

284. Here's Tom Segev in Haaretz. He doesn't dispute the quote...

He just does his lamest to minimize it...

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/the-makings-of-history-the-blind-misleading-the-blind-1.391260

Sorry, it's real.

And you still can't condemn it, can you? To do so is too Zionist and probably racist, rightwing....

[Israeli]

286. What !!!!!

You are using one of our best known post zionists to back up your hate filled propaganda .
Now I have seen it all .

Cant you read ? :

The oft-used (mis)quote from prior to Israel's Declaration of Independence that has been used as proof that the Arabs were scheming to annihilate Israel.

There is something pathetic about this hunt for historical quotes drawn from newspapers. Azzam used to talk a lot. On May 21, 1948, the Palestine Post offered this statement by him: "Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like."

So what if he said it? You can ask Danny.

[shira]

287. This is a great example demonstrating the dishonesty of your movement...

The (mis)quote he is referring to is the fact that almost all sources falsely traced the quote to 6 months after it was actually stated. Until recently, they had Pasha saying it in May of 1948 rather than November 1947.

And allowing the Jews to become 2nd or 3rd rate citizens (like oppressed women, gays, and christians in that region) after their utter defeat isn't saying much.

[Israeli]

288. yeah right ...

keep quoting Tom Segev shira .......... ROFLMAO .

[shira]

289. Gotta love the past-Zionists who vote for zionist parties like Meretz.

We Zionists appreciate that support!

[Israeli]

301. Its not like we have much of a choice shira ....

its either Meretz or Hadash ....but things can change ...

see :

http://mitchellplitnick.com/2010/07/23/avraham-burg-and-a-new-israeli-progressive-party/

we in turn really appreciate American Zionists like yourself, who dont have to send their kids to the Army or actually live here ...but instead spread their vitrol and hatred from afar , whilst staying safe and secure in America and voting for the Democrats .

Tell me shira .... have you ever met a Palestinian ?

Ever been inside the Wild West Bank ?

If not what makes you the expert ?

Its easy being a Zionist from afar shira ...not so easy when you see with your own eyes what is being done in the name of Zionism to the Palestinians and to the Bedouin.

So lets not kid ourselves ....the only reason you support my country is because of your religion shira ... you relate to us as Jews ... we reject the term and prefer to be described as Israelis .

see :

http://jtf.org/israel/israel.jewish.civil.war.part.one.htm

http://jtf.org/israel/israel.jewish.civil.war.part.two.htm

http://jtf.org/israel/israel.jewish.civil.war.part.three.htm

[shira]

291. How are women, gays, and christians treated under Hamas, the PA, or any other dictatorship...

...throughout the region? Is that what you'd have in mind for Jews?

[shira]

293. Had Jews lost 1948, there wouldn't be much in the way of rights for gays, women, jews, christians...

....in Palestine, would there?

I'll help you because your answer should be "No".

As it is, all those groups enjoy equal rights within Israel - including Palestinians who have few rights anywhere else in that region. If you had your way, the Jews would have been massacred in 1948, the few survivors relegated to 2nd or 3rd class status, and Palestine would be as backwards and chaotic as Syria or Egypt today.

Not progressive.

When I read your missives I can't see how anything can possibly penetrate the hate;

Hate? I know it's difficult to explain yourself clearly, but why don't you try explaining just what it is that's hateful.

[shira]

295. Okay then, what do u think would have happened to the Jews had they lost 1948? n/t

[shira]

297. Another evasion, fine. So what's your solution in 2013? n/t

[shira]

299. One state, right? How will it work? Who will enforce this guarantee of a Utopian society? n/t

[shira]

302. Practically no one wants one secular democracy for all, so how will this come about?

Only a tiny percentage of Jews are for it, and maybe up to 10% of Palestinians...at most. So overall, we're talking maybe 5-7% of the total population (including all refugees).

This colonialist solution that you favor would have to be enforced from the outside (white westerners) against the wills of the people (natives).

You realize that, right?

[shira]

307. There's a reason neither Hamas or the PA grants equal rights to women,gays,christians,blacks,jews...

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 07:10 AM - Edit history (1)

There's a reason why no secular democracy exists in Gaza or the W.Bank...and why there is no movement for such a state within those areas. No grass-roots movement. Nothing.

The people don't generally want it.

From 1988...

============

Of the 1,024 people surveyed, only 10.4 percent shared Mr. Abu-Lughod's dream of a ''democratic, secular'' Palestinian state. Instead, nearly 60 percent dream of a state founded on Islamic law (26.5 percent) or on a hybrid of Islam and Arab nationalism (29.6 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/06/opinion/l-who-wants-a-democratic-secular-palestine-807988.html

============

From 2011...

About how the respondents identify themselves, the majority, 57%, identified themselves as Muslims, 21% identified themselves as Palestinians first, 19% as human beings first and 5% as Arabs first.

The increase in adherence to religious identity is also reflected in the system preferred by the Palestinian people.

About 40% of the respondents said that they believe that the Islamic caliphate is the best system for Palestinians, 24% chose a system like one of the Arab countries, and 12 % prefer a system like one of the European countries.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16042

As to the Jews, no one is for it. Read for yourself Uri Avnery's opening remarks in a 1- vs. 2-state debate vs. Ilan Pappe (and also his concluding remarks at the very end). If you don't know already, Avnery is one of the most famous post-zionists around and leader of Gush Shalom. Your friend "Israeli" here is a big fan of his...
http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe110607.htm

So combined, more than 90% of all Jews and Palestinians of the region combined are against it. It would have to be imposed on the 2 populations against their will. And the results would be disastrous, as Avnery argues throughout the debate. One secular democratic state isn't realistic or feasible in any way.

So what's your plan B?

[shira]

313. You hate having your most cherished beliefs about I/P challenged...

As Avnery all but proves, your anti-zionist fantasy of one state will be a fucking train wreck. It's a non-starter. No one wants it and the only way it happens is if it's imposed on both peoples.

So what's your next plan for the natives of I/P?

Crickets.

I'm glad you liked the Pappe/Avnery debate. Here's an Haaretz article about Israel's Palestinian-Arab population that you may enjoy as well.

Poll: 75% of Israeli Arabs support Jewish, democratic constitution
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/poll-75-of-israeli-arabs-support-jewish-democratic-constitution-1.219373

A vast majority of Israeli Arabs would support a constitution that maintained Israel's status as a Jewish and democratic state, according to a poll whose results were published yesterday.

Some 75 percent of the poll's 507 respondents said they would agree with such a definition, while 23 percent said they would oppose it.

And just to be clear about hordes and minions. I'm talking about the bad guys, and anti-Israel western agitators and supporters of terror & one-state are included. You'll find that in every post where I bash the bad guys, it's the ones who are against Israel's existence and want it gone. The only way Israel will end is through war. I'm referring to warmongers.

Now obviously, Palestinians for 2 states and peace are not included along with the anti-zionist hordes IMO. It's my belief, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you and yours LOATHE the Palestinians referred to in the Haaretz article above. They're traitors to the cause, supporters of theft, ethnic cleansing, & colonialism to you. You have no need for them, just as you have no need for Palestinian gays, women, christians, and blacks oppressed under Hamas and Fatah control. Now that's real hate. Take a long look in that mirror of yours, sweetie.

[shira]

311. Disappeared again. But I have one more simple question for you....

You believe Israel as a Jewish state is unacceptable and racist, but check out the Palestinian charter:

"Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

And from the basic law of Palestine:

"Islam is the official religion in Palestine."

Lemme see where you've ever ONCE advocated against Palestine for being at least as racist and unacceptable in its founding documents as you believe Israel to be.

Show me.

[shira]

304. You conveniently disappeared. No one in that area wants your idea of an egalitarian society...

Your solution would have to be imposed on well over 90% of the area's Jews and Palestinians, so once again WHO will ensure things are as egalitarian and progressive as they should be when practically no one is for it?

Why would you want to push something on people that they do not want, and falsely label yourself as someone who supports the people in that region?

Defend your version of "justice" for Arabs and Jews of the region.

And if you can't, then what's next on your agenda?

[shira]

308. See #307. It's true. So what's your plan B? n/t

[azurnoir]

368. Thanks for clarifying n/t

[shira]

213. First of all, the vast majority of Palestinians left on their own accord & were not forced out....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFexclusives.html#74

Second, the Palestinians involved in the fighting against the Jews during the civil war of 1947 were led by Hitler's Mufti al-Husseini and they were his hordes and minions.

I never said all 700,000 were involved in the fighting against the Jews. They weren't al-Husseini's hordes and minions.

Nice try.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

219. "Right, we all know the Zionists were the nazis."

But yet you agree with Benny Morris that it was lright and justifiable to ethnically cleanse them from their homes, farms and land.

You have admitted that you agree with his position.

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads.

-Benny Morris
Zionist ethnic cleanser.

First of all, the vast majority of Palestinians left on their own accord...

-SoS Shira

Now which is true shira? You have come down on the side of Benny Morris, but say that most of the 700,000 Palestinians just got up and left one day whereas Benny Morris states that the Palestinians were "uprooted": his words.






One thing is very clear from your nonsense: you obviously believe that you can outright deceive DUers, but you also were caught in a bold-faced deception.

[shira]

220. If you're going to quote Morris, get it right. No more lies from you...

Historian Benny Morris notes that “in general, Haganah and IDF commanders were not forced to confront the moral dilemma posed by expulsion; most Arabs fled before and during the battle, before the Israeli troops reached their homes and before the Israeli commanders were forced to confront the dilemma.”

Starting in December 1947, historian Benny Morris said, “Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments.” He concluded, “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these early Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations.” 31

Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, “tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation—women and children first, the men following weeks later—occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html#_edn25

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

227. The quote is legitimate. It is you who are counterfeit.

The truth hurts for the hasbara brigade.

[shira]

231. You cherry-picked out of context and lied. You were caught. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

242. No, poor, poor, SoS.

I took a direct quote and added nothing to it. I did it to prove you wrong and your undergarments apparently are in a twist from all your spin.

[shira]

246. You cherry-picked hypocritically. You accuse others constantly of doing just that. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

275. No, shira. You're wallowing in a sea

denials and accusations.

[bravenak]

271. I told her she was.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

229. This is a general note for the casual passing DUer.

Try and count how many times a few hasbarists have desperately tried to derail this OP...even going so far to approve of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as somehow kosher.

It's fucking unbelievable that some can go so far as to lie wholesale on this site and get away with it.

[PDJane]

240. I agree.

There is absolutely no justification for the actions of Zionists since WWII. I realize, of course, that the whole justification of the Nakba lies in WWII, but the only reason for the Balfour declaration was to rid Europe of the "Jewish Problem." That they then took that justification to take over a land that they haven't lived in, as a majority, for 2,000 years, and which they conquered and stole in the first place, is disgusting.

This is not even survival; Jews have survived quite well, thank you. Even assimilation has not done much to kill the religion.

[King_David]

244. 'Jews have survived quite well, thank you' Agreed

Thanks to Israel.


Strong Jews, that's what Israel did,and that is what drives some people batshit crazy.

See what Woody Allen says :

“I do feel there are many people that disguise their negative feelings toward Jews, disguise it as anti-Israel criticism, political criticism, when in fact what they really mean is that they don’t like Jews.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113449758

[PDJane]

253. David as per usual you mistake the whole point of the post

since I can no longer be bothered to read your drivel and mistaken "facts" I am going to block you

[King_David]

266. Block me ? I'm sure you mean ignore?

Unless you suddenly became an admin here...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

268. Oh, it's no mistake. It's deliberate.

When you can't get an OP that you don't want to discuss deleted try and muddy the waters of discussion.

-Hasbara 101

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

269. I would like to add a casual observation to this piece.

Don’t Forget The Nakba could just as easily read, Don't forget the trail of tears, Don't forget US slavery, Don't forget Jim Crow, Don't forget the fight for Women's rights and Don't forget the Holocaust.

All have a vile and an unfortunate place in history, and they also have their cadre of vile deniers or re-writers of history to make the pain and suffering seem so much less than it really was.

[PDJane]

270. Yes, true.

My problem with this is that the Jewish people, in particular, have a history of being repressed. One of the fine things about Judaism is that is has a history of being compassionate and fair; that is the lesson of the dietary law "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in it's mother's milk," the lesson of Sodom and Gemorrah, and many, many more.

There is strength in learning, in tilling the land, in doctoring and in law. The strength that is shown in oppression is not strength; any damn bigoted, thuggish fool can oppress someone. It takes more work to live in peace with your neighbour, and it takes strength of mind to at least see the other guy's view.

The kind of strength that "King David" talks about is not strength; it's a weakness that needs the not-quite-human other to justify stealing, brutality, and oppression.

[bravenak]

272. Great Article and discussion.

Kick!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

310. Thanks. No matter what is posted about the plight of the Palestinians

there is always a contingent that calls it a lie or tries desperately to deflect attention away from it.

[pelsar]

321. whats to deflect...

what part of the Nakba has to be "deflected"...what you call deflect is simply raping of the word (use the dictionary, its a wonderful resource). What your complaining about is that your definition of history is not agreed upon by everybody....thats not "deflection."

is someone here saying there wasn't a war? that refugees don't exist? that war doesn't produces refugees? That people leave their homes under duress? Its been well established that some arabs left and some stayed, those that left their homes did if for a variety of reasons.

Anyone who claims they know the reason why every single one left their home is simply making up stories.

Nor is anyone here claiming they those that left got the shit end of the stick.

what apparently you bitching about is that not everyone agrees with your interpretation and you seem to have trouble with that...tolerance, for those you disagree with, try it, its an important part of any society.

[pelsar]

333. so barak said something.......

Aharon Barak's definition of Israel is truly a definition of Israel.

who made Barak god? and definer of all things israel? YOU? (and yes i know who he is)

The foundation laws of israel are a lot "bigger" than what Barak said and how he, or you have intrepeted the word "that" (which btw, is your ( intrepretation of what he said)

you get berated for elevating barak to god status and you as redefiner of all things israel, so who gave you that power?
_______

But then, you're a self-proclaimed "illiberal liberal" who denies that the principle of equality of individuals before the law is absolute,
yes...i don't believe in anything that is "absolute' since it cannot exist within human civilization, nor should it.

BUT your a self proclaimed colonialist that believes your solution and version of justice should be imposed on the "indigenous" people and everybody else, even though all the groups involved reject your solution and your 'justice"

[pelsar]

335. it just shows your colonialist attitude

you can't even be bothered to explain why your version of "justice" should be forced upon the locals who all reject it.

i guess its because even the concept of questioning your definition of justice and solution is simply incomprehensible to you...is that it?

[pelsar]

337. ashamed of what....you talk in riddles...

of some kind of "progressive speak"

clearly its a limiting factor in your ability to explain yourself, but then you don't really have to, i believe you've finally come out of the closet and have accused us of genocide on a different post.

part of the problem of "your universe" is that you confuse words on the internet with reality...i've said it before, but it bears repeating, you've got to get out more. Go up north and join a polar bear hunt, pop over to turkey, help the syrian refugees or better yet join a side, take a real stand and discover the moral dilemmas of life that come with fighting for your beliefs...

do something that puts words in cyberspace into perspective...hell go to gaza and start shoveling the sewage, but you've got to get out. (it might humble your own superior beliefs)

[pelsar]

339. then i shall try again..

and you might notice a difference...whereas i acknowledge that my writings may or may not be coherent, if requested i shall try again and again and again to explain. You on the other hand, refuse to.

you mentioned that i should be "ashamed of my country' for some reason....Whereas Israel as a country makes a lot of stupid decisions in my opinion, i also believe this is to be expected of any democracy. I also believe that israel is quite responsive to its population. So in the large picture, I am not ashamed of israel, quite the opposite, quite proud of its general accomplishments and its wide variety of populations and cultures that in general get along.

so what am i to be ashamed of?...be specific.
(ooops, you're not responding to me remember?)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

340. I applaud your sophist two step, pelsar.

I also believe that Israel is quite responsive to its population.

Since Israel has a captive population, i.e. Palestinians in the West Bank and an indirectly blockaded population in Gaza, is Israel responsive to them in the same way they are to illegal settlers; whose numbers grow daily?

I am not ashamed of iIrael, quite the opposite, quite proud of its general accomplishments...

Does your sense of pride include the state of apartheid visited over the Palestinians as their land is dissolved day after day in favor of illegal Israeli settlers gaining access to said lands?

Will your counter argument be like others who state that Jews lived on those lands thousands of years ago implying that it ALL belongs to them?

[pelsar]

341. my view is one based on security, stability and consequences

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 04:31 PM - Edit history (2)

gaza via the decisions of its population and now its leadership as well as their actual actions have declared war on israel...hence they get a blockade.....limited rights

the west bankers, thought they deserve their own state, do not deserve to exchange one occupation for another one...the only difference being the genes of the "newer occupiers. (the PA), that i believe you are for.

call it whatever you want, apartheid, occupation, zangeliszip....their present leadership, a dictatorship is not better than that of mubarak, and morsi, and hamas and assad.....and those types have no right to rule anybody, not just for the danger they cause their own population, but that what they cause us.

and since its my life on the line....as well as others, the israeli govt has every right as tar as I'm concerned to keep their rights and their govt restricted until the time when they can "play nice with us".....

they've had their chances to live with us, that included several attempts to "remove us" they all failed....now its their turn to prove that they can actually live with us.

its just security for most of us, nothing more than that, (and i don't believe any non democratic state has the right to exist anyway)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

342. "its just security for most of us, nothing more than that..."

And once again the oh-so-reasonable but fatigued excuses make the rounds for continued apartheid, blockade (at least you admit it where others deny such a thing...good for you), for land theft and continued civil assault.

I give you a heartfelt round of applause for such a profound bag of twaddle. Were one to let you speak at length on barren soil surely green sod would sprout wherever your feculence did reach.

I'm sure that the Palestinian people can appreciate the constant daily assault on what is left of their lands, crops and resources (40% of the West Bank by estimate) by 500k illegal Israeli settlers (with a promise of 500k more to come) and would understand if not completely agree with you that they are undeserving of a nation since you, and 500k illegal assholes + the belligerent IDF to back them up + the craven political establishment that not only seeks the status quo but will double down and cry victim while victimizing don't believe that they deserve one.

call it whatever you want, apartheid, occupation, zangeliszip....their present leadership, a dictatorship is not better than that of mubarak, and morsi, and hamas and assad.....and those types have no right to rule anybody, not just for the danger they cause their own population, but that what they cause us.

Thank you, I will call it what it is...cough...cough apartheid occupation(and i am not alone by far), and I find it strange that Israel would be against dictators since they supported Mubarak for years. But I digress. Brute-force Israeli occupation of a people is always so much nicer to some than actually letting those under occupation decide for themselves how to live. After all if Israel did that then they would have to give back that 60% of the West bank that they have stolen illegally + the rights to the aquifers + oil fields off the coast of Gaza the have no right to...so it's really in the best interest of Israel and it's apologists to keep the theft going and a people under their boot heel. Now what were you getting on about dictatorships?


But yes, your life is on the line, and it is your creation this time around: you and people like Shira. You can argue until the second serving of FSM that you are entitled, for your protection, to keep what doesn't belong to you from a population, that doesn't wish or deserve to be ruled by you, in order to teach them a lesson that they have to be nice to you in order to get back a few percent of what has been stolen from them.

its just security for most of us, nothing more than that...

Of course it is just security at this point. How could it be anything else seeing how Israel has fashioned a prison state and it is now afraid of the inmates it has created?

[pelsar]

343. i understand your POV..its has a few principles:

1) it ignore history
2) it cares little for actually lives, just concepts
3) its has little to do with human rights or civil rights
_______

israel in the past has in fact destroyed settlements, returned land in several instances, made agreements. The lessons for our govt which who's job it is to protect our lives is clear:

Egypt got the sinai back, and made peace with us
Jordan declared its recognition, has actively protected our mutual border (proof of intent) and got peace.

Olso gave the Palestenians the first step toward self-rule based on an agreement and we got over 1000 dead

so much nicer to some than actually letting those under occupation decide for themselves how to live
Gaza was returned, they got self-rule and we got over 6,000 missiles and still counting.....lesson learned by the israeli people and our govt.
_______

Dictatorships are unstable and have nothing to do with what "the people want' that is why there is over 100,000 dead in syria, why Irans spring failed, why egypt is back to being a military dictatorship, why hamas rules gaza as a theocracy, why Libya with the help of the europeans is now a tribal mess of warring factions.

whereas for you, all that violence is "some kind of process" that must lead to some kind of democracy because its part of your progressive belief....... for us its very real violence and the PA's dictatorship is not immune from it and like in Gaza, it endangers us.
_____

one of the basic principles of the progressives that i find fascinating is this love for land over civil rights, this acceptance of dictatorships based on race and the belief that people can actually "choose" to live under a dictatorship and when they no longer want it, they will change it, this is what you believe is it not?

your concerns are not for the actual people lives, but your western concept of what is right or wrong, infact apparently your ok if people live under a dictatorship that strips them of the civil rights as long as "that is what they want' and you may write comments of how "sad" it is that whole families were murdered by that dictatorship but you'll still back the dictatorship until the "people" take to the streets and get massacred and then you'll feel satisfied that "the people have spoken"....never mind the dead and the continued chaos or continued dictatorship.

would you like to confirm this?


(btw your stats are wrong)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

349. You have Spoken like a true occupier.

Congrats.

Do you have any more excuses as to why Israel has colonized another people's property?

[pelsar]

350. i would love to hear how you defend dictatorships

this where you have to avoid the question..and make up something to divert it:

defend how you support the the PA/Hamas to make a country knowing full well, as per their own statements and their actual actions that it will be a dictatorship....

and why is such a dictatorship better than an secular occupation.

just try to answer, no diversion, no sarcasm, just answer.....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

357. "why is such a dictatorship better than an secular occupation."

You're still making an argument for Israeli occupation of another people's land as though the have the right to deny the rights Israel enjoys as a nation. I'm making an argument for their right of self determination which you seemingly reject for the status quo apartheid state.

Back at you, hasbaradist.

[pelsar]

358. and the argument is?

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm making an argument for their right of self determination

and since apparently this "self-determination" doesn't include civil rights for homosexuals, freedom of speech for the people, basic female rights, fair use of resources, a non corrupt govt etc etc etc...

I'm assuming in your "definition of "self-determination" these rights are not essential, as both the PA and hamas have made it clear, that is not going to happen,

the concept of a stable govt is that also not part of your definition of "self -determination?

_______________________________

in fact how do you define this "self-determination? the right to live under a dictatorship, as long as the genes are correct?, the right to be tossed in jail for liking the wrong sex as long as the jailers have the proper genes? And i guess like an other poster here, you will say "its none of your business how the PA/Hamas govern

so is this correct then?

this definition of "self -determination" is all about the proper genes, and land ownership and with that comes the "it none of anybodies business what we do to 'our people"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

360. You're the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Israel can steal Palestinian land, destroy Palestinian livelihood, shoot, imprison, torture...all in the name of security...ahem... land theft...while telling the West and UN to fuck off...then running to them and crying at the first sign that the UN might do something that Israel doesn't approve of...all in the name of BS security...ahem land theft.

And yet you would deny the very existence to the Palestinians that Israel was granted, since it doesn't fit in with land theft, and scream bloody murder about dictatorships and human rights...the same form of dictatorship and human rights abuses that Israel, and I guess that YOU, impose on a captive population.


Live with it, occupier.

Occupiers always have a litany of excuses why they can't give up on occupation, but the one reason that they never seem to bring up is that they want to keep another population under its heel.

Good work, occupier.

[pelsar]

362. this "self-determination definition of yours?

that you have yet to explain has nothing to do with israel as an occupier.
i'm well familiar with the "buzz word", i'm just waiting for a real definition of your values....

or maybe, just maybe, you don't want to go near it. after all your going to have some interesting values:

1) defending a theocratic dictatorship that is against all western values of civil rights
2) your going to proclaim " its none of our business how they govern"

which brings us to the obvious conclusion: if hamas decides to hang their homosexuals (as iran does), you'll conclude that you can't criticize because its their values. If they kill their own (based on genes), in defending their dictatorship, you'll explain its none of anybodies business.

however if israel was to do the exact same thing, to the Palestenians, you would be screaming bloody murder, correct? You see, its ok to hang homosexuals for being homosexual, as long you have the same genes as them.

read that again, because its a good summary of those who propose the combination of "self-determination" that results in a theocratic dictatorship + the "its none of our business" policy that accompanies it.

You are actively promoting for the creation of a state that has declared it will be a dictatorship based on a religious book and that you believe how they govern is none of anybodies business.

is that not a good summary?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

364. is that not a good summary? No. It is a rotten summary. I expected no les from you, though.

And it still doesn't change the fact, though, that your supposed security, riding on the backs of an oppressed people, entitle you or any illegal Israeli settler to their land and resources.

[pelsar]

365. well then now is your chance to explain why its not good

this is now the third post where I'm asking you to explain the contradictory values of a "progressive" the one hand screams about civil rights, human rights while actively promoting for a new state that has declared itself against those very western values.

well.....can we conclude that you don't want to go there, given the inherent contradictions of those values and you would rather divert for the 3rd time to the evils of the occupation?

i'll tell u what, i'll even list the evils of the occupation, after we discus your support for a theocratic dictatorship, unless of course you want to attempt to divert for a 4th time.

better yet, just say you don't want to discuss it.....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

366. Let me make this very simple so even a pro-occupation idiot living in Israel can understand it.

It is not up to you or Israel to take another people's land, take their resources, destroy their livelihood, destroy their children's future simply because you claim a right to or feel entitled to so-called security on their backs.

To cry constantly about what might happen in a future Palestinian state or decry what human rights abuses might occur in a future Palestinian state does not, again, constitute a a reason to steal the land of a future Palestinian state and then bitch about how bad they all are.

I just discussed it.

Now hoping that any pro-occupation idiot in Israel can understand, although I expect that they will never admit that, that we can all move on and get back to the reason for this OP.

The Nakba.

[pelsar]

369. a few statements is not a discussion...(check the dictionary)

to cry constantly about what might happen in a future Palestinian state

we are not talking about what 'might happen" Abbas has made it clear, that it will not be a western democracy, we have seen not just his deeds, their 'human right abuses already occur today.....we know their foundation judicial blocks, and given their judicial independence already we already know how it works. We see hamas in gaza,...your "progressive values, as i understand them now" clearly have no concern when it comes to "Palestinians abusing Palestenians"

I assume you've closed your eyes to hamas as well?

so that "might happen" is already in the present....and your opinion is that it is of no consequence? that its not happening? or that its none of anybodies business

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

372. And all your cires lead to continued land theft and apartheid for some self-righteous securty.

Hamas + Abbas = Israeli Apartheid. That's all you got.

[pelsar]

374. I've got more..but this is your foundation....is it not?

and apparently and i believe this is a large part of the "progressive agenda" is that human rights abuses, etc are not relevant if the genes are the same.

this is what u refuse to discuss (see dictionary definition), but i certainly understand why, as it puts in the same "boat" as the far right wing ,and the religious fanatics.

Quite a threesome: progressives, far right and religious fanatics all having the same base values

1) Land ownership by those of the same genes is essential
2) What they do to their own (same genes) is none of anybodies business
3) How they govern their own, is their own decision, no matter if its a military dictatorship, theocratic govt....its always "their own choice"

the progressives
4) All changes in their society will eventually lead to a western democracy
5) if they don't take to the streets (and get killed) against the military or theocratic dictatorship it means they agree with it.


These values have nothing to do with israel, the occupation..... We are just clearing up your values that are the base for you beliefs.
Now if I am wrong, please explain exactly where...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

375. Try re-reading Reply #366.

In the meantime enjoy your serving of land theft and apartheid state.

And speaking of land theft and apartheid.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113452581

It seems your country just can't help itself but to be an continual asshole.

[pelsar]

376. i did read it....it ignores the present actions

that whole post is about "what might happen" which is a great way of avoiding how hamas and the PA presently govern their own.....i assume you know how their two governments govern.

whereas i'm concerned about the future, i can also see how they presently govern their own, and how u and others as i understand it, believe its totally their business.

is this not correct?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

381. It certainly is not Israel's business to take what

is not theirs, or deny others, to take land they have no intention of giving back; while simpletons talk about security when those specific actions exacerbate the problem.

[pelsar]

382. i'm asking you as a progressive...

you keep injecting israel here, whereas i am questioning the "progressive stance" via u as a local rep on the PA/hamas governing style

if you don't want to answer the questions posed to you as progressive, why is it so difficult to just say so?
i believe its called "diverting" isn't that what you call it?

are you afraid of something that you can't answer? because i really don't understand why this is difficult, other than the obvious, where it leads to.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

383. "you keep injecting israel here..."

No kiddin, really? Well, perhaps that is because this is about...yep, you guessed it...Israel.

For the record I never said that I support Hamas or Abass, but I do support the Palestinian people in their drive for independence whether or not you can wrap your tiny intellect around it.

I do mean tiny since you apparently have no problem with apartheid or colonization of Palestinian land...judt as long as you have that false sense of security.

I hope that got through to you.

[pelsar]

384. and you do support hamas and abbas......

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2013, 01:28 PM - Edit history (6)

lets see if you can 'wrap' you narrow mind about the reality:

your support of their 'independence" supports hamas as the governing body of gaza and abbas as the dictator of the west bank. those two are the actual governing bodies of the Palestenian people and they can't get voted out.The only way dictators go is when the "people take to the streets" and thats a major gamble....you are aware of the 100,000 dead in syria correct? the tribal wars in Lybia, the military dictatorship in Egypt, Iran just shooting enough in the street to stop it..which is your preference for the "people removing the dictatorship that your so willing to support indirectly?

or do you believe that if they get their independence will abbas and hamas disappear?

yes, you have to open your narrow mind and look beyond a 5yr olds belief in instant gratification....
or maybe you belief, like at least one other here, that its none of anybodies business what syria does to its own, what hamas does to its own...(as long as they have the same genes)

lets see if you can EVEN TRY to answer the questions as opposed to diverting for the millionth time.



I do mean tiny since you apparently have no problem with apartheid or colonization of Palestinian land...judt as long as you have that false sense of security.

kassams, grads, busses blowing up, restaurants blowing up do not equal security....perhaps there is no room in your even tinier mind for such information.....or more likely its not considered relevant...well is it considered relevant or not?

like i've been asking...why not explain yourself, how this "support the people" but ignore the realities of their government?..or haven't you asked yourself that question..no room in the brain, for such realities?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

385. No, Pelsar, I really wish that you would stop telling me what I support when I have already told you

that I don't support Hamas or Abbas. If you are going to blatantly lie to make yourself feel better then you should at least try and make yourself believable.

To use your own banrkrupt rhetoric against you, for you say that you support Israel's right to exist would also mean that you support theft of Palestinian lands, homes, farms, the expulsion...NAKBA...of Palestinians from their homes, shooting in the back of Palestinians, torture of Palestinians, beating Palestinians, military arrests of Palestinian children and a general state of Israel Apartheid against said Palestinians.

[pelsar]

387. supporting the creation of a dictatorship

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

to me its irrelevant if you say you don't support hamas or the PA, yet you work for an independent Palestine that will infact be a dictatorship. How do we know that in the present they will be two dictatorships? well that is because that is their existing govts today.

its simply: support their independence today, get two dictatorships.....thats called reality.
democracies are different since their govts do actually get changed, hence one can support a western country and work for policy changes..dictatorships do not offer that option.

but since you say you don't support hamas and the PA dictatorships
i'll let you explain how supporting their independence today DOES NOT end up in having two anti western democratic societies.

it could be you don't care...it could be you believe that how a country governs is its own business and what happens as a consequence of their independence is of no concern to you

so i'll let you explain.
____


btw zimbabwa and iran are good examples of how such simplistic visions (as yours) can work out. Zimbabwa is a failed state that no one cares about and Iran remains a theocratic state. Thats all fine and dandy for the westerners that supported them, after all they really don't care how the people actual live or die there (its none of anybodies business- correct?). The PA/Hamas is different, their failure directly affects my life....hence we are concerned with how they govern their own. Their failure or success will affect my life directly. (not yours obviously, but mine)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

388. I'm not sure how you can continue to get it so terribly wrong...

But since you continue to do so it is you who have become irrelevant.

but since you say you don't support hamas and the PA dictatorships
i'll let you explain how supporting their independence today DOES NOT end up in having two anti western democratic societies.

You see, my poor myopic Pelsar, I have explained this to you a few times now.

Israel can steal Palestinian land, destroy Palestinian livelihood, shoot, imprison, torture...all in the name of security...ahem... land theft...while telling the West and UN to fuck off...then running to them and crying at the first sign that the UN might do something that Israel doesn't approve of...all in the name of BS security...ahem land theft.

And yet you would deny the very existence to the Palestinians that Israel was granted, since it doesn't fit in with land theft, and scream bloody murder about dictatorships and human rights...the same form of dictatorship and human rights abuses that Israel, and I guess that YOU, impose on a captive population.

Live with it, occupier.

I hope this gets through to you this time.

[azurnoir]

389. speaking for myself here

I always find these occupation in the interest of human rights fascinating to believe this so much must be ignored, including the fact that when Israel had complete jurisdiction over the West Bank it did nothing to alliveiate some of the most commonly noted failings of the Palestinians

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

390. I have been reading the same skipping record from said poster for a while now

justifying in a roundabout way occupation, and the boogeyman that s/he keeps on throwing up is that "we can't let the Palestinians have a dictatorship" is laughable.

What I keep pointing out is that they have that already via the Israeli police state.

Other posters mention PA human rights abuses, and that has value, but that does not validate Israeli human rights abuses in the form of apartheid and land theft.

Seriously, it is like talking to a toddler that wants a cookie and can't reason beyond having the cookie. The West Bank, the land, the resources is the cookie and the occupation-minded illegal settler, backed by the IDF, is the toddler that wants it: reason be damned.

[azurnoir]

391. Heres the part that gets me

the utter denial that the West Bank is an import source of well resources for Israel-the portrayal of the occupation as some sort of burden that Israel would love to throw off

Eventually the PA will have to deal with their own Human rights issues at home, but to attempt to hold the Palestinians to a higher standard than any other country in recent memory has to obtain its own independence while at the same time whining about how Israel is being treated with double standards is laughable on its face

[pelsar]

392. then perhaps you would like to become educated...

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2013, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Israel was in fact "not allowed" to improve the life of those under the occupation. Do to the various political pressures of the time and the theory of keeping their own culture which meant a mess of laws that were based on jordanian law in the west and egyptian law in gaza, all non democratic with the addition of the occupations laws...

coupled with that, the fatah order that anybody living in the improved israeli housing would be killed. Hence even if israel wanted to impose an occupation that was in germany or japan, it was not going to happen, not did it in fact have complete control.

but all of that is history..what you and your fiends can never discuss and this has been shown over and over and over again, is what a failed PA/Hams government actually means to the area.

or why you believe land ownership is more important than human lives...dictatorshps are notoriously unstable, in case you didn't notice

perhaps you would like to breach the damn and open a discussions about it? i've only been asking for a few years now. We can discuss what would be the repercussions if the Palestenains attempt an arab spring against the PA:

would it look like syria? Iran? Lybia?....care to discuss it? we do, those of us who live in israel....how about the druze in the golan? what should they do?
should their wishes be respected, about staying as israelis? or those that don't?

lots to discuss..to bad its "off limits" or limited to land ownership and not human lives.

[pelsar]

393. its the part that you skip that is most interesting....

you small brain clearly is limited to one thought at at time....the challenge for you is beyond the occupation.....if you can

i get it that you value land ownerships over human lives, that you believe that democracy, civil rights as secondary value, thats been made clear over and over again. (people who accept dictatorships never believe in civil rights as being very important)

yes i know you "don't support" hamas or the PA and at the same time you accept them as the government of the Palestenains if it meant they get a state....and you would support propping them up with money and guns..wouldnt you?


am i putting words in your mouth? if i am wrong feel free to correct me

[shira]

394. We can safely assume you're right about our progressive anti-Israel friends here...

They say they don't support Hamas or the PA, but they will in fact support an independent Palestine with either or both entities in charge. They will support the West funding these dictatorships and also arming them. They will work for Palestinian civil and human rights every bit as much as they do now for Palestinians throughout the Arab world who lack these rights....meaning they'll do nothing.

The end result for Palestinians being that they will be no better off within their own state than they are now under occupation.

This is what our progressive friends support.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

396. Most of what you just wrote is your usual gibberish, but you did at least admit occupation.

Thanks for that. Also thanks for the personal attack on what you believe that I support when you really know that I don't: seeing how I have told you many times.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

423. "They will support the West funding these dictatorships and also arming them."

That must be one of the most disingenuous things that I have seen you post.

I would no more support the USA supporting a terrorist dictatorship than I would them supporting an apartheidist asshole.


You do know that your mask slid a little.

The end result for Palestinians being that they will be no better off within their own state than they are now under occupation.

Sounds like Israeli occupation, in your opinion, is no better than a dictatorship.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

395. "am i putting words in your mouth?"

Your query pretty much sums up what you have been doing the entire time.

The short answer is yes, and from somebody that says "call it occupation or apartheid" to then have the gall to regurgitate over and over that I support Hamas or Abbas, when I have made it abundantly clear that I don't, then jump to another accusation that I value land over human rights, while telling me that is occupation or apartheid keeps you safe, is the height of hypocrisy and cruel human indifference: the kind of language and accusations that I would expect from an occupier.

[pelsar]

397. its because you believe a belief and intent are real & actual consequences r less important

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 02:38 AM - Edit history (6)

lets start with, what part have i guessed wrong be specific please and try this time to actually respond to the accusation, i even numbered the points to make each "guess/accusation really clear so that you can respond to each point clearly.

numbers one and two, you've already made clear


1) you believe in civil rights, and that you don't support hamas and the Abbas

2) you also believe that the occupation should be removed Immediately

3) israeli withdrawal would leave both dictatorships in power with no internal mechanism, pressure to remove them and no alternative

4) you probably also believe that what the Palestenians do to themselves how they govern themselves is their business

5) the result are two new dictatorships, that you "helped" strengthen via their independence which gives their governments additional power and standing in the world to access additional resources (money, arms etc)

6) do dictatorships represent the "will of the people" in your opinion?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

398. No, you have it wrong again, my occupationist friend.

1. I believe in the right of self-determination of a group of people: free of constraints of occupation or rule by another group when it is clear that the first group has a *legitimate claim to a land.

2. I believe that then Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is illegitimate, immoral and runs contrary to international law. Israel has no right to colonize Palestinian land for the purpose of creating a greater Israel while depriving Palestinians the right to a homeland.

3. Regardless of how poor Pelsar or Israel feels about Israel's withdrawal from Palestinian land is irrelevant to what the UN and international law sees as illegal settlements on land not belonging to Israel. How Palestine forms their country, drafts their constitution, writes their laws should be decided and guided by a UN governing body to help shape the future Palestinian state; without continuous preconditions from Israel as if it has the right to decide the Palestinians future as it eats up their land and resources.

4) you probably also believe that what the Palestenians do to themselves how they govern themselves is their business

4. This fixation that you possess over the Palestinians having the right to free will and self determination is a telling one for two reason.
(1) It shows the contempt that you have for Palestinian self-determination, free of brute-force Israeli aggression. (2) It shows the hypocrisy of your position where you are on record as saying that how the Israelis govern others is their business.

Example. "and since its my life on the line....as well as others, the israeli govt has every right as tar as I'm concerned to keep their rights and their govt restricted until the time when they can "play nice with us"..... "

I find it strange that you didn't mention 500k illegal settlers, backed by IDF firepower, eating up Palestinian land as a fine example of governing others.

5. I am on record as not supporting dictatorships; not Hamas, not Abbas and certainly not colonial Israelis.

6) do dictatorships represent the "will of the people" in your opinion?

6. See #3 above. Does Israeli dictatorship in the West Bank represent the "will of the people" in your opinion?
If it does then every excuse that you have made on behalf of Israeli rule of Palestinians falls on its face when you decry the Palestinians having their own state, and by preventing the Palestinians from creating their own state, through Israeli brute force colonization and land theft, promotes the very dictatorship that you accuse the Palestinians of having: visited upon them by Israel itself.

Apartheid.

Don't forget the Nakba.

[pelsar]

399. your 3, 4, 5 and 6

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 08:53 AM - Edit history (2)

3.Palestine forms their country, drafts their constitution, writes their laws should be decided and guided by a UN governing body to help shape the future Palestinian state

the PA has already drawn up their constitution, are you telling me that you consider it null and void and that the UN decides for them?
what happen to the "free will of the Palestenians....maybe they don't want the UN's interference?

free will or not? make a decision.


4. This fixation that you possess over the Palestinians having the right to free will and self determination is a telling one for two reason.
(1) It shows the contempt that you have for Palestinian self-determination, free of brute-force Israeli aggression. (2) It shows the hypocrisy of your position where you are on record as saying that how the Israelis govern others is their business.

actually i have contempt for dictatorships and those that support their formation either directly or indirectly. Only democracies have the right to govern their own, all dictatorships in my mind are illegal immoral and anybody supporting the creation of a new dictatorship for whatever their reason is just as immoral.

i shall repeat that: Any Private Person who helps in any way the formation of a new dictatorship is immoral and by definition cannot actually believe in democracy or civil rights as a right for "the people" no matter how many times the claim they are. and there is no such animal as "dictatorships are the essential first steps toward democracy...
----

5. I am on record as not supporting dictatorships; not Hamas, not Abbas and certainly not colonial Israelis.

and you are also on record as avoiding a simple question: This "new state"...that your pushing for, governed by hamas and Abbas, will they suddenly disappear? will their governments dissolve...well?
the question of 5 was and is the Consequences after this withdrawal, the governing bodies, who will be governing the Palestenians?

6) its was simple question of principle,
(as you seem to say in #4 that Palestenains out of a free will, may want a dictatorship, is that true?)

________

as far as what the settlers are doing, yes i'm very aware of it, and have never agreed to it...but that is not the subject that we're discussing. Its very difficult to get a progressives off of their talking points of land ownership and "justice" and on to the realities of actual consequences.

take note of the 100,000 dead syrians as consequences for wrong political decisions, Lebanon had a 10yr civil war as a result of consequences for wrong political decisions, Gazan is governed by hamas as a consequence for wrong political decisions (bush, rice and the progressives)....the list goes on and on..that is why actual consequences are import to consider.

no one really cares about the Libyan, dead, the Syrian dead, the tortured under Hamas...and no one will really care if the PA is a failed state (once they have it) with its direct consequences to israelis who are next door. That is why consequences matter to us and only us.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

400. From your reply all I can only say that

you can tell a Hasbasist, but you can't tell them much.

Your insistence and disregard for he rights of the Palestinian people is well noted.

as far as what the settlers are doing, yes i'm very aware of it, and have never agreed to it...but that is not the subject that we're discussing.

Your reluctance to condemn the illegal Israeli settlers is well noted. And the illegal settlements are indeed what we are talking about since they are, in part, a direct result of the Nakba: colonialism. Too bad that you can't run away from that since you are on record as accepting them.

And now the usual xionista two-sep begins by trying to draw attention away from their hopeless position of land theft, colonialism and apartheid.

take note of the 100,000 dead syrians as consequences for wrong political decisions, Lebanon had a 10yr civil war as a result of consequences for wrong political decisions...

For one that tries to put up the hollow argument that "that is not the subject that we're discussing" you do an awful job of moving the subject to a subject that we're not discussing.

Perhaps you can go further and interject something about Nelson Mandela since that is the hijack flavor of the day.

And if you were really worth your salt you would know that lumping &quot bush, rice and the progressives)" together makes you appear even more foolish than first though.

And then again you try to deflect with a tired attempted hijack about Libya and Syria: also not part of the discussion, but hey I guess that when you got nothing except for a bankrupt policy of tacitly supporting colonialism and apartheid anything goes to move the topic away from your shameful rhetoric.

[pelsar]

401. the thread that links my examples ....is called consequences.

and you diverted, avoided it everytime

Your reluctance to condemn the illegal Israeli settlers is well noted.
what reluctance? i condemn them, i dont like what they're doing to my country, to its citizens, to the army, no do i like what it does to the Palestenians, their lives living under an occupation.

whats so difficult about that? you asked, you got an answer.

now lets see if you can do the same:

Consequences: given that neither the PA nor hamas will voluntarily give up their power and both are dictatorships, how is it that you want an independent Palestine, knowing full well that they will be living under those two dictatorships?...

well? too difficult to answer?

______________________________
And if you were really worth your salt you would know that lumping &quot bush, rice and the progressives)" together makes you appear even more foolish than first though.
so you didn't know that those three were all for having elections in gaza? having no idea that hamas would possibly win? political choices that ignore the consequences

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

402. "is called consequences"

You have a strange way of spelling occupation, and just like I have stated I do not support Hamas or Abbas.

Just as Israel will eventually be forced to give up on apartheid so too will Hamas and Abbas be forced to either step down or be removed. The Palestinians have not yet had their "spring" but when it happens it will hopefully will bear fruit in the form of democracy.

I'm glad that you can denounce the illegal Israeli occupation, but I was a little worried when you seemed not to really care.

[pelsar]

403. all u have to do is ask...

my problem with the occupation is not with land ownership, i think the concept of "indigenous" I was here first therefore i have more rights is all about racism and therefore poison to a democratic society. (and dictatorships are not even worth mentioning....)

my problem with the occupation is that it corrupts the israeli democracy, it creates an acceptance of a two tiered system and creates settlers that, like the bediouin believe they are above the law and screws up the mind of young soldiers with moral dilemmas that are impossible.....

that said, i assume you have noticed that arab spring in syria, 100,000 dead, the failed arab spring in iran, the failed arab spring in egypt, the failed arab spring in Lybia, the failed arab spring in tunisia, the assenction of hamas in gaza....

in fact what arab spring has removed its dictators and have created a democracy?....you "hope" it will bear fruit? so do i get to "hope' that they don't copy gaza and start sending rockets and mortars over our border?

hope? is that your plan for a stable, democratic Palestine?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

404. The drive for Democracy is messy, Pelsar, and it won't happen overnight.

Even within Israel.

my problem with the occupation is that it corrupts the israeli democracy, it creates an acceptance of a two tiered system and creates settlers that, like the bediouin believe they are above the law and screws up the mind of young soldiers with moral dilemmas that are impossible.....

hope? is that your plan for a stable, democratic Palestine?

Just as I have hope that Israel will wake up and dismantle the trappings of apartheid.

Sic semper tyrannis.

[pelsar]

405. who decided that?

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 04:15 AM - Edit history (4)

The drive for Democracy is messy

thats just the excuse to sit back and do nothing. Dictators may not go peacefully but it doesn't mean you just sit back on the sidelines and go "rah rah" and by messy you means hundreds and thousands killed and wounded....shall i repeat that number? hundreds and thousands dead!

How many have to die in this drive before someone like u, decides that their has to be better way?
is 100,00 syrians enough dead? how about the return of the Egyptian dictatorship. Is there even a "drive" in iran now?

or do u just pray to the almighty god of progressive speak, that they will see the light and take to the streets......and the oppressors will also "see the light" of put away their guns and gas?

sure sounds religious to me, any difference between that belief and jesus showing up?

btw ever check into the ratios? how many successful changes to democracies vs failed attempts? and the cost in human lives? as per "your model for govt change"
__________________________________________________
enough of the sarcasm, now back to reality:

so....first you want independence for the Palestenians, and since they will need help to build their infrastructure you will probably be for them getting help: guns and butter, which obviously only strengthens the two dictatorships. (which your against morally but at the same time will support in the meantime because its for the "people&quot .

so once they have their own dictatorship and the people are oppressed in a more traditional matter, you will then claim, its non of your business what the Palestenian govt does to its own people, you may not like it, but its their business.

and then you will hope that when the people have had enough of being oppressed by their own (which may take multiple generations), they will take to the streets and probably get shot down by the very govt that you supported....if they even get out the door.

did u know that there was an "arab spring" in gaza? Hamas didn't even let them "get out the door". They looked around and realized that, with people like u, "supporting the people" they have noting to fear, and there is no gain in letting them protest anyway.

so that I believe is a good summary of your plan, except you forgot the most crucial part that relates to us:

if by chance this new dictatorship(s), requires a boogyman (as all dictatorships do), decides to start lobbying a few rockets at the now nearby israeli population.....

your reaction will be____________________(spare me the Israel has a right to defend itself*- as long as it doesn't hurt anybody) knee jerk reaction.)
do we risk our kids lives and invade in an attempt to stop the rockets or is your suggestion that we just "take it" or ask the UN to ask them to stop...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

406. "who decided that? The drive for Democracy is messy"

That is painfully clear to anybody that takes a few seconds to think about it without reverting to a tantrum. You have to constantly work at democracy. Look at the USA turning into a surveillance state for just one example.

thats just the excuse to sit back and do nothing. Dictators may not go peacefully but it doesn't mean you just sit back on the sidelines and go "rah rah" and by messy you means hundreds and thousands killed and wounded....shall i repeat that number? hundreds and thousands dead!

No, on the contrary. That is a statement that those who sit back and do nothing get what hey deserve. Many have died for the right to be free. How many Palestinians has Israel killed so far while it cheerleaders point to every other part of the world to distract from reality?

or do u just pray to the almighty god of progressive speak, that they will see the light and take to the streets......and the oppressors will also "see the light" of put away their guns and gas?

Um... no. I believe that you need to step away from the Hookah for your own safety.

sure sounds religious to me, any difference between that belief and jesus showing up?

Well, democracy is a movement of by and for the people. Jesus was a historical/religious person that lived two thousand years ago.

btw ever check into the ratios? how many successful changes to democracies vs failed attempts? and the cost in human lives? as per "your model for govt change"

I'm not sure if this is a pitch to just keep the status of the Israeli apartheid state going, but I'm not sure that it is a viable solution to human rights and freedom.

so....first you want independence for the Palestenians, and since they will need help to build their infrastructure you will probably be for them getting help: guns and butter, which obviously only strengthens the two dictatorships. (which your against morally but at the same time will support in the meantime because its for the "people&quot .

Um, no. I no more support the arming of the Palestinians as I am seeing further Israeli encroachment of their lands. I have also stated that I do not support Hamas or Abbas so for you to make that jump is not only disingenuous but downright misleading.

so once they have their own dictatorship and the people are oppressed in a more traditional matter, you will then claim, its non of your business what the Palestenian govt does to its own people, you may not like it, but its their business.

and then you will hope that when the people have had enough of being oppressed by their own (which may take multiple generations), they will take to the streets and probably get shot down by the very govt that you supported....if they even get out the door.

No. You seem to be tilting at windmills here. I have been clear that I do not support dictatorships. I'm not sure why you continue to insist on something that I do not support.

did u know that there was an "arab spring" in gaza? Hamas didn't even let them "get out the door". They looked around and realized that, with people like u, "supporting the people" they have noting to fear, and there is no gain in letting them protest anyway.

Hamas should be deposed for the good of the Palestinians living in Gaza. It would be better if the Gazans did it themselves.

so that I believe is a good summary of your plan, except you forgot the most crucial part that relates to us:

No, you have got it horribly wrong again; point by point.

if by chance this new dictatorship(s), requires a boogyman (as all dictatorships do), decides to start lobbying a few rockets at the now nearby israeli population.....

your reaction will be____________________(spare me the Israel has a right to defend itself*- as long as it doesn't hurt anybody) knee jerk reaction.)
do we risk our kids lives and invade in an attempt to stop the rockets or is your suggestion that we just "take it" or ask the UN to ask them to stop...

I have never been an advocate for rockets hitting Israel or Israel indiscriminately targeting Palestinians for assassination.

But since we are on the subject, sort of, with regards to terrorism weren't the very founding members of present day Israel known as terrorists by the British? Targeted the British? Killed the British and others?

When you think of them do you consider them freedom fighters while the British had bounties on their heads?

What separates your founding fathers and how some Palestinian hawks see those that fight against Israel?


Things have come full circle for Eretz Israel.

[pelsar]

408. explain what you mean by this...

It would be better if the Gazans did it themselves.

what is the other option that your are suggesting?
________

I have never been an advocate for rockets hitting Israel or Israel indiscriminately targeting Palestinians for assassination.

i didn't ask what you are for or against...i asked what would you suggest israel do? thats a very very different question, the kind you don't like answering


btw how do you separate this support the people but not the dictatorship, you keep on mentioning?
are you for stopping all aid to the govts of hamas and the PA, without which they cannot exist?



___________
But since we are on the subject, sort of, with regards to terrorism weren't the very founding members of present day Israel known as terrorists by the British? Targeted the British? Killed the British and others?

of course they were....thats one of the basic methods for removing an occupation. Thats one reason why we left gaza, the price in israeli blood was getting too high.

However, just for fun since your trying to equate the PA terrorists with the jews...you'll have to revise history. Whereas the PA terrorists and their history actually celebrate the targeted killing of jewish children..yes celebrate the targeting of children, you wont find such celebrations in the history of the jewish terrorism. There is a moral difference in the way one kills and its aftermath and it has an affect upon the society that it produces.


I'm not sure why you are asking...isn't that the definition of your "creating democracies are messy"

[Israeli]

410. for fun pelsar !!

ref : " However, just for fun since your trying to equate the PA terrorists with the jews...you'll have to revise history. Whereas the PA terrorists and their history actually celebrate the targeted killing of jewish children..yes celebrate the targeting of children, you wont find such celebrations in the history of the jewish terrorism. There is a moral difference in the way one kills and its aftermath and it has an affect upon the society that it produces. "

nothing funny about any of it ....and nothing truthful about this part of it " you wont find such celebrations in the history of the jewish terrorism. " !!!

I've seen them celebrating dead Palestinians, including children, with my own eyes so stop with the bullshit .

There are so many examples ...you must be living in some twilight zone not to know that .

Celebrations including dancing and singing over Baruch Goldstein is probably the best known :
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/murderer-baruch-goldstein.html

Lets not forget how they danced the night away after Rabin's assassination .

Right wingers guzzling beer and laughing on the hillside overlooking ..as Gaza was being pounded during Operation Cast Lead ....no dead children then , right ?
What you dont watch Israeli television ?

Then there was this :
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=332817886749407&story_fbid=388194954588949

" moral difference " my ass .

[pelsar]

411. we were referring to pre 48- occupation removal...but

Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:25 PM - Edit history (4)

killing has many variations on it, that is why courts for example have different punishment for different kinds of killing. War also has variations on that same theme.

the discussion about terrorism, to remove an occupation.... that was mentioned is about the prestate terrorism, the building of a state....those are the examples you need to find on the jewish side for your moral equivalence.

if your interested find the jewish equivalents against the brits, vs what the arab terrorists have done: maalot high school, the numerous attacks on buses , the Samir Kuntar bashing the childs head in, in nahariya, misgav am, the list of terrorists targeting civilians is very long with the organizations behind it, including their two govts "celebrating" the "freedom fighters

..find the jewish equivalents....probably the two british sergeants is as close as you'll get, but their killers are not celebrated for their deed.


the core discussion however is about democracy......

perhaps you want to join in.....do you have a problem supporting a Palestenian state knowing full well that it will be a dictatorship and a theocratic dictatorship and not a democracy?....

[Israeli]

412. from " moral difference " to ...

" moral equivalence " .... and lots of yada yada in between .

" the core discussion however is about democracy......

perhaps you want to join in.....do you have a problem supporting a Palestenian state knowing full well that it will be a dictatorship and a theocratic dictatorship and not a democracy?...."

What Palestinian state pelsar ? ( you cant even spell it right )

and if there ever is one ....its none of my damn business , nor yours , how they run their own country .

also I dont know " full well that it will be a dictatorship and a theocratic dictatorship and not a democracy "..... and neither do you .

Its up to them pelsar ... its up to us to give them the chance to prove you wrong .

[azurnoir]

413. I always find these occupation in the interest of human rights and democracy

interesting and as for dictatorship and theocracy those seems very fluid concepts indeed

[pelsar]

417. no...u miss the concept....

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

there is no moral difference between an occupation and dictatorship in terms of civil rights.

Trading one for the other because one prefers that a certain race should rule over the people is not a "human right" its just racism, wrapped up in nicer package.

[pelsar]

415. thats the core of the discussion....

and if there ever is one ....its none of my damn business , nor yours , how they run their own country .

and i say it is for several reasons since don't know if you've been following the discussion:
1) i believe that civil rights is foundation for any society and ALL people deserve to live in country that has them
2) I believe its immoral to help, be it verbal, written or financial create a country that will be a dictatorship
3) A dictatorship next door, which are inherently unstable, will threaten us both directly and indirectly.

or perhaps you don't believe so?

also I dont know " full well that it will be a dictatorship and a theocratic dictatorship and not a democracy "..... and neither do you .
i also believe that being willfully blind is just as foolish.

any evidence that you have that there is a chance of a western democracy happening? anything at all? Do they have any foundations of such? These things don't appear out of thin air, democracies are hard to build and maintain.


Its up to them pelsar ... its up to us to give them the chance to prove you wrong .
They have been given two major chances to move in the direction of a democracy. The first was olso, when they were given partial self rule and the second was gaza, in both cases they went backwards from limited freedoms for their "citizens' to less freedom and have created two dictatorships.

Their failure to create a democracy now, vs later, can have a very high cost in blood. From what I've learned here....no one really cares (nor do u) how many die in there attempts, the only difference between a PA/Hamas failure vs Syria is that, it will affect us directly, hence it is my business.

but basically you appear to be following the standard "progressive line" which is occupation is acceptable as long as the genes of the occupier are the proper ones (in this case Palestenians genes). So you have no moral problem with an occupation you're just concerned with "land ownership"
I don't see the difference between and occupation vs a dictatorship in terms of morality for the avg citizen, both deny basic civil rights and both have govts that can be removed only through violence and/or major citizen revolts.

______________________________
i make lots of spelling mistakes and the computers "self fix" makes them worse, so its best to ignore them, if u think there is some kind of hidden message in my mistakes...there isn't

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

414. You have quite a spin cycle, pelsar. Industrial level.

explain what you mean by this...It would be better if the Gazans did it themselves.

I meant just that, pelsar. I'm not sure how hard it is for you to grasp that, but it would be better for the Gazans to deal with Hamas than for Israel to keep dealing with Gaza. All that does is drive any hatred for Hamas that Gazans may have and directs it back towards Israel.

i didn't ask what you are for or against...i asked what would you suggest israel do? thats a very very different question, the kind you don't like answering

btw how do you separate this support the people but not the dictatorship, you keep on mentioning?
are you for stopping all aid to the govts of hamas and the PA, without which they cannot exist?

Let the UN deal with Gaza, pelsar. Israel has made just as much of a mess as Hamas has, but please keep the BS going with another pillar of bullshit.

If you want to know whose aide I would stop first it would be Israel's until it disengaged from the West Bank. That's for starters. But to be fair I would also shut off the PA, Saudi Arabia, and any other abusive regime that sucks at the teet of the USA.

How's that for harsh?

However, just for fun since your trying to equate the PA terrorists with the jews...you'll have to revise history. Whereas the PA terrorists and their history actually celebrate the targeted killing of jewish children..yes celebrate the targeting of children, you wont find such celebrations in the history of the jewish terrorism. There is a moral difference in the way one kills and its aftermath and it has an affect upon the society that it produces.

Well actually the only one who is equating anythign with the Jews is you, Pelsar. I compared terrorists to terrorists. I also see that Israeli has chimed in with a response to you while I was out, which I appreciate, so I will let her words stand.

There is no moral difference between sets of terrorists once one decides to kill in the name of religion, political views, money, power or anything. How fucking dare you celebrate your own terrorists as is somehow above it all. They plotted, they bombed, they killed.

Only an asshole would pretend their terrorists are somehow noble.

Frankly there is an asshole in Hamas that probably just said the same thing that you wrote.

[pelsar]

416. so disagreements are "spin"

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:30 PM - Edit history (6)

i always find that attitude more in line with a teenager that doesn't like being questioned, but u get credit for answering despite your attitude. and btw, you have to remove your Knee-jerk reactions, they make you sound foolish.

explain what you mean by this...It would be better if the Gazans did it themselves.
I meant just that, pelsar. I'm not sure how hard it is for you to grasp that, but it would be better for the Gazans to deal with Hamas than for Israel to keep dealing with Gaza

i asked because i wanted to know what you referring to, if you think there should be some "outside interference" as in the UN or Europe, which u answered later, saying u think its the UN problem to deal with, previous to that you said it was none of anybodies business how they governed..make up your mind.

any history of the UN stopping any violence? any history of the UN helping a country to go from a dictatorship to a democracy? The history of the UN in this area is one of limited success, more of failures than anything else. Out gunned, under constant threats, both physical and political, they don't really do much anything except support the local regime with money and employment.

or is the idea of giving it to the UN, knowing full well they can't/wont do anything is throw the responsibility for the creation of a new dictatorship in someone else's lap?

and yes, I believe that anyone who is a cheerleader for a Palestenain country at this point, knowing full well what it is, shares that same immoral responsibility for the new occupation.

that's for starters. But to be fair I would also shut off the PA, Saudi Arabia, and any other abusive regime that sucks at the teet of the USA

you get two points for consistency, you do realize that cutting off the PA would affect "the people" that your so concerned with....and they will then suffer

Well actually the only one who is equating anythign with the Jews is you, Pelsar. I compared terrorists to terrorists.

you mention the terrorism that the jews used to get rid of the british, so it was appropriate to compare the jewish terrorism of pre 48 to the arab terrorism of today (i was simply being more descriptive of the people involved, my own knee-jerk reaction)

There is no moral difference between sets of terrorists once one decides to kill in the name of religion, political views, money, power or anything. How fucking dare you celebrate your own terrorists as is somehow above it all. They plotted, they bombed, they killed.
Only an asshole would pretend their terrorists are somehow noble.

Frankly there is an asshole in Hamas that probably just said the same thing that you wrote.

how fuking dare I? its easy. I believe there is moral difference in the way people kill, why they kill and whats the ultimate goal
this is pretty standard stuff for all societies, since their creation and up until today, which the UN is very much in agreement

why was there the outrage in the states for the killing of the children in the elementary school or Trayvon vs the hundreds of kids killed in gang related drive by shootings? Its was the who, where, why and the way they were killed

of course the hamasnikim and PA believe their terrorists are noble...the germans saw their own nazis were noble, The brits were noble in keeping down the colonist the Hutus were noble in removing the Tutsis, the Japaese were noble in china (WWII), they syrian rebels are nobel for attempting to remove the assad regime.

Every society believes their own are noble, i just believe that though violence unfortunately is needed to remove and protect democracies...those democracies are infact better and more moral societies than dictatorships/occupations and therefore their "terrorists" are better ones.

so you don't see the difference between targeting children vs targeting soldiers to remove an occupation force? (this one is for israeli as well)
nor do you see any moral difference in the creation of a democracy vs a dictatorship. (both rmay require violence in their creation)



lets see if i got this right:
your for cutting off all aid to bad regimes (immoral ones), but you have no problem in aiding in the creation of them, and when i say aiding in the creation of them, i mean morally supporting the creation of a Palestenain country where at this point its obvious that its govt will be a PA/hamas led govt. A immoral one that you seem to agree should receive no aid.

and if an when the time comes when their people decide to "revolt" to create a new govt style, you also believe that no matter how many get killed it remains an internal matter and if it spills across the borders, it remains an internal matter.

so you want to create an immoral society, you don't want to help it become stabilized, because its immoral, and you hope that the people will revolt to create a better moral one and the cost in human lives is irrelevant, and if they succeed or fail its also irrelevant to you because its an internal matter and creating democracies are messy.

you believe land ownership by specific ethnic groups (racism) is the most important moral aspect of a society today and that u support with your writings and beliefs, everything else is secondary to that most important goal of rule by race.(in certain areas and probably not in others...)

thats no spin...as far as i can see, that is what you believe.

-----
oh yea i don't know if u skipped this or you believe u answered it

I have never been an advocate for rockets hitting Israel or Israel indiscriminately targeting Palestinians for assassination.
i didn't ask what you are for or against...i asked what would you suggest israel do? (about the random rockets fired from gaza during different periods) thats a very very different question,

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

418. No, silly. Spin is spin. You wrongly took my words out of context. Curious that you would try that.

When I write...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post357
I'm making an argument for their right of self determination which you seemingly reject for the status quo apartheid state.

and...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post366
It is not up to you or Israel to take another people's land, take their resources, destroy their livelihood, destroy their children's future simply because you claim a right to or feel entitled to so-called security on their backs.

and more importantly exposing your disingenuous streak...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post414
Let the UN deal with Gaza, pelsar. Israel has made just as much of a mess as Hamas has, but please keep the BS going with another pillar of bullshit.

What I meant was just that. That does not supplant Palestinian independence but it assures it from Israeli domination, Israeli aggression, Israeli status quo.

For example when I write that I am not for Hamas or Abbas. You remark that I am; even thought I have just written that I am not.
Curiously silly.


But let's go on. Shall we?

or is the idea of giving it to the UN, knowing full well they can't/wont do anything is throw the responsibility for the creation of a new dictatorship in someone else's lap?

and yes, I believe that anyone who is a cheerleader for a Palestenain country at this point, knowing full well what it is, shares that same immoral responsibility for the new occupation.

I love how the UN is the favorite Punch-N-Judy for team hijack. When they need them they cry at the UN showing bad info graphics, and when they don't want them the UN is vilified like yesterdays ham sandwich.

But I understand that if the UN were to take over in Gaza to ease a humanitarian crisis which Israel has helped create that Israel would object. How would Israel be able to continue the blockade and harassment if the UN was present? No chance to continue to be the neighborhood bully.

you mention the terrorism that the jews used to get rid of the british, so it was appropriate to compare the jewish terrorism of pre 48 to the arab terrorism of today (i was simply being more descriptive of the people involved, my own knee-jerk reaction)

Yes, I noticed that is a theme around here for some.

I believe there is moral difference in the way people kill, why they kill and whats the ultimate goal this is pretty standard stuff for all societies, since their creation and up until today, which the UN is very much in agreement

Were the British that died at the hands of the founding figures of Israel, in acts of terrorism, morally killed for some greater good? Did you really just write that??
And I would like to wager that the UN was most likely against such targeted killing of British and other nationals by terrorist/founders of Israel...just in the same way that Israel doesn't like being hit by terrorists.

of course the hamasnikim and PA believe their terrorists are noble...the germans saw their own nazis were noble, The brits were noble in keeping down the colonist the Hutus were noble in removing the Tutsis, the Japaese were noble in china (WWII), they syrian rebels are nobel for attempting to remove the assad regime.

And I guess that you believe that there was a moral difference with the founders of Israel being terrorists and killing British. Wow. Just fucking wow.

so you don't see the difference between targeting children vs targeting soldiers to remove an occupation force? (this one is for israeli as well)
nor do you see any moral difference in the creation of a democracy vs a dictatorship. (both rmay require violence in their creation)

Killing is killing, Pelsar, and affixing morality to ones murders while decrying the others is insanity at its ugly worst.
And as to killing children, Palestinian children, Israel is not clean of that butchery either. All in the name of occupation I guess.

lets see if i got this right:
your for cutting off all aid to bad regimes (immoral ones), but you have no problem in aiding in the creation of them, and when i say aiding in the creation of them, i mean morally supporting the creation of a Palestenain country where at this point its obvious that its govt will be a PA/hamas led govt. A immoral one that you seem to agree should receive no aid.

No. Horribly wrong again, but here goes for the umpteenth time. I do not support Hamas or Abbas, just as I do not support Israeli terrorist/murderers. Now those Israeli terrorist/murderers seem to have some kind of warm place in you heart, correct me if I am mistaken...but you have pretty much have written just that, but they seem to have some kind of angelic wisdom by killing others, British in this instance, whereas other terrorists, Palestinian in this instance, just can't cut the mustard with their form of killing. All killing is horrible, Pelsar, and I don't have fond feelings for any terrorist. You...

and if an when the time comes when their people decide to "revolt" to create a new govt style, you also believe that no matter how many get killed it remains an internal matter and if it spills across the borders, it remains an internal matter.

That crystal ball of your appears to be cracked, Pelsar, but let's try this again. "when their people decide to 'revolt'". Would that be a problem if the Palestinian people, in your opinion, revolted against Hamas/Abbas? The act of revolt is by definition a revolution of sorts. Good things can come from revolutions. But this hasn't happened, pelsar, so why try and create fantasies?

so you want to create an immoral society, you don't want to help it become stabilized, because its immoral, and you hope that the people will revolt to create a better moral one and the cost in human lives is irrelevant, and if they succeed or fail its also irrelevant to you because its an internal matter and creating democracies are messy.

Who would want to be part in the creation of an immoral society? I never wrote that I want to create anything of the sort. Your speculative accusations are troubling. I hope that the people of Gaza and the West Bank, minus the illegal invaders in the former, the Palestinian people are given the opportunity to self determination: minus the assholes in Hamas, the Abbas government, the IDS, the illegal Israeli settlers, and the top money wasting extravagant a-hole number one...Bibi.

you believe land ownership by specific ethnic groups (racism) is the most important moral aspect of a society today and that u support with your writings and beliefs, everything else is secondary to that most important goal of rule by race.(in certain areas and probably not in others...)

You seem to be confused in your writings. The Palestinians are a people. They have lived in Palestine for a good long while. They were there for a long time. Just as the Irish have lived in Ireland, the French in France, the Icelanders in Iceland, the Palestinians have developed their own culture, traditions and values. There is nothing inherently racist it that they should be entitled to live on the lands that they have lived on for many many years. They have been the current inhabitants of the area, and until the Nakba were one of the dominant ethnic groups in the region. I find it surprising that you would bring up the argument of race as a driving force against the Palestinians when it is Israel that has been doing the very same thing that you accuse me of being part of. Israel is the nation loading the West bank with illegal Israelis. Israel is the nation choking Gaza with a blockade, Israel is the nation that allows its citizens and soldiers to harass, destroy, murder Palestinians and their farms, deprive them of their very right to their lands as if they were invaders.

The most important thing, my dear, is not race, sex, age or religion, but it is human rights. Perhaps you should give that concept a try sometime.

[pelsar]

419. I'll simplify

Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2013, 03:17 PM - Edit history (3)

Killing is killing, Pelsar, and affixing morality to ones murders while decrying the others is insanity at its ugly worst.

so in your opinion, the US should not have entered WWII, the US killed thousands, the american settlers should not have attacked the british.

The indian defense forces shouldn't have killed the attackers in the 2008 Mumbai attacks?
Killing is killing, Pelsar, and affixing morality to ones murders while decrying the others is insanity at its ugly worst.

___

what u call spin, i call putting an ideology into context, reality:
for instance you mentioned that the UN should control gaza...thats called living in fantasy world.
Before writing such nonsense, why don't u do some research about what the UN can and cannot do, via the real history of UN deployments, and then explain how this "light occupation" is suppose to work and of course why hamas and friends will accept them
(hint: take a look at the UN deployment in S.Lebanon for a good idea of what to expect)

____

and one more: I know this is your "holy of holies" your bible, your torah, your koran

There is nothing inherently racist it that they should be entitled to live on the lands that they have lived on for many many years.

explain why its so important, people have been moving from place to place since they could walk, changing countries, cultures, languages etc. usually in the search for a better life

If i were to ask a settler why they get the land, the answer is god gave it to him, one can't question jesus to a religious christian and same goes for allah, all willing to sacrifice a better material and secure life for their belief in their own entitlement. This entitlement for land that u believe in, can u explain why you believe its so important? and why is your version better than the other entitlements?

and do they have the right to do what they want to their own citizens once they are living on their "entitled land"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

420. I guess that "wrong" is your new normal...

If you want to go point for point then okay.

so in your opinion, the US should not have entered WWII, the US killed thousands, the american settlers should not have attacked the british.

The USA was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. After the USA declared war on the Japanese, Germany declared war on the USA. The USA did not sneek up to the Japanese, set bombs ad then run. There is a big difference, but I understand how you would want to intentionally miss that. So the founder/terrorists of Israel (the Lehi) acted more like the Japanese...actually less since even Japan declared war. The founders of Israel were just gutless terrorists: dressing up like Rabbis to escape the British when necessary.

The indian defense forces shouldn't have killed the attackers in the 2008 Mumbai attacks?
Killing is killing, Pelsar, and affixing morality to ones murders while decrying the others is insanity at its ugly worst.

You were lovingly writing about how your terrorists were better, more moral, than the other terrorists that you face now: which is of course complete puerile bullshit that even a pre-schooler could understand.

The IDF were routing out a terrorist group from Pakistan, but please deflect away.

what u call spin, i call putting an ideology into context, reality:
for instance you mentioned that (1) the UN should control gaza...thats called living in fantasy world.
Before writing such nonsense, (2)why don't u do some research about what the UN can and cannot do, via the real history of UN deployments, (3) and then explain how this "light occupation" is suppose to work and of course why hamas and friends will accept them
(4)(hint: take a look at the UN deployment in S.Lebanon for a good idea of what to expect)

Well to disperse your fecal attempts and clear the air for the passing DUer...

1) Fantasy, no. I would call it letting those who understand how not to kill everything around them take care of the situation. But here it is again: the Hasbarist disdain for anything UN unless they can use the podium at the GA to cry about bombing Iran.

2) The UN has done many things: passing many resolutions. Perhaps you should review the UN's actions in the Koreas.

3) Here's the Hasbarist bent again. I make a suggestion, but in order for it to work I have to spell out a detailed plan that will be up to snuff for the present day Lehi to bomb at will. It reminds me of the continuous preconditions that Israel levies against the Palestinians in hopes of dashing any piece plan.

4) Hint: take a look at the butchery done at Sabra and Shatilla...or anyplace the IDF touches.

ME: There is nothing inherently racist it that they should be entitled to live on the lands that they have lived on for many many years.

You: explain why its so important, people have been moving from place to place since they could walk, changing countries, cultures, languages etc. usually in the search for a better life

5) If i were to ask a settler why they get the land, the answer is god gave it to him, one can't question jesus to a religious christian and same goes for allah, all willing to sacrifice a better material and secure life for their belief in their own entitlement. 6) This entitlement for land that u believe in, can u explain why you believe its so important? and why is your version better than the other entitlements?

It is not the settler that you should be asking as to why they get the land but the Israeli government that allows such heinous acts to begin with.

You do know that your argument leads to where one could question why Israel should be a state to begin with?

Right?

Some asshole in Hamas is asking the same question that you just proposed.


Since you appear to be lacking in a cogent argument the best reply that I can give you is that you have made an pitch for the settlers to take whatever land that they want since "why you believe its so important" and "why is your version better."

You appear to be out of your depth and now arguing for illegal settlements whereas you wrote that you condemned them earlier.


Which is it? Are you for illegal settlements on another people's land, or are you now going to side with the illegal settlers and pitch that the Palestinians are not entitled to it at all?

[pelsar]

421. you seem to do a lot of deflection....

Last edited Wed Dec 25, 2013, 08:11 AM - Edit history (7)

i was asking you about your claims, its has nothing to do with the IDF or the occupation (the questions)...this time leave your knee-jerk, small mind behind and concentrate on your moral hypocrisy....

you said that there was no difference in murder..killing is killing,


Killing is killing, Pelsar, and affixing morality to ones murders while decrying the others is insanity at its ugly worst.

so I brought up WWII as the obvious and as far as i understand, you definitely differentiate between killers....i guess the the american killers were "good" noble? especially when they carpet bombed German civilians... Were they also noble in killing the British occupiers during their own American occupation of the indians (i noticed u skipped this, probably intentional, but here u can try again)

the India example, same thing...so r u now claiming that sometimes there can be "good killers" you earlier claimed the there is no difference.

make up your mind, are all killers the same or not? you've made two statements that contradict one another

__________________________________________________________

The UN...know your history, either your playing dumb or you really don't know, which is it
2) The UN has done many things: passing many resolutions. Perhaps you should review the UN's actions in the Koreas.

The sole reason the UN entered korea with force over 50 years ago was because russia wasn't there for the vote, in S.Korea the US built up the institutions/foundations in S Korea.... are u actually suggesting that the UN enter gaza in force (occupy it?) ...
lets see, if other than silly attempts at insults and deflections, you try to explain this UN occupation of gaza idea, that u seem to be proposing (or aren't you?)...didnt you also say that what the PA/hamas do internally is their own business and perhaps explain why hamas will accept this western occupation or is it a "lite" occupation.

well, make up your mind, should the UN occupy gaza or is it none of their business
___________________________________________________________

seems you avoided the land question with addition deflections..what is so difficult in answering such questions?.....
either you believe in something and can be clear about it, or someone tells u what to believe, and you can't explain why your suppose to believe it....which is it? (take your time and ask your handlers how to answer)

so instead of insults, that a 5yr old can make and deflections,
lets see some maturity on your part and explain why you have this "god like"belief that certain people have entitlement to certain lands.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

422. There's no deflection in pointing out your hypocrisy, pelsar. It's really easy to do.

i was asking you about your claims, its has nothing to do with the IDF or the occupation (the questions)...this time leave your knee-jerk, small mind behind and concentrate on your moral hypocrisy....

you said that there was no difference in murder..killing is killing,

No, silly, I actually started with this...(you see I add links to back up how absurd you really are)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post406
I have never been an advocate for rockets hitting Israel or Israel indiscriminately targeting Palestinians for assassination.

But since we are on the subject, sort of, with regards to terrorism weren't the very founding members of present day Israel known as terrorists by the British? Targeted the British? Killed the British and others?

When you think of them do you consider them freedom fighters while the British had bounties on their heads?

What separates your founding fathers and how some Palestinian hawks see those that fight against Israel?

To which you then squirmed around the answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post408
However, just for fun since your trying to equate the PA terrorists with the jews...you'll have to revise history. Whereas the PA terrorists and their history actually celebrate the targeted killing of jewish children..yes celebrate the targeting of children, you wont find such celebrations in the history of the jewish terrorism. There is a moral difference in the way one kills and its aftermath and it has an affect upon the society that it produces.

More of me defining what you apparently want to divert from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post414
There is no moral difference between sets of terrorists once one decides to kill in the name of religion, political views, money, power or anything. How fucking dar

e you celebrate your own terrorists as is somehow above it all. They plotted, they bombed, they killed.

Another diversion by you as well as embracing terrorists on your side of the coin...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113436146#post416
how fuking dare I? its easy. I believe there is moral difference in the way people kill, why they kill and whats the ultimate goal
---
Every society believes their own are noble, i just believe that though violence unfortunately is needed to remove and protect democracies...those democracies are infact better and more moral societies than dictatorships/occupations and therefore their "terrorists" are better ones.

Botha couldn't have said it better himself.

So, silly. We weren't talking, or writing about WWII, or anything approaching WWII. We were, in fact writing about why you believe that the founding members of Israel are somehow better for killing British, and starting the Nakba I may add, while the Palestinians are bad for acts of terrorism. My point was there is no difference between an asshole defending Hamas or an asshole defending the founding terrorists of Israel.

My point was to state that all terrorism is bad and unjust.

You wished to try a silly little diversion about the morality of WWII.

Your Fail for trying to manipulate it into spin. Wear it.


More fail al la pelsar...

The sole reason the UN entered korea with force over 50 years ago was because russia wasn't there for the vote, in S.Korea the US built up the institutions/foundations in S Korea.... are u actually suggesting that the UN enter gaza in force (occupy it?) ...

So now that have I pointed out that the UN was instrumental in something, in actuality it has been a great body for Israel to cry at when necessary and damn it at other times, you try and change the rules..."Oh Russia wasn't there...bla bla bla..."

You're quite a dull tool. One that needs sharpening at any rate.

well, make up your mind, should the UN occupy gaza or is it none of their business

How should I phrase this so even an dullard can understand it? Regardless of what the UN decides WRT Gaza or the West Bank it is none of Israel's business to stand in the way of the UN. But that is precisely what Israel has done by exporting illegal settler after settler into the West bank, Blockading Gaza, killing Palestinian Children, hindering the livelihood of Palestinian fishermen in Gaza and farmers in the West Bank, and all the while right wing idiots in Israel are so happy that their terrorists have had the upper hand against the British and now the Palestinians while they thumb their nose at the UN and world.

either you believe in something and can be clear about it, or someone tells u what to believe, and you can't explain why your suppose to believe it....which is it? (take your time and ask your handlers how to answer)

I'll leave the last part up to you. Thou doth protest too much.

[pelsar]

424. so 'your diversions are good...and others are bad...

its called a conversation..and you don't get to say "stop" when its gets uncomfortable, and your hypocrisy starts to show.

My point was to state that all terrorism is bad and unjust.

and when you read what i wrote (as per your links), you see further clarification each time, no squirming, no diversion....something you might try, do you think u can?

I think you actually differentiate between your "terrorists and their "terrorists"l, I think you too believe in the concept of the "good killers" and to prove it I bring up WWII.

and WWII is relevant because we're going to discover your hypocrisy here, assuming you answer: Were the Americans the noble killers, the good terrorists as the fire bombed tokyo? A-bombed nagasaki, killled gemain civilians with high altitude bombing? or were the german soldiers worse when they killed civilians?

or are you now going to claim that sending bombers day and night to kill civilians is not "terrorism"

Is killing all the same or is context a factor? (Thats why WWII is relevant) or is the question to difficult and your now going to avoid answering with some lame excuse?)
___________________________________________________

and the UN in korea......, selective use of history works for the ignorant and dumb....unfortuantly for you I am neither: I'll skip over the history of the UN, the cold war of that period, which made for a unique environment, more relevant is that actual history of the UN in the middle east, past and present

The UN's history in the middle east is of very limited use: we see that in Lebanon, on the Syrian border, Egypt 67, They are always restricted in terms of arms and what they can and cannot do, this has been the UNs policy, the reasons are the vunerability of its personal and the political mix within the environment....its called reality.

How should I phrase this so even an dullard can understand it?
talk about being "dullard"
how should i phrase this again with simple english so you might even answer and not divert?

what is YOUR OPINION, are you suggesting that the UN enter gaza in force? Do you not understand the question?

________________________
are you still conferring with "the book" or the "elders" or whomever you need to advise u with the proper acceptable answer?)

the "land ownership religious belief of yours" I understand that you have this belief something about certain people have superior rights to live in certain places because their grandparents were there first.....how about explaining what these rights are and why do they even deserve them?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

425. "so 'your diversions' are good...and others are bad..."

I don't consider speaking the truth as diversions, but if that is how you see yourself then I won't argue with your Freudian Schlep.

"so 'your diversions' are good...and others are bad..."

Unlike your self-admitted diversions, I was writing from a factual basis.

The founding members of Israel were terrorists that targeted and killed British troops. You defended them as moral. I have shown that in my prior thread. You can always delete your post, but the fact remains that you are on the side of your terrorist's morality.

I don't defend any terrorism as moral: whether it kills a British Soldier or a innocent child.

and when you read what i wrote (as per your links), you see further clarification each time, no squirming, no diversion....something you might try, do you think u can?

Yes, you clarified each time to try and dig your way out of a hole. When one finds themselves in a hole, Pelsar, they should stop digging.
Do I need to take your shovel away?

I think you actually differentiate between your "terrorists and their "terrorists"l, I think you too believe in the concept of the "good killers" and to prove it I bring up WWII.

The Americans, and allies, during WWII were not terrorists, Pelsar.

Britian, America, France, others were attacked by both Nazi Germany and Imperialist japan. Perhaps you need to read up on that period in history. You seem to be lacking in that area as to what one considers terrorism.

Now if you want to talk about the morality of the US intervention in Iraq then we might be in agreement on what is moral.

and WWII is relevant because we're going to discover your hypocrisy here, assuming you answer: Were the Americans the noble killers, the good terrorists as the fire bombed tokyo? A-bombed nagasaki, killled gemain civilians with high altitude bombing? or were the german soldiers worse when they killed civilians?

The allies fought a war that they were attacked first.

But I have to ask you directly. Why are you, speaking about deflection, trying to deflect away from the OP over and over?

This OP is really about the Nakba, and you have done practically everything in your bag of tricks to move the discussion away from that.

are you still conferring with "the book" or the "elders" or whomever you need to advise u with the proper acceptable answer?)

the "land ownership religious belief of yours" I understand that you have this belief something about certain people have superior rights to live in certain places because their grandparents were there first.....how about explaining what these rights are and why do they even deserve them?

Your first query is laughable at best. Sophomoric in its development.

Your second query belies that you believe that land rights can be taken away at will...IMHO by force(?), with disregard to those who live or have lived upon them for generations.

Now if that isn't the position of the colonial apartheidist then what is?

If that doesn't sum up the violation of the Nakba then what does?

[pelsar]

426. you've confused opinion with facts....

you've made a "moral judgement' on the methods used by the jews for removing the occupation and establishing a state. You statement that they were terrorists is not a fact, but a judgement, i simply want to clarify this "morality of yours.

The allies fought a war that they were attacked first.
so as i understand your answer, since apparently you don't want to be clear about it: If your attacked first you then can kill indiscriminately thousands upon thousands of civilians and your methods are not considered terrorism?

is that a good description, if not perhaps you might want to clarify it.
------

Your second query belies that you believe that land rights can be taken away at will...IMHO by force(?), with disregard to those who live or have lived upon them for generations.

i asked you and this is not for the first time...what are these land rights you mentioned (someone else mentioned they are "human rights) where do they come from? who declared them? is there a book somewhere?

will you at least try to define these land rights?...isn't that what the nakba was all about?

I have not even declared my opinion on these "land rights" and you've made an assumption, which goes toward ones ignorence, but that is not the point.

and gosh darn, you skipped of the gaza question once again, should the UN occupy gaza or not? i would think this is a easy one for u

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

427. Why do you continually distract from the OP even when asked repeatedly?

Are you embarrassed (or proud ) by the founders of Israel's role in the Nakba and their own murderous/ethnic cleansing/terrorist backgrounds?

Is that why you keep trying to deflect away from the Nakba?

[pelsar]

428. I"m exploring your moral hypocrisy....

as it relates to the Nakba and these "land rights" you mentioned.

why don't you define these land rights so I can relate to them?..i think this makes for the 5th time I 've asked.

and the WWII question about terrorism....all u have to do is answer it
___________

did you notice, that your willing to answer questions as long as they are "safe" you can use one of your standard replies be they sarcastic or not, but if a question is about your own morality or what may show to be a contradiction, not only do you ignore it, not answer but then you backtrack to try to change the flow to a different direction. In this case going all the way back to the original OP.

to contrast that, ask me any question and if i didn't answer it the first time, and u repeat it, i shall answer it directly, and if my answer is not clear enough, i will do it again.... why can't u do the same?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

429. The only hypocrisy I see is where you want to divert from the original OP.

700,000 Palestinians were driven off of their homes and lands, and all you can do to counter it is to raise some philosophical argument that they don't have any rights to the land.

In addition, since you seem to have no problem with the founders of Israel having killed British in the name of their political dogma, tried to twist your way around it, even to try and justify it with your convoluted arguments about WWII (who was good or moral) only makes your position more laughable.

[pelsar]

430. hmm..too difficult for you? too complex? or....

you have no idea how to reply...i get the impression that your only good for the standard "bullet points" the simplistic, the shallow emotional responses that work best on the ignorant, the inexperienced, the young and the dumb.

Clearly you way out of your league here and are only left with a few sophomoric remarks (u can even claim an "internet victory" as one poster did, though i have no idea what that means)
____________________________

as i understand your "position" basically its emotionally based. An injustice that occurs, is simply "not right", it has to be "immoral" and there has to be a guilty party that can "fix it"

You don't have any answers beyond that, nor do you even want to got there, since it gets too complex, that is why you can't even answer such basic questions of what is and what is not moral or justified, hell u can't even discuss the concept, infact you can't even define your own position.

this puts your maturity at the age of 5 year old. (or 12 year old, or perhaps a college student....)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

431. It is neither too difficult nor complex to point out the dreary hasbarist;

intent on derailing threads in order to argue in favor of their own beloved terrorists.

As for the "ignorant, the inexperienced, the young and the dumb"...well you can write about team hijack as much as you want, but I would use a little more maturity in using your words.

Clearly you way out of your league here and are only left with a few sophomoric remarks (u can even claim an "internet victory" as one poster did, though i have no idea what that means)

Victory on the internet? Here? My point is not victory. My point, a small part I may add in I/P, is exposing all those haters of a Palestine state and lovers of colonial apartheid. With every post that some frothing-at-the-mouth hasbarist makes it only reinforced my position and weakens theirs. All I hope to do is make sure that the passing DUer sees them for the inhuman things that they have become.

I'm just here to shine a light on it and inform Duers what might remain hidden.

as i understand your "position" basically its emotionally based. An injustice that occurs, is simply "not right", it has to be "immoral" and there has to be a guilty party that can "fix it"

No, as usual you are just off the mark and out of your depth. You seemingly understand little.

My position, in part, is to expose those who continue to whitewash apartheid while showing complete contempt for the Palestinian people. It is to show the utter disregard for human rights that Israel has over a captive population as it invades what little land they have to form a nation of its own.


You're are more than welcome to discuss the Nakba at any time, but if you insist on reminiscing about terrorist founders, how they were moral in killing British (or the morals of WWII allies ) for their political dogma then all I can do is lead you back to the original OP.

Don't forget the Nakba.

Perhaps it is not that you have forgotten the Nakba inasmuch as you want to bury it so that it remains hidden from the rest of DU?


Thanks for the kicks.

[pelsar]

433. perhaps its your narrow mind?

the Nakba is part of the larger I/P conflict, all of the parts related to one another. The thread was interesting up until the point where, clearly you were told to backtrack and stay focused on the word Nakba

this happened just as the contradictions started to show up about your "moral" stance.

what are your morals?..dont know. First you declared that all killing is the same, all murderers are evil..a nice general statement. And when such a simplistic statement is questioned you quickly retreat and cannot expand upon such a simplistic statement. (killing here vs killing in other conflicts).

you mention "human rights" yet cannot justify or even comment on your actual support for the formation of this new Palestinian entity, that lacks even the most basic "human right" of freedom of speech. (please spare me the hypocritical line: I don't support hamas/PA but support the new Palestinian country that obviously will have both as its leadership)

You talk of "hasbarists' yet refuse to admit your own "controllers" the ones who give u your talking points and remind you not to let the discussion leave the narrow confines of the I/P conflict. They remind u constantly not to inject your own opinions. Hence when u slip up and mention the UN maybe should enter Gaza, you will not give your own personal opinion about that, even though asked several times.

then there is this thing about "rights to the land" always mentioned, yet never defined. Again I asked several times what exactly do these rights entail (which relate to the conflict and to the Nakba), you simply refuse to answer. Again I suspect your controllers told you to stay away from such discussions and you clearly complied.

In short, its not me who cannot discuss the Nakba, its implications, how it relates to the larger puzzle, its you who has to contain the conversation to a very narrow line so that you can keep it simple. Keeping the discussion simple and narrow is good for the "cult". its classic. You don't want the minions expanding and questioning too much, hence your need to keep it simple. Like u wrote, you want us "exposed" hence the need for simplicity.

btw you confuse conflict, survival, democracy, civil rights with the word hatred

my favorite statement from u:
showing complete contempt for the Palestinian people.
and yet your the one who supports the foundation of a new country, who's leadership to say the least is anti civil rights, and has no problem with their own contempt for their own people...so perhaps its you who actually hates the Palestinian people, or maybe you have some other motivation, what is clear is that at a minimum you really don't give a shit about that actual Palestinian, the person.

perhaps its u and your controllers that should be exposed for your utter contempt for basic civil rights that people deserve including the Palestinians.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

438. These delusions you exhibit for imaginary "controllers" of mine is troubling.

If you are seeing or hearing things that are not there then you should definitely talk to somebody outside DU.

what are your morals?..dont know. First you declared that all killing is the same, all murderers are evil..a nice general statement. And when such a simplistic statement is questioned you quickly retreat and cannot expand upon such a simplistic statement. (killing here vs killing in other conflicts).

No, actually I wrote that one's terrorists are just as bad as the other terrorists and that killing in the name of terrorism is wrong. Whether they are the terrorist founders of Israel or present day Palestinian terrorists they are equally as bad. Thanks, though, for trying desperately to rewrite what I have written. Bad form on your part.

you mention "human rights" yet cannot justify or even comment on your actual support for the formation of this new Palestinian entity, that lacks even the most basic "human right" of freedom of speech. (please spare me the hypocritical line: I don't support hamas/PA but support the new Palestinian country that obviously will have both as its leadership)

This is the usual tactic where one is given an answer then tries to de-legitimize it by saying writing that I can use that answer. More bad Pelsar.

You talk of "hasbarists' yet refuse to admit your own "controllers" the ones who give u your talking points and remind you not to let the discussion leave the narrow confines of the I/P conflict. They remind u constantly not to inject your own opinions. Hence when u slip up and mention the UN maybe should enter Gaza, you will not give your own personal opinion about that, even though asked several times.

Remember what I explained to you about delusions.

then there is this thing about "rights to the land" always mentioned, yet never defined. Again I asked several times what exactly do these rights entail (which relate to the conflict and to the Nakba), you simply refuse to answer. Again I suspect your controllers told you to stay away from such discussions and you clearly complied.

For one who has been given answer after answer on this you still try and deflect somehow that land rights are this unattainable ethereal thing; which also shows that perhaps you are in favor of illegal settlements even though you say you are not. I would be embarrassed to keep on bringing up such an embarrassing query.

In short, its not me who cannot discuss the Nakba, its implications, how it relates to the larger puzzle, its you who has to contain the conversation to a very narrow line so that you can keep it simple. Keeping the discussion simple and narrow is good for the "cult". its classic. You don't want the minions expanding and questioning too much, hence your need to keep it simple. Like u wrote, you want us "exposed" hence the need for simplicity.

Strange, that is what I have been discussing all along except for when some want to derail the discussion and have a philosophical debate about land rights, and handlers.

and yet your the one who supports the foundation of a new country, who's leadership to say the least is anti civil rights, and has no problem with their own contempt for their own people...so perhaps its you who actually hates the Palestinian people, or maybe you have some other motivation, what is clear is that at a minimum you really don't give a shit about that actual Palestinian, the person.

Actually I have never written that. Bad Pelsar.

perhaps its u and your controllers that should be exposed for your utter contempt for basic civil rights that people deserve including the Palestinians.

You really should lay off whatever is giving you night panics.


And also, please Don't forget the Nakba.

[pelsar]

440. clearly you have a problem with definitions

hen there is this thing about "rights to the land" always mentioned, yet never defined.

For one who has been given answer after answer on this
well? i'm waiting on a clear definition, you claim you answered, then would u take a few seconds and cut and paste it here?
_________

No, actually I wrote that one's terrorists are just as bad as the other terrorists and that killing in the name of terrorism is wrong.

and i asked u to define this "terrorism", I gave u a few examples of what some define as terrorism and..i believe, and feel free to correct me, that you claim that if your attacked you then can kill as many as you like indiscriminately and that is not terrorism but moral. If i understood wrong, please take the time to clear it up. Its goes to what you see as moral and immoral. (wrong and right)
_______________
and yet your the one who supports the foundation of a new country, who's leadership to say the least is anti civil rights
Actually I have never written that
no you haven't, though I've asked about it several time, its one of those things you avoid answering, hence i have to guess. So I shall try again, and lets see if this time u can answer it:
you do support this new Palestinian country....and today its run by two dictatorships, that are clearly anti western civil rights and will be the leadership of this new country. Now its really irrelevant to claim that "you don't support hamas or the PA" yet know that they will run the country that you do support. Thats called reality....or perhaps you don't have to deal with reality?

____

as far as your "controllers go"...its just as stupid as your "hasbarist" BS. Apparently the "hasbarist" word used amongst the simplistic "pro facist, pro palestinians arguments, is clearly an attempt to delegitimize and disrespect people who have other views

[shira]

355. You didn't answer anything in #343. Are u embarassed by yr views?

If what u believe about I/P is progressive then why can't u defend what u believe?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

361. Go cry to somebody that cares.

[pelsar]

345. what happened to your "threat"...i shall remind you

I won't address you until you recognize that Israel is a Jewish State granting the right of aliyah to a country, a land, which has a Jewish majority.

since i have not agreed to your demands, shouldn't you be following through on your threat?

this is not difficult, just put me on ignore, and really ignore me and you can gain back some credibility.

[pelsar]

347. what a "wimp out"

now you sound like obama.....make a threat, get called out and then you try to weasel your way out of it.
I didn't see the (*) on your threat.

I won't address you until .....


not much of a backbone..and this is an internet forum, hate to see what happens to you in real life, where there are real consequences for real actions (your right, you had better keep you life in the cyber world, its safer for u)


and why is this relevant to me?
I'll continue considering you to be a kook.

[Israeli]

348. what is a definition of " a kook " from where you are from delrem ?

over here being " a kook " means following the believes of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook,
whos students founded Gush Emunim .

ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Emunim

[pelsar]

356. now changing your own definition....

Justice Aharon Barak's definition of Israel as a Jewish State has any merit or significance
didn't say it has no merit..that was not your claim, now was it?
___
perhaps you had an asterisk about that post has well?

and i don't expect a reply, remember you threatened not to reply to me if i didn't meet your demand, of which of course i refused to

[pelsar]

363. tsk tsk tsk......

first of all....your a cyber wimp.

2) you decided to change, in your previous post your interpretation of what he wrote...you know it, and if you don't realize how you just changed what your wrote, then your a DW.

[pelsar]

370. still can't stay away....

tell u what, I 'll explain the concept of a jewish democracy and why this doesn't guarantee any ethnic majority to rule,...but first you have to admit u made a cyber threat and when called out on it, you backed down.

......so just admit it

[pelsar]

373. you can't run away from your "cyber bulling" (the attempt)

Last edited Mon Dec 2, 2013, 03:08 AM - Edit history (1)

your probably one of those who are against any form of "cyber bulling" zero tolerance correct?

and i'm sure you can admit to your attempt.....its was pretty obvious, btw, you've shown some improvement with your anger management and were all very proud of you here, but now its time you also admit to your attempt at cyber bulling....

and then we can have a nice discussion..

[pelsar]

378. so am i back on "ignore"

haven't your been putting various people on "ignore" and then not really ignoring them but replying to their posts?

given that you apparently live on the internet and assign it great importance, a word of advice: if you say your going to do something, then simply do it.

so are we all on ignore or not?

[pelsar]

380. on the contrary....

i'm a strong believer in credibility...following through with what you say you will. If you get away with your attempts at cyber bulling/cyber threats with no follow up, well thats just bad.

tell u what...do you at least admit to the cyber threat. the "ultimatum you gave me?...or shall i have to quote it again here? or how would you define it (a promise unkept?)

[politicman]

432. .........

I have followed this conversation from the start and finally couldn't help but chime in.

You celebrate your founding terrorists as good people who used terrorism against British soldiers in the aim of creating your own independent state and it ultimately worked.
So the question I have for you is: Would you support any Palestinian terrorism specifically against your own occupying soldiers as a way for them to also create an independent state?
Because the Palestinians have many times before only targeted your occupying soldiers and settlers and have been vilified by your entire country.


You claim that land being taken over to this day by settlers should not be an analysing factor in any eventual peace deal because land on its own is meaningless, yet why is the Israeli government (which is elected by the people with the intent of representing the will of the majority) officially sanctioning the take over of more Palestinian land by settlers?

And lastly, you excuse your occupation by saying that if you were to end it that the Palestinian people will be governed by dictators.
Understand something will you, you or I or anyone else DO NOT get to dictate to a people not in your borders how to live.

FYI Hamas was elected by they people they govern. They came to power through elections and whether they have held onto that power through different means is a debateable point. What is not debateable is that they originally were elected.
Your occupation is against the wishes of the people who you occupy, so what you are doing is imposing an occupation on people who do not want it whilst decrying a government that was elected by the people it governs.

Stop acting like you are for human rights for all people and just admit that you could not care if the Palestinians suffer as long as your own country benefits from the imprisonment of said people whilst you steal their resources. Shame on you as an Israel, there are some in your country that have decency, but the majority like yourself are void of any decency.

[pelsar]

434. i have no problem in answering your questions...

however, apparently your not really curious but just needed a place to "rant"

just admit that you could not care if the Palestinians suffer as long as your own country benefits from the imprisonment of said people whilst you steal their resources. Shame on you as an Israel, there are some in your country that have decency, but the majority like yourself are void of any decency.

unlike you i actually have a "stake" in whether or not the Palestinians suffer. Their suffering in fact impacts my life directly and not for the better.

so you actually believe this:
DO NOT get to dictate to a people not in your borders how to live.

i want you to repeat that please.So what every country does in the entire world (including israel) within its borders is none of anybodies business who does not live there? or do some countries have that right and others such as israel do not?

...please write a clear and definitive answer, this is of course if you are willing to leave the "buzz words" and standard talking points, and you do have an actual opinion that is yours.

[politicman]

435. I am not afraid to answer your question

I will repeat for you as you have asked me to do:

DO NOT get to dictate to a people not in your borders how to live.
Happy?

Its not that it is none of anybodies business, its that Israel or any country does not get to DICTATE to anyone outside its borders. You do understand the word 'dictate', do you not?

We have a mechanism where we can go if any of us feel a country is up to no good, its called the U.N. Its a body where we can put forth ideas, where we can assist and where we can as a worldwide collective stop abuses inside countries.
If you could just get your American friends to stop undermining by vetoing any resolution against your own country (Israel), it may actually function better.


The nerve of an Israel citizen to demand that the Palestinian live the way that Israel wants. Hamas was originally elected by its own people, yet that's not good enough for Israel, you guys want the Palestinians to elect someone that has your approval.
The majority of the world saw your ex-leader Sharon and now currently see Bibi as bad, bad men, as warmongers, so now you answer this question for me:

How would you as an Israeli feel if the world (or even just Palestine) punished your country for electing such mad men? Would you still have the same view that outside countries can dictate to you and your people who you should elect?

And Yes towards the end of my earlier comment I had a little bit of a rant because its extremely frustrating that an Israeli can try to justify all the damage done to the Palestinian people under the guise of security.
Why do you think that your dead women and children are of more value than Palestinian dead women and children?

Last question:
Do you really think that stealing more and more land and resources has got to do with security?
If I felt my house was under attack, I would create a buffer zone between my house and the attackers, I WOULD NOT steal the land that I use to create a buffer and build on it which would force me to create a new buffer zone and the whole cycle repeats.

[pelsar]

436. you have a very simplistic view of the conflict....

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 04:21 AM - Edit history (2)

in order to have an intelligent conversation, one does need to have a grasp of the actual history.

for instance, Hamas was infact elected in gaza, but in a local election, the PA was in charge of "security", relations to the rest of the world, importing and exporting. I assume you didn't know that, I assume you didn't know that it was illegal for hamas to then kill the PA members (fatah) and fully take over gaza (its called coup)

to perhaps better explain, it would be like a state in the US, attacking all federal troops within the state, killing them, and then creating its own foreign and domestic policy.

so infact hamas was not elected to completely control gaza, just the local issues....what your defending is a religious coup. I'm glad to see that you defend theocratic dictatorships (as so many here agree with you: civil rights clearly is of secondary importance).

2) The UN is powerless.
I assume your not aware of the Syrian spring, having crossed the border into Lebanon. (that means people in Lebanon are now being killed, not just Syrians). This is a result of dictatorships, they are not stable.The Palestinians have two present dictatorships.

Perhaps you didn't notice that when missiles/rockets were and are launched from Lebanon into israel, from Egyptian soil, from gaza, from iraq, the UN cannot do anything. Did you not notice those things?, we do and those missiles infact are not just terrorism, they also kill.

3) This is the big test...we now get to see if you can accept new knowledge, digest it, consider it and remark on it...or do you have just 'knee jerk reactions" and can't really consider new information:

If I felt my house was under attack, I would create a buffer zone between my house and the attackers,
there was and is a buffer zone in Lebanon (and there is one today as well)....attacks still occurred as they do today. (and the UN just watches) in 67, there was a UN buffer zone, until the UN left (nasser told them to), in gaza there is buffer zone that has gradually been increased as the attacks from gaza have never ceased (changes however are now occurring as egypt shut down their border with gaza).

i.e. your "buffer zone" idea is as old as the conflict, at best it slows down the attacks, it does not stop them, Anti tank missiles, missiles and rockets easily fly over and through them

now what?...do you have another idea?
___________________

Infact israel does not get to "dictate" who is the Palestinian leadership, I just happen to believe that the creation of yet another occupation/dictatorship is not just stupid, for those who directly and indirectly support such a thing (u), its also immoral as well. And since such govt will infact affect us and not in a good way and since it is our very lives and security that is involved, yes, we infact do have a say in the matter.

but then i suppose from your writings your believe its ok for each govt to do what it wants to its "own people" (its none of anybodies business or at best the UN, sometimes) ...so iran can hang homosexuals, iraq should be allowed to gas/massacre its own kurds, turkey should get the UN seal of approval for its bombing of kurds, russia can actually carpet bomb its own citizens, china can run over protestors using armored personal carriers..and of course NATO (with UN approval) did a real "bang up job" bombing civilians in Lybia so that local tribes can start killing each other for the spoils....and i understand that these are all acceptable in your world view, this is your morality

....and your complaining about Israel stealing land?
wow...you got some set of morals there.

[politicman]

437. WOW, you really cant see the truth can you

Where to start:

It was your country that separated the West Bank and Gaza, denying travel between the 2, made it extremely difficult for a governing body to govern both areas, thus Hamas was elected to power in Gaza. Your country then set about playing favourites with Fatah thus causing turmoil between both factions. Israel knew all along what it was doing, as soon as Hamas was elected, Israel eased pressure on the West Bank whilst at the very same time tightened pressure on Gaza just so such a scenario would arise, Hamas and Fatah against each other. Israel wanted internal turmoil in the Palestinian camp, hoping that it would weaken the Palestinians from within, but you knew this already didn't you?

As for the U.N, it is powerless as you say because of the constant undermining of it by your very own country and its puppet, the U.S. How many times has the U.S vetoed a resolution aimed at your country because it broke international law or a resolution that would recognize Palestine as a country? Many many times I tell ya.
You seem to think that when people in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt etc die from bombs, that it is somehow worse than them dying from your bombs. Like the Israeli bombs are somehow more humane than someone elses bombs, like the 1200 people who died in Lebanon in the last war were grateful to be killed by Israeli bombs than a dictator or terrorist bombs.

The U.N would not be powerless if America and Israel accepted its decisions, this would lead the way and put pressure on all other nations to accept decisions and act on them.


You deliberately tried to change what I said about the buffer zone. I pointed out that Israel razes Palestinian homes in the excuse that it is building a buffer zone, then it later sends in settlers to this buffer zone and constructs homes for them, then turns around and says it needs a buffer zone for these new homes and repeats the whole process again and again.
You think that it is ok for your country to do this?

And lastly, I love the way that you try to deflect from Israel's wrongdoings but trying to point out other country's wrongdoing. Yep that bolsters your argument a lot, other countries do bad things, so what if Israel does as well, really.

I'll point out something for you, ok.
Israel has killed and terrorized people from every country in the region. It has stolen resources from all its neighbouring countries. It has dropped bombs on civilian infrastructure without batting an eyelid. It has killed thousands upon thousands more than has been killed from its own people.
How anybody can think that it is moral for Israel to bomb power stations, oil storages, roads, airports, food storages, civilian building, etc in Lebanon is beyond me. Israel claims it is fighting a moral fight for security yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure, then it goes and cries when someone else targets its own civilians and infrastructure.

Wake up and smell the cheese man, your country is a murderous thieving country.

[pelsar]

439. making up politics?

that makes it easy for you to decide who is "good and who is bad". (your pseudo knowledge of the polticis between hamas and the PA and Fatah and islamic jihad, the tanzimin and Israels super ability to control the Palestinians as if they cannot affect the environment (yes i know you didn't mention them...you just don't really know)

this is not deflection...
And lastly, I love the way that you try to deflect from Israel's wrongdoings but trying to point out other country's wrongdoing.

this is just to understand how hypocritical you are or at least to understand what you believe is moral and what is not:
you made it clear that what a country does to its own is "moral" is ok by you. So lets at least get that clear, will you clearly state that what syria does to its own, what iraq did and does to its own, what russia does to its own, what hamas does to its own, is simply none of anybodies business?

that would at least clear things up for me as to how you see things, its not a deflection, its an understanding.

are you still claiming that hamas didn't have a coup in gaza?, that they took over gaza by force, killed the fatah/PA members that were there as per the EU/Israel/PA agreements?

i believe a simple yes or no will do, this goes to your basic knowledge of the events and your disrespect for the Palestinians.

_________________

As for the U.N, it is powerless as you say because of the constant undermining of it by your very own country and its puppet
no i'll be more specific:
why did the UN leave in 67 the border between israel and egypt?
why did the UN not stop the missiles and rockets that came from Lebanon starting in 82
why did the UN not stop the missiles from Iraq?
why did the UN not stop the 6,000 rockets. missiles from gaza?

well?


t yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure,,
when i prove u wrong, will you admit that your wrong?

[politicman]

441. The nerve of you Israelis

Firstly I know the whole dynamics between every group in the Palestinian territories, there are many groups who at one time were not against each other, they were separate but all respecting of each other as they fought the Israelis for a homeland.
It was Israel that sowed the seeds of division in these groups, like I said it was Israels to weaken the Palestinians from the inside.

Why else would Israel ease the pressure on the West Bank and tighten it in Gaza the day that Hamas. This action succeeded by making Hamas resentful of Fatah as it had all the appearances of Fatah being a puppet to Israel. Hamas then went about removing any Fatah influence or leadership in Gaza because they saw them as sell outs.

I ask you again, do you not think that Israel dividing Gaza and the West Bank was a ploy by Israel to weaken the Palestinians and sow seeds of division among the groups?


For your information, I am against every single one of the instances you pointed out, I think any killing of innocent people in any country is immoral, yes even killing of innocent Israelis is immoral.

And unlike you I don't see a difference between someone being killed by a dictators/terrorists bomb compared to Israeli/U.S bomb.
Whether an innocent person dies at the hands of a Syrian dictator or is ultimately killed by a 'humanitarian intervention' bomb, that person is still dead.
Whether a person dies by the hands of his own dictator or whether he dies by Israeli bombs, he is still dead. Your bombs are not more humane than someone else bombs, do you get that?


I remember the images of Hamas throwing PA members off buildings, I didn't agree with it and will never agree with it, but at the very same time I don't agree with seeing Israel conduct extensive bombing operations in Gaza.
I remember the last time you guys waged a full scale attack on Gaza, I remember watching the news and seeing reporters who were doing live reports from rooftops, and all around them, in every direction, massive bombs were being dropped at nearly every building.
I remember hearing the huge bangs through the t.v, then see flashes from explosions shoot high into the sky and the shockwave from the blasts. In just one of those blasts, you guys killed more Palestinians than Hamas killed PA members. So you tell me who is worse, huh?

Lastly, everyone of those examples you used of the U.N not doing its job focuses on what Israel wanted from the U.N.
For example:
'why did the UN not stop the missiles and rockets that came from Lebanon starting in 82'
Your country chased out Palestinians from there land and forced them into Lebanon, then cried foul when those Palestinians fought back to try and get their land back. What did you want to happen, did you want the Palestinians to just give up their fight for their homeland, did you want the U.N to occupy Lebanon in the midst of a civil war just to protect the Israeli border towns?

'why did the UN not stop the missiles from Iraq?'
The nerve of you Israelis, your country flies planes into Iraq in the 80's to bomb a nuclear reactor with no authorisation from the U.N, then you complain that the U.N didn't somehow stop Iraq from launching missiles in the midst of a full scale war between Iraq and the rest of the world. Really?

'why did the UN not stop the 6,000 rockets. missiles from gaza?'
Again the nerve of you Israelis, you ask why the U.N didn't stop rockets from Gaza whilst you pound Gaza day and night with your own missiles. You want the U.N to convince the Palestinians to not fire a shot back at Israel when for decades Israel has imprisoned the whole Palestinian population, has stolen much of their land, has assassinated many of their high ranking officials, has stolen nearly all their resources, has arrested anyone it wants at any time, has shots their kids in the head because they protested and threw some rocks from a far distance, has razed many of their homes to build settlements, etc, etc? The nerve I tell ya.

[pelsar]

442. ignorence or hyperbole...which is it?

lets start with the easy stuff, whereas i appreciate you giving us super powers while at the sometime assuming the Palestinians are complete idiotes:

It was Israel that sowed the seeds of division in these groups

the various Palestinians groups were in fact different because they disagreed with each other, that is why there were so many groups...just the fact you assume they don't have their own ability to believe and act differently, make their own decisions based on their own beliefs shows just how little you think of them. BTW why do you think so little of the Palestinians ability to make their own decisions?

I noticed you forgot about the coup....well, hamas took gaza by force, are you still claiming that they are the "peoples choice" when they were voted in for local issues?

well?

Are you one of those people who believe that lying is permissible as long as the goal is achieved?

massive bombs were being dropped at nearly every building. please confirm this statement of yours, that basically gaza of 1.5 million+ people was flattened

and the last
yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure,,.....will you please confirm your belief in that as well.
____

I would like to know if lying and making up stuff and hyperbole is acceptable in discussions with you

[politicman]

443. WOW

Is this a genuine discussion between the 2 of us because you keep trying to assign thoughts and beliefs to me that you think bolster your argument without reading what I write.

I already stated that all these groups in Palestine were different but they all had the same goal which was liberation. They disagreed on many issues but as long as liberation was the goal then they left each other alone, and it would have stayed that way as Palestine isn't liberated yet, except the Israelis had different ideas.

Don't avoid the question: Why did Israel ease pressure on the West Bank (controlled by Fatah) and tighten it on Gaza the day that Hamas was elected?

We both agree that Hamas was elected, which is a sign of democracy, the contentious issue is did they then orchestrate a coup.
So as you claim they did, I will ask you what powers Fatah had in Gaza that Hamas stripped them of? When Hamas threw Fatah members off of those buildings, what powers of governing did Fatah lose in Gaza?


No I do not believe lying is permissible, period. Unfortunately you are one of those people that will chop and change events and statements to suit your purpose (its something the Israeli media has been experts of for decades), you will ignore things you have no defence for and only focus on those that you think you can defend but which in reality also have no reasonable defence.


I may have used the words 'at nearly every building', when I should just have used 'at buildings', thus I concede this point.
But the fact remains that many buildings in Gaza were demolished by massive powerful bombs. Palestinians cowered in their homes afraid that the next bomb would wipe them off the face of the earth.

Do you defend the massive assault waged on Gaza? Do you think that using warplanes, tanks and artillery to combat people who have at the most unsophisticated rockets shows bravery on behalf of Israel?
Do you think that soldiers using guns to shoot at children who throw rocks from a distance shows any bravery?
Do you think that destroying Palestinian homes and then moving in settlers into those areas is ok?


Lastly, for sure I will confirm that Israel attacks civilians and civilian infrastructure. The statistics bear this out along with the visuals we see every time Israel launches an attack.
Look at the pure numbers, many many more women and children have been killed by Israel than the other way around.
Do you deny this?

Did Israel not target the civilian airport in Lebanon, did it not target the food storages, did it not target the roads, did it not target bridges, did it not target oil storages, did it not target power stations, did it not target civilian neighbourhoods and buildings, etc,?
And this is only one conflict I have described, but it can be applied to every time Israel launces an attack on some one.


And if you have any intention of having a proper discussion, you will actually answer the questions I pose rather than ignore them as I show you the courtesy of responding to your specific questions.
I see you got you demanded an answer on the U.N questions you posed before and were unable to defend your position so you just abandoned that part of the discussion altogether.

[pelsar]

444. if you keep to accuracy and respect the Palestinians....

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 09:33 AM - Edit history (5)

They disagreed on many issues but as long as liberation was the goal then they left each other alone, and it would have stayed that way as Palestine isn't liberated yet, except the Israelis had different ideas.

very confusing statement....so now they have different goals? islamic jihad and fatah disagreed and agreed before, but because of the israelis they now "agree and disagree? and its israels fault that they believe in different things?

jesus, perhaps give the Palestinians some credit for being able to adapt to a changing environment.
_____________________________


Don't avoid the question: Why did Israel ease pressure on the West Bank (controlled by Fatah) and tighten it on Gaza the day that Hamas was elected?
the very same day? the very same hour? Clearly you see the history through a filter. Perhaps you might list the various times when Israel has opened the gates and closed the gates, limited the imports etc to both gaza and the west bank? Since you don't really know i shall explain, its happens constantly sometimes its due to attacks, sometimes its do to politics and sometimes because someone feels like it......Israel doesn't like hamas and hamas doesn't like lsrael, perhaps israel was "telling hamas" to go to egypt for your supplies. Israel has a very poor record when it comes to interfering with its neighbors politics and getting the results it likes....easing and/or increasing restrictions is hardly going to give israel control over Palestinian politics, its used for local and immediate pressures nothing strategic.
____

no i definitely do not agree:
We both agree that Hamas was elected, which is a sign of democracy,
democray is not elections, case in point egypt electing the MB to rule, gaza electing hamas to rule, both run anti democratic platforms. You are in badly need of a lesson of what democracy is, how its built., and why it fails or succeeds....elections mean nothing without the culture that supports it.

i take it by your question, you have no idea that the PA/Fatah was responsible for the borders of gaza, the importing and exporting via egypt and israel. Only the PA/Fatah was supposed to have the guns, and consequently control the smuggling of weapons and the attacks upon israel. Hamas was voted in as an anti corrupt party that took care of the poor in gaza, they were not "elected" to replace the PA on the national level just the local one.

thats why it is called a coup and that is why it has nothing to do with what "the people what" In case you missed it, when the govts are dictatorships, you have no idea "what the people want", since they have no voice.
_________________________________________________
No I do not believe lying is permissible, period
then don't..be accurate with your words and check them before you write them....

I pointed out that Israel razes Palestinian homes in the excuse that it is building a buffer zone, then it later sends in settlers to this buffer zone and constructs homes for them

perhaps you might want to link me to an article or two about this, claiming a need for a buffer zone, replacing razed Palestinina homes with israelis and then requiring a new buffer zone? because I'm afraid i've never heard about this system.

yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure
do you want to stand by your word ALWAYS?

or is this you being inaccurate again?
__________

Do you defend the massive assault waged on Gaza? Do you think that using warplanes, tanks and artillery to combat people who have at the most unsophisticated rockets shows bravery on behalf of Israel?

Why in the hell would i care about being brave? I do care about me, my kids, my nephews, etc all coming back in one piece and all of those things protect us. And yes after 6,000 rockets and untold mortars and bullets being shot across the border with the intent on killing us, and you, and people like u and your precious UN doing nothing and our limited strikes with limited damage resulted in no change...yes an invasion was warranted.

unless of course you know of something that would have stopped the almost daily attacks that was not tried before? (notice i used the words that were not tried before, so before u write, do the research). or perhaps like others have expressed through their silence and inability to suggest realistic alternatives, israel should do nothing and let them shoot rockets and anti tank missiles and try to kills us without hindrance from the IDF.

just for fun: why is it that the safer us the invaders are, means less Palestinians will be killed and less mistakes will be made?


you will ignore things you have no defence for
no, i will not ignore a single thing, if i miss something just ask again and i will answer, my experience here is that you will not do the same, perhaps unlike the others you will show some guts and surprise me.

[politicman]

445. ill try one more time

Where to start, you have so many inaccuracies in what I say and in what the situation is.

1) Again you are fond of taking things I write out of context to try and make me sound un-educated on the issue. At least have the courtesy of noting every word in a sentence I write, not just those that you can isolate to try and make your argument.

2)you said:
'very confusing statement....so now they have different goals? islamic jihad and fatah disagreed and agreed before, but because of the israelis they now "agree and disagree? and its israels fault that they believe in different things?'

I used the word 'issues', but you change it to 'goals' to suit your needs and then argue that point.
The reason I used the word issues is because groups tend to have different priorities, different personalities, etc, but they can tolerate each other and even align with each other if their goal is the same. Hamas and Fatah disagreed on how to govern, how much religion should play a role in governing and so on, but their goal of liberating Palestine was the same. Sort of the same way that political parties in some western governments can align with each other to form 'majorities' if their goals are similar. Israel is the perfect example of this.

Except in Palestine, Fatah and Hamas weren't exactly governing partners, but they did tolerate each other until Israel sowed the seeds of division.

Israel tightened pressure on Gaza simply because Hamas won the elections. Israel did what it always has done, tried to collectively punish the people in Gaza for electing Hamas. And by also easing pressure on the West Bank, Israel created a division in the Palestinians that resulted in both groups not trusting each other, thus Hamas reacted the way they did. Its the old plan of 'divide and conquer'.


3) I wont discuss your point about what constitutes a democracy simply because I used the words 'sign of'. I take it you will understand the point I am making here.

4)you said:
'i take it by your question, you have no idea that the PA/Fatah was responsible for the borders of gaza, the importing and exporting via egypt and israel. Only the PA/Fatah was supposed to have the guns, and consequently control the smuggling of weapons and the attacks upon israel. Hamas was voted in as an anti corrupt party that took care of the poor in gaza, they were not "elected" to replace the PA on the national level just the local one. '

This is the funniest statement I have ever read. I cannot stop laughing.
It was Israel that divided the Palestinian territories, making it impossible for one party to effectively govern over both areas. When we have elections here in Australia, the federal government has access to every part of the country thus making our federal elections workable.
In Palestine because of the dividing of territories, the PA could not effectively govern Gaza from the West Bank, especially since Israel gave itself the ultimate authority on what could and when it could come in and out of those areas. The PA was effectively useless in that area, thus Hamas once elected was the ultimate authority in all but name, Understand now?
And the PA were never given real responsibility of the borders. When Israel feels like it they close the borders and enclose the area completely, deciding on what and where anything can come in.


5) There is plenty of evidence out there that shows how Israel continues to steal land, find it for yourself. I have seen it so many times in the news how Israel comes in and demolishes Palestinians homes in an area claiming that those houses are a security risk because they are close to the settlers. Then some time later the Israeli government approves plans for settlers and the whole process repeats itself.
Do you deny that Israel razes Palestinian homes? Do you dent that Israel puts new settlers on Palestinian Land?


6) WOW, limited strikes with limited damage? Really? Honestly I cannot stop laughing at that statement.
Israeli strikes are anything but limited strikes with limited damage. Israel uses huge bombs and missiles to hit their target, there is always big damage with those munitions. Not to mention that Israel has a tendency to target civilian infrastructure.
The rockets that the Palestinians fire cause limited damage cause they are small, unsophisticated rockets.
It always makes me laugh how Israelis can act like they are always in fear when the reality is that a huge majority of Palestinian rockets fall into uninhabited areas, and only a small portion make it into major population areas.
Its the Palestinians who live in terror because they never know when an Israeli helicopter that they cannot see or hear will fire a missile at someone or something, they never know when an Israeli raid will occur and they might get shot, they never know when a bulldozer will come in and demolish their house, they don't know when the borders will be completely closed which restricts food imports, etc,.
Now you still claim that the Palestinians scare the Israelis and not the other way around?

[pelsar]

446. what happened to accuracy?

you said your not into lying?..
Do you deny that Israel razes Palestinian homes? Do you dent that Israel puts new settlers on Palestinian Land? no i don't.
i asked you for "proof of your statement of the process. You claimed you don't like lying so is it simple ignorence?...which is it?

I pointed out that Israel razes Palestinian homes in the excuse that it is building a buffer zone, then it later sends in settlers to this buffer zone and constructs homes for them

well? if i have to keep on stopping to ask you for proof of your "incorrect" statements this is not going to go very far. I'm still wating for some kind of proof of this process or another one of your "oops"
______________________________

Except in Palestine, Fatah and Hamas weren't exactly governing partners, but they did tolerate each other until Israel sowed the seeds of division.
and how did exactly israel "sow these seed of division" that caused hamas to kill the PA members in gaza. Are you saying that the hamas members who attacked and killed the PA is all israels fault? (did israel control their minds, help them smuggle in their weapons, plan the take over?). Please be specific how israel did all of this.
______________________________

i assume your geography challenged:
gaza shares a 12 km border with egypt, before hamas took over, that border was the PA/Egyptian/EU responsibility with israel observing from remote. The israeli/gaza border, the electricity, the water the food Imports, hospital visits, etc all went through the PA as the governing body

or are you claiming that the ability to govern requires continuous territory?

__________________________

that they cannot see or hear will fire a missile at someone or something, they never know when an Israeli raid will occur and they might get shot,

so are you claiming that israelis know when an anti tank missile will be fired at our busses, we know ahead of time when our busses might blow up? we know ahead of time when a kassam, grad will be fired (in fact in some areas people have 15 second warning), we know ahead of time when a Palestenian will cross the border and shoot up our busses?

is this what you are claiming?....because from your writing it sure sounds like it.(actually what it really sounds like is that killing and terrorizing israelis is perfectly ok with you, but thats just the impression from your inaccurate writings)

Israeli helicopter that they cannot see or hear
you either don't know much about helicopters,( they make a lot of noise and are easily seen) or you're being "inaccurate" or ignorant again, which is it?

The rockets that the Palestinians fire cause limited damage cause they are small, unsophisticated rockets
hamas uses military grade grad rockets....not small and not the unsophisticated ones as in the past


______________________
_______________________
this is a short summary of just some of your inaccurate statements, so what are they? hyperbole / ignorance / lying

1) israel destroyed all bldgs in gaza (retracted)
2) israel razes homes, takes them over and makes a new buffer zones (pending your retraction/proof of this process)
3) helicopters are neither seen nor heard before they launch missiles (pending retraction or admittance of ignorence)
4) The rockets that the Palestinians fire cause limited damage cause they are small, unsophisticated rockets. (pending retraction or claim of ignorance)
5) yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure (pending retraction....)

its difficult to have a serious conversation with someone who clearly has a difficult time with accuracy. Perhaps you would first like to address the 5 points above.....or perhaps accuracy/facts are not relevant to you, as i mentioned earlier.

[politicman]

447. This will be long

One by one I am going to address all your points, so this will be long.

1)israel destroyed all bldgs in gaza (retracted)
Like I said earlier I should have used many many building rather than all buildings, I made that correction already.


2)israel razes homes, takes them over and makes a new buffer zones (pending your retraction/proof of this process)
It would take me a long time to look for articles on this process because most journalists are too cowardly to write such a piece. But as you already accept that Israel demolishes Palestinian homes and that Israel approves settlements on Palestinian land, I will let you put 2 and 2 together. Do you think that land just appears out of nowhere for many settlements to be built on? Many of the settlements that exist are on land that was occupied by Palestinians during the last 2 decades.
Funny how over that 2 decade period (and even earlier) Palestinian homes were demolished as either an excuse to have a security zone or as a punishment. Where do you think the settlements are based, are they not on Palestinian land?
And the fact that settlements have kept expanding naturally shows that more Palestinian land is being taken over, land that would not be available if Palestinians and their homes were not removed from that land.
Its a old trick of Israel, they claim that the settlers are under threat from Palestinians living close by, so eventually they go in and raze those Palestinian homes with bulldozers. Then years down the track when no one is paying attention, they approve new settlements on this 'vacated land', and the whole process takes place again.
Do you deny that settlement activity has expanded on land that belongs to Palestine?


3)helicopters are neither seen nor heard before they launch missiles (pending retraction or admittance of ignorence)
Please tell me you are joking when challenge this statement of mine. Its a known fact that helicopters can launch missiles from very far away and from high distances, so someone in the vicinity of a target never hears a missiles launched from so far away.
Perfect example of this is the assassination of Sheik Yassin and other Hamas leaders. These leaders know that they are targets of Israel, so do you think that they would not duck for cover if they heard a helicopter. They don't hear it or see it, which is why the Israeli assassinations have worked so well.
Problem is that Israel has shown that it is willing to use this tactic on anyone at anytime, not just leaders, etc. Not too mention all the 'collateral damage' that comes from assassination of a leader.


4)The rockets that the Palestinians fire cause limited damage cause they are small, unsophisticated rockets. (pending retraction or claim of ignorance)
Compared to the Israeli missiles and bombs, yes Palestinian rockets are small and cause limited damaged.
Example: During the last invasion of Gaza, a Palestinian rocket landed in a home in Israel, it lodged in the roof and caused moderate damage to a single house (possibly killing 1 or 2 people). Compare this to the bombs and missiles dropped on Gaza that we could all see on our tv screens. One Israeli missile collapsed a whole building in a massive fireball on detonation, killing scores and scores of people. Or compare the missile launched by Israel in the last invasion of Lebanon when they targeedt a residential building (claiming that Hezbollah was firing rockets from it), it demolished the entire building and the damage was broadcast all over the tv screens. Tens of entire families were killed with that one missile.
So do you still deny that Palestinian rockets are small, unsophisticated rockets that cause limited damage in Israel compared to what they have to deal with from Israel?


5) yet when it attacks or bombs someone else, it is always attacking and bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure (pending retraction....)
Again I used the word always when I should have used the word mainly.
Do you deny that in the last Lebanon invasion Israel bombed the civilian airport, bombed the power stations, bombed the fuel storages, bombed the roads and bridges, bombed the few sewerage plants available, bombed residential neighbourhoods, etc, etc.?
Because those are all civilian infrastructure, at least according to Israel they are when a Palestinian or Lebanese rockets lands on one of them that's located inside Israel? Double standards much?


And lastly about the Hamas and Fatah questions who posed earlier.
I have already stated how Israel sowed the seeds of division inside the Palestinians. Israel is not to blame for Hamas actually throwing Fatah members off buildings, but Israel certainly contributed to mistrust and division between Hamas and Fatah.
Israel wanted to divide and conquer. By tightening pressure on Gaza because they elected Hamas while they loosened pressure on the West Bank at the same time, they created a situation that looked like Fatah were being the puppets of Israel thus causing Hamas to completely distrust Fatah.
Israel didn't control the actions of Hamas, Israel didn't call for Hamas to do what they did, BUT Israel was the cause of the division in the united Palestinian front against Israel. Israel maybe miscalculated because now Hamas is the sole power in Gaza, something I don't think Israel wanted.
Good or bad strategy, we will probably never know, but it was a psychological ploy used by Israel and it worked to an extent.

Also, about the borders. Yes every now and again the Palestinians get to have some limited control of the borders, but the ultimate control rests with Israel as they can move in and block them at any time and have done many times before. If a federal authority has no ability to assist its citizens in other parts of the country, how is a federal authority in control?
The PA had no ability to assist Gazan population with things that federal authorities throughout the world assist their countries with, because Israel could control when and who it let into Gaza, even including whether it let assistance or members of the PA authority in.
Ultimately this means that with no way for the PA authority to independent rein over Gaza, it left Hamas as the real governing power in Gaza, whilst the PA was the overall governing body in name only.

[pelsar]

450. and the inaccuracy continues......shheesh

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:56 AM - Edit history (5)

I'm very familiar with the settlements, the bulldozers, etc

I'm also familiar with propaganda, as per your post: First you post something that has some truth to it, but you "expand" upon it, in your effort to reach your end goal, which is clearly the demonization of Israel..and when caught as per my 5 points, you either modify or attempt to write about the something else or make another false statement

1) retraction about the "all buidlings" destroyed in gaza
2) "buffer zones" now your claiming there are no articles, so how do you know about this? or did you just make this up?

2.a) then of course you make another false statement (your link to the article in the next post does not mention/claim the bulldozing of Palestinian homes)
Many of the settlements that exist are on land that was occupied by Palestinians during the last 2 decades...... expanding naturally shows that more Palestinian land is being taken over, land that would not be available if Palestinians and their homes were not removed from that land.
Actually the settlements post 67 were made on empty hilltops (govt land for the most part), with arab villages existing on the side of hills, and the "security zone" is a road that goes around each settlement where the fence is, and its not called a security zone. So here you are simply flat out wrong, and I mean really really wrong.Why don't you go find out the source for this claim, and do the research. (you link after this does not mention Palestinian homes, just private land).

The egyptian/gaza border which splits the city of rafah in half has a border where houses were razed, but israelis do not live there.

.so will i get another "correction" for this statement as well?


3) Palestinian rockets were just small and unsophisticated..now they are just "small" compared to israeli bombs. Yes infact i did notice that you changed your claim. Is it difficult to admit that the Palestenians now have military grade rocketsl?

demolished the entire building and the damage was broadcast all over the tv screens. Tens of entire families were killed with that one missile.
actually given your list of false information, I have no idea if this is true, do you have a link to the articles about the families? of did u just make it up?

and why would i deny we have much larger bombs, missiles etc...thats the idea behind a war, its to kill the other guy, thats like complaining that israel protects its troops with tanks.


4) false claim about always attacking civilian infrastructure...retracted

5) Helicopters: if you don't know...and clearly you don't try using google, because clearly you prefer not to know actual facts)
israeli missiles from helicopters use the hellfire missile, it goes for about 8km. Helicopters (israel does not have 'stealth" helicopters) can be heard and seen from about the same distance. Furthermore there is this thing called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin

Israeli F-16 jets flew overhead to obscure the noise of the approaching helicopters

so shall i wait for yet another retraction about not hearing Israeli helicopters?

6) civilan infrastructure:

of course israel targets bridges, supplies, etc, that is the very foundation of a war, limiting the resources of the people who are trying to kill u, this a warfare 101. What israel doesn't do, that your 'friends do" is randomly target civilians.

Palestenian and the Lebanese rockets are not precise, and cannot hit precise targets, at least not yet), that is why they are aimed at cities where they have the best chance of killing people. Is this also something you didn't know? or you do and don't want to write it out? or perhaps you believe "small" military grade rockets with small shrapnel don't really count?

perhaps you might try answering this one as oppose to ignoring it?



and this hamas division thing. So from what i understand from what you wrote, the fact the PA and israel were in fact cooperating as per the oslo agreements and so many other agreements that the EU and US pushed for, this made the PA into "puppets" in the eyes of hamas, and in your eyes "sowing the seeds for division"? which is why hamas threw them off of the roofs. I think that is a good summary of your argument/belief correct?

So you would have preferred that Israel and the PA did not work together to solve many of the various issues between them? And the people of gaza also didn't like PA and Israel cooperating? Apparently that is your position.

7) Are you still claiming that hamas taking over gaza was not a coup? but the peoples choice?


and of course my favorite:
Also, about the borders. Yes every now and again the Palestinians get to have some limited control of the borders, but the ultimate control rests with Israel as they can move in and block them at any time and have done many times before

i assume you don't know that the 12 km of gaza/egyptian border has no israelis on it, not since israel left gaza, and the "video cameras" installed for israeli to watch over the border stations either didn't work or had a delay, making them useless (during the PA rule, before hamas took over)

so please explain to me how israel controlled this border and egyptian foreign policy as well? (and do you still believe it today)

8) and how many times has israel blocked this border as per your claim?..i'm sure you have at lease some dates as its happened "many times" as per your claim.
________

how about this: before you make additional false claims, while you retract a couple here, perhaps check your sources and put in some real links (not pictures, but articles with real information). I understand that you've been fed this stuff and you no longer even bother wondering what is and what is not true, but perhaps then discussing with me is not appropriate for you? There are many other forums where all will agree with anything you write and you won't be challenged, and you can go on believing anything you want, where truth and facts are not really relevant.

[politicman]

454. And he we go again...

No, I don't post propaganda, but you use the old Israeli trick of twisting words to mean something you want them to mean.

I'll go through this once again, but please pay attention this time:

1) About the 'all buildings' comment, in my haste to reply quickly, I don't proof read my post which means that sometimes I write the wrong word in the wrong position, but unlike you I am willing to correct myself once it is pointed out to me. You on the other hand fixate on this one word even after I have retracted it, simply because it is your way of avoiding the larger point which was that Israel bombs many, many buildings.


2) I have sent you a few more links that point to exactly what I was saying in regards to the bulldozing of homes, buffer zones and process being repeated. The main one is the wiki link that spells all this out in different sections.


3)Try this wiki link for the strike one of the buildings I was talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_airstrike

I couldn't be bothered doing an in depth search, so I just typed in 'Israeli strike kills families in Lebanon', and clicked on the very first item, so here is this one. There are many many others a lot worse than the strike on this building that I have seen reported years and years ago, but I cant be bothered searching until I find them.
Is this one sufficient proof for you?


4)refer to number one to see an explanation for this one

5)You said it with your own words, hellfire missiles can be used from 8km away. Now, if you are in a open area with not much noise around then you can pick up the sound, but put an Apache in a densely populated territory where 1.5 million people are located with buildings, cars and all sorts of everyday noise and the Apache becomes extremely hard to be heard. Add in the fact that Apaches are a common sight over Palestine that the people go about their daily lives without giving them much attention because it would require them to duck for cover too frequently thus disrupting their daily lives. (although this last point is not required to prove my point, I added it anyway).
So my point stands, Palestinians can be struck down at any time by an Israeli helicopter without seeing it or hearing it. It doesn't necessarily mean that Israeli helicopters cannot be spotted, but the above plus the fact that no Palestinian out of the 1.5 million can know which target the Apache is aiming at, makes them targets who most of the time are unaware that they will be struck down.


5)Haha, please tell me you are joking. Israel has hit more residential buildings and houses than one can mention. These buildings and house contain civilians who are blown to bits. Do you require the statistic of how many omen and children have been killed by Israelis?

When a Palestinian kills an Israeli citizen, your country calls it terrorism. When Israel kills any citizen from a different country, somehow you and your country justify it. Double standards much?

And don't give me the crap of Israel not targeting civilians ok. What do you call a fully armed Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian kid in the head because he is throwing rocks from a far distance?
What do you call dropping a missile on residential neighbourhoods that demolish buildings that Israel KNOWS contains civilians like women and children?
What do you call collectively punishing a whole population because for the actions of one suicide bomber, or a small group like Islamic Jihad?

Just look at the death tolls on both sides. How many of the 1000+ Palestinian women and children killed were 'terrorists' or 'threats' to Israel?


6)Again, are you hard of reading or just hard of understanding.
I said that by Israel tightening pressure on Gaza (after Hamas was elected) whilst at the same time loosening pressure on the West Bank, it created a perception that Fatah was acting as a puppet for Israel. PLEASE READ THAT SENTENCE CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTAND IT.

The PA was governing over all the territories whilst Hamas existed. Hamas was happy for the PA to be the authority in charge whilst they focused on liberating Palestine. When the PA showed itself as corrupt and was unable to hold Israel accountable for its many breaches of the agreement, Hamas campaigned and got elected in Gaza. The Israel ploy of putting pressure on Gaza whilst relaxing pressure on the West Bank made Hamas distrustful of Fatah and they ended up doing what they did.
I still say that what they did was wrong, but it was definitely not a coup. Hamas was elected to govern Gaza, they didn't need Fatah interfering in their mandate to govern, especially after looking like Fatah sold out to Israel, etc.


Now a question for you:
You said in one of your first posts that you are against leaving the Palestinians alone whilst Hamas is in power because Hamas are bad people and they do bad things, I think you called them dictators.
So I want to ask you: Sharon was found by your very own country to be implicit in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres where 3000 women and children were massacred by Christians under the cover of Israeli forces who were commanded by Sharon.
If the world had of intervened, blockaided Israel and demanded that Israel remove Sharon and replace him because he was complicit in massacres, would you have supported it? Would you have thought that that would have been a reasonable stance from the world? Or would you have protested and said that he was elected by your people and for everyone to stay out of your internal affairs?
Honest answer please.

[pelsar]

456. is this too difficult? I'll be short so u can concentrate

Many of the settlements that exist are on land that was occupied by Palestinians during the last 2 decades...... expanding naturally shows that more Palestinian land is being taken over, land that would not be available if Palestinians and their homes were not removed from that land.

not a single one of your links mentioned destroying Palestenians homes to make way for israeli settlements. They wrote about land confiscation etc, but not about homes being removed as per what you claim.

why don't you find the actual sentence, that mentions that? I believe this is like the 3x i've asked and you have yet to produce it.
________________

So my point stands, Palestinians can be struck down at any time by an Israeli helicopter without seeing it or hearing it. It doesn't necessarily mean that Israeli helicopters cannot be spotted

so basically you have now admitted that the apaches can be seen and even heard and your example of the sheik was exactly the opposite of what you wanted to prove...and u have no idea how many times the apaches are over gaza, so why make that up information as well

why add information that i now have to question you with? Well, what is this frequency that the apaches fly over gaza and since you claim to know it?

____
this is getting better
Hamas was happy for the PA to be the authority in charge whilst they focused on liberating Palestine.
is that why the PA was infact arresting hamas members?
http://www.phrmg.org/PA%20Political%20Arrest%20Report-May%202008.pdf

and this "perception" yes i read it carefully 3x, and my only conclusion is that you must believe that the Palestinians are all mentally retarded or something. Since they couldn't see through this sneaky, underhanded israeli trick. By the way given you short history of links that don't back u up, perhaps show me where u have this information from? ( the less restrictions on the WB).
________________________
what happened to the egptian/gaza border claim of yours? that israel has closed it several times? got a link? or a retraction?

_________

You said in one of your first posts that you are against leaving the Palestinians alone whilst Hamas is in power because Hamas are bad people and they do bad things, I think you called them dictators.

I'm against supporting the creation of new societies that are ruled by dictators, which is just an occupation by a group with different genes, something clearly you support. (in this case it would be hamas and the PA). And i don't think/believe Hamas are "bad people", its just religious fanatics and other anti democratic believers have no right to govern.


f the world had of intervened, blockaided Israel and demanded that Israel remove Sharon and replace him because he was complicit in massacres, would you have supported it?
no....
the same way the world didn't demand the removal of bush for the iraqi war, the removal of obama for this predator murders, the same way the world doesn't demand the arrest of Fadi Frem leader of the Lebanese Forces (LF) of the as responsible for the decision to enter the refugee camps and gave the orders. (he lives in canada)
i could go on....we have NATO generals and politicians who gave orders for the massacring of civilians in Lybia, We've got Clinton as as war criminal bombing serbia. And these guys are not just complicit, they gave the orders.

should they have been removed from office as well? or is your view special just for israeli politicians?

[politicman]

460. This is getting tiresome...

1) I have provided the link again in the next post where Amnesty International Human Rights Organisation contends that 'Israel demolishes Palestinian homes for punishment AND to seize land for settlement expansion'.
Is this still not enough evidence for you?

2)My point was that the Palestinians can be struck down by Israeli helicopters at any time and at any place, the fact that they have no idea if the helicopter is there to assassinate anyone or if its there to gather intelligence or if its there to bomb a police station or building or house or just making a fly over creates a situation where they cannot be on guard 24 hours a day, so they effectively don't hear or see an attack before it is launched.
I also mentioned that a helicopter that can shoot a missile from 8km away in a densely populated territory that is crammed with buildings and cars and all sorts of noises from a million plus people can easily be drowned out by all that noise.
But you don't mention that point in your counter argument do you?

3)The PA was always in charge of Palestinian territories, they knew Hamas existed for a long time just like they knew that Islamic Jihad existed, and they were ok with them as long as these groups helped in the struggle for liberation. Hamas and other groups focused their efforts on liberating Palestine and the PA was happy with this arrangement.

The only reason that the PA arrested some members of Hamas was to placate Israeli and American demands, but these Hamas members were eventually released. Hamas knew the PA was trying to placate Israeli and American demands and that their men would be released again when the spotlight was off, and they accepted this situation.

As the corruption in the PA grew and the PA couldn't hold Israel accountable for all its breaches of the agreement even though it was making a show of arresting Hamas members to placate Israeli demands, Hamas ran for and won elections in Gaza. And I have explained how the situation eventuated from there.

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Egypt_border
This link describes the Rafah border that connects Gaza with Egypt. Read it all carefully, you will see that Israel controlled it prior to 2005 and then handed over authority to the Egyptians in an agreement based on the principles of the 1979 peace treaty. Egypt has tightly controlled that border so as not to trigger another Israeli assault or incursion, etc.
Israel physically imprisons Gaza in nearly all directions, and also puts pressure on Egypt to exercise strict control of the rafah crossing through an agreement before it handed over the crossing.


5)So you are a hypocrite then. You don't have a problem with letting countries elect bad people (even your own), you just have a problem if the Palestinians elect leaders that are bad in your eyes (and not everyones else).
Sharon was implicated in Sabra and Shatila, Bush invaded and destroyed Iraq, yet you want to draw the line at Hamas and the PA?
I am not the one that said that I wanted Israeli politicians like Sharon removed, I just pointed him out because you can tolerate him in a position of power in Israel while you insist on Palestine removing their leaders. The hypocrisy in you is overwhelming.
Under your warped logic you have no problem with established democracies ehaving leaders who are considered murderers or complicit in massacres (Sharon was implicated by your own country), you just have a problem with newly formed countries having leaders like this. And to dissuade them from having them, you are prepared to imprison them and kill the same people you claim you don't want to be killed by dictators. Some weird logic you have there.

[pelsar]

464. read slowly....

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

first the simple:
You don't have a problem with letting countries elect bad people (even your own)

not when its a working democracy. Democracies have the ability to change and fix their mistakes and the people have a voice. Dictatorships don't. I don't care who hamas has as their leader nor the PA, as long as they have a working democracy.

now do you get it? read that sentence again slowly. a WORKING DEMOCRACY. The hypocrisy is with you. On one hand you use the human rights groups to show how bad israel is, and yet here your are promoting the creation of facist state, that rejects your "human rights"

I'll repeat:
1) you use human rights groups to show how wrong israel is to help create a new state
2) you promote the creation of a facist anti-democratic country that rejects western human rights.
3) you believe its the peoples rights to live in under a facist regime and its none of anybodies business what that regime does to its own citizens, yet your more than willing to interfere in a different state that is a democracy.

i believe thats a pretty good summary of your point of view (and before you comment, read the PA and hamas foundation documents as well as their present judicial laws and customs).

i would say in terms of hypocrisy, you win, using western human right values to create a state that rejects those very values.
_______________________________

oh god, this is one of the most stuipedist lamest, idiotic excuses....and of course you can't prove any of it, its simply what you want to believe.

The only reason that the PA arrested some members of Hamas was to placate Israeli and American demands.
Yes because the secular PA and theocratic hamas were BFF....so was america and israel placated?

your telling me that you understand the politics of hamas and the PA? I assume you at least know the names of the players, speak arabic, know the families and how they relate to each other and to understand their motivations etc ......you don't? and yet you claim to understand their motivations....a culture you know nothing about, a language you do not speak and even the people involved u cannot name

and yet you claim you know about their relationships to one another and their politics?....wow, thats a double wow. you must be able to read minds or something to have such an ability either that or that ethnocentric super ego that says you know what motivates people thousands of kilometers away in a land you've never seen with a people you've never met, and a culture you no nothing about.....


but you continue ..
Egypt has tightly controlled that border so as not to trigger another Israeli assault or incursion, etc.
and also puts pressure on Egypt to exercise strict control of the rafah crossing through an agreement before it handed over the crossing.
this is going to be fun, since clearly you have no knowledge of the history of the gaza/egyptian border. But we'll start with the simple:
so you believe israel will attack egypt if they don't keep the border closed? and you don't know anything about the 300+ tunnels that were operating? (is that how you define "tightly controlled?)

before you respond, read up on the history of its opening, closings and who was in charge. and don't forget to explain how israel puts this pressure on the egypt.
_________________________________________________

My point was that the Palestinians can be struck down by Israeli helicopters at any time and at any place,

If you can't make your points with accurate information, than its not a point, its a lie or hyperbole. So are now admitting that you have no idea how many apaches fly over gaza and when?

first i'll let you admit that, retract it, and then I''ll explain why they don't fly over gaza "daily." Its not a bad thing to learn.

[politicman]

465. continued....

1) Yes I know all about the culture and the relationships, my parents originate from Lebanon, I have family relatives still in Lebanon and I speak Lebanese quite well. Unlike my relatives in that region (and most Israelis, probably even yourself) I scan every type of media there is, I take no media from anywhere at face value and because of this I get a 360 degree view of how everyone views things.
My understanding of Arabic culture is extensive because I am an Australian Lebanese.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/680542/posts

(this link is to a message forum, it contains an article from the Associated Press via Jerusalem Post, the link to the full story is not working anymore, but the main points of the story are included. I hope this is sufficient)

From the article:

'The arrests appeared to indicate that Arafat is responding to growing US pressure to take action against Palestinian militants.

A number of important Hamas figures were killed or captured during the Israeli offensive in the West Bank. However, all of the group's senior leaders are in Gaza, and Israel has so far refrained from targeting them.

In the past, Palestinian authorities have temporarily detained Hamas leaders, but then released them soon after. In some cases, it appeared the Palestinians took the moves largely to protect the Hamas leaders from possible Israeli attack.

Israel has accused the PA of taking such action to give the appearance of a crackdown on militants, but says their subsequent release shows the arrests are not serious.

The PA has also directed Palestinian broadcasting agencies to cease interviewing Hamas members, Israel Radio reported.'


2) Again it was you that used the excuse that Hamas (and the PA) are bad for Palestinian people because they are dictators that are bad people. I pointed out that for any Israeli to have that position is hypocritical because it was Israelis that elected Sharon as a leader, remember Sharon was implicated by your very own country as being complicit in Sabra and Shatila.
So which is your position then:
That you would accept a working democracy in Palestine that elects a leader who may be hostile to Israel OR that you want a working democracy that elects a leader who will live in peace alongside Israel?

(before answering that question, keep in mind that you have already defended the right of Israel to elect a mad man such as Sharon who is hostile to surrounding nations)

I used human rights groups as the evidence that you asked for regarding my statement about the settlements. You asked for proof, I provided what most every one would say is the least unbiased source there is, and they believe exactly what I believe.


3) I never stated that Israel will attack Egypt if they don't keep the border closed, don't put words in my mouth. I said that Israel handed control of the border to Egypt in an agreement reached on the principles of the 1979 treaty. Its not as simple as Israel handing it over and walking away completely. To avoid any future conflict, Egypt exercises tight control of that crossing in the hope that Israel doesn't have an excuse to come back in.
Many of the tunnels Egypt knows about and many it does not. This just proves my point, why would Egypt turn a blind eye to tunnels if they had absolute discretion on if they open the border completely or not? Wouldn't Egypt just completely open the crossing instead of turning a blind eye to tunnels, why the need for Egypt to turn a blind eye to tunnels when they could just open the crossing and everything that they already know travels through the tunnels, could instead travel through the crossing?

4) Apaches, warplanes and drones regularly fly over Gaza. The latter 2 are the main forms of flyovers that Israel conducts, but Apaches are also common. It does not matter if the Apaches fly over 1 time or many times (even though they are more common than you think as evidenced by all the assassinations and attacks over the years). A Palestinian living his/her life in Gaza can easily not hear or see an Apache before it is too late, thus they have no way of knowing when they could be cut down from one. And even if they do hear or see one, they have no idea of what the target would be, which makes them extremely vulnerable to getting cut down by one.
You say that Israelis live in terror of rockets that give them 15 seconds notice, yet you don't believe that Palestinians live in terror from Apaches that could easily not be heard or seen in the bustling of an extremely densely populated territory, Apaches that don't broadcast their target and that have shown in the past that 'collateral damage' is of no concern when hitting a target?

[pelsar]

468. a news article....

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 03:28 AM - Edit history (5)

your article. to give it credit uses the words:
The arrests appeared
meaning it admits it really has no idea what the real reason is. Now do you get it?, they are claiming they don't know....so why are u even using that article to back up your belief?

and since u are Lebanese with i assume knowledge of the Lebanon (civil war) and the intricate and changing relationships between the various groups there, which should be far far greater than what i would ever know, it must be clear to you, that you infact have no idea what is actually happening behind the obvious news reports in this conflict between the groups...... Its obvious to us.
________________________________________________

you don't get it, a democracy gets to elect whom ever they feel like. BECAUSE its a democracy, their choice is theirs and they must bear the consequences, if its bad for their citizens, they will then have the option of correcting themselves, if they like the consequences then they can stay with their choice, that is the essence of a working democracy.

A Palestinian democracy that is hostile to israel will have a bad relationship with its neighbor that will affect its citizens, whom i believe would rather live in peace and security. A democracy will give them options

see how that works, a democracy allows amongst other things, freedom of speech, continuous elections, etc

dictatorships, which you clearly supporting in this case, do not, thats called supporting facism, no matter what your excuse is and it is always bad, never good and no people deserve to live in such an environment.

You used human rights groups to support your viewpoint, which is fine, except since u do support the creation of a facist dictatorship, i can only believe you don't really believe in the concept of human rights.

________

gaza border..remember i told u to do some research before writing, obviously you didn't .
we shall start with the obvious.

1) Gaza had over 300 tunnels. Only when Egypt was taken over by the army were the tunnels actually shut down. Do you know how easy it was? Every day dozens of trucks would enter Rafah and unload their materials at the homes/tents with tunnel entrances. All the army did was follow the trucks, arrested/shot/beatup the home owners and the tunnels were effectly shut down


and the border above ground has been shut down

and what did israel do? nothing

2) when Morsi (MB) was in charge, the tunnels operated, as per MBs connection to hamas
the border above ground was open for various materials, including electricity)

and what did Israel do? nothing

3)when Mubarak was in charge and Hamas took gaza, the tunnels operated and were expanded from 1 to 300 with Rahaf being a large "open air port"
the border above ground was open and shut depending upon the politics
and what did israel do? nothing

4)when Mubarak was in charge and the PA ruled gaza and the EU controlled the border above ground, the tunnels operations got started....
the border above ground was open and shut depending upon the politics
and what did israel do? nothing

____________

so there you have 4 situations, 3 different Egyptain govts, 2 different Gaza governments, the rafah crossings both above and below ground in different situations and in all of them, there was single consistent policy
israel did nothing

As to why the games between egypt and hamas? the only one i believe is the Egyptian army has no love for hamas as they have been involved in the smuggling of arms in the sinai and the killing of its soldiers. They have no sympathy for the Palestinians either, so they simply shut down the border.

are you now going to give me some kind of political explanation for every one of those 4 situations that blames israel for the Egyptian/Hamas/PA relationship?
I'm sure you have one.....so take your time..this should be good to read, while you reduce the PA/Hams/Egypt to Israeli puppets.
________

4) again? are you again trying to make some "kind of point" I already asked you not to make up information you know nothing about.

Apaches, warplanes and drones regularly fly over Gaza. The latter 2 are the main forms of flyovers that Israel conducts, but Apaches are also common. It does not matter if the Apaches fly over 1 time or many times (even though they are more common than you think as evidenced by all the assassinations and attacks over the years

since its "more common than i think.." please tell me what is the number that i think? __________
give me the attacks per year, and how many are apache based, so we'll know_______________

It does not matter if the Apaches fly over 1 time or many times.......they are more common
previously you claimed "all of the time, now your claiming it maybe 1 or "more common"

The only point your making is you don't care if your information is correct or not, facts are not the point with you and false information and hyperbole (contrary to your earlier claim), is obviously an integrated part of your beliefs. Hence your made up numbers (or non numbers...)

If I am wrong then you can explain to me how you can read my mind about what i believe is "common" for apache fly overs....
_________________

You say that Israelis live in terror of rockets that give them 15 seconds notice, yet you don't believe that Palestinians live in terror from Apaches that could easily not be heard or seen in the bustling of an extremely densely populated territory, Apaches that don't broadcast their target and that have shown in the past that 'collateral damage' is of no concern when hitting a target?

since you've already shown that you have little concern for the facts, and we have ample evidence of that now with your claim of your ability to read my mind, how shall i respond to such a comment as the above, where i read at least 2 false statements.

oh btw, you do know that hamas is now using poison gas? they've experimented on fatah members in the tunnels and are now developing "fake tunnels" to lure in the israeli soldiers to gas them. They're more common than you think.
____

the rafah crossing...
heres a visual:
http://www.demotix.com/news/1143622/trucks-load-fuel-smuggling-tunnels-gaza-egypt-border#media-1143593

[politicman]

470. response

1) You have a problem with reading every word in an article, you just read a few sentences and then proclaim that the article doesn't back up my statement.

From the article:
'Israel has accused the PA of taking such action to give the appearance of a crackdown on militants, but says their subsequent release shows the arrests are not serious.'

Now what more do you require than your own country accusing the PA of doing what I suggested they were doing?
Can I expect a retraction or correction from you now, the way you demand from me constantly?

2)Yes I have extensive knowledge of the Lebanese civil war, and the changing relationships, and also the propaganda employed by every country in the Mid-East, including Israel, to make their side appear like the good guys.
I abhor every dictator or royal family in the Mid-East, I know all about how these regimes use propaganda to brainwash their citizens while at the same time restrict their freedoms. Living here in Australia I can look at the whole picture objectively, and what I see is that even though Israel grants its citizens freedom, it still brainwashes them with propaganda just like all the other Mid-East countries, you are the perfect case in point.

I still remember till now how Israel invaded Lebanon in 82, how Sabra and Shatila massacres were able to be carried out by right wing Christians because Sharon enabled them to do so, how South Lebanon was occupied by the SLA only with the help and support of Israel.
I watched in horror when Israel invaded Lebanon again in the 2000's and basically destroyed half the country. The reports and images from the invasion were horrific, innocent people were the worst hit.


3)So right now, if Hamas and the PA put in laws to guarantee a working democracy and they got elected 'legitimately', you would support a completely independent Palestinian state, even if they did not recognise Israel as state? You would support uprooting all the illegal settlements and give back access to all the resources that Israel is currently stealing? You would support no interference in Palestinian lives? No imprisonment?
(I am guessing you wont support the above, but Ill wait for your answer to confirm)


4)If you know anything about the current state of affairs in the Mid-East countries right now, you would know that Egypt currently is ruled by the military after they engineered a coup against an elected president and is going through some internal turmoil of its own. Hamas was closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, so the Egyptian army at the moment is more concerned with consolidating its coup which is why they are restricting the ability of Hamas to cross the border, either above ground or below ground.
This suits Israel to a tee, so of course Israel is happy about it.

But before that, even with the Muslim Brotherhood (who was sympathetic with Hamas) in charge, Egypt still didn't freely open the crossing because of the concern that Israel had with an action like this.
Israel may not be pulling the strings of the Egyptian government in the past and now, but it (along with the U.S) certainly has influence over how freely open that border is. If you cannot see that, then its you who has no understanding of how things work in the Mid-East.
Unfortunately, for governments like Egypt, they have to take into account how Israel (with support from the U.S) would react if they were to freely open crossings, that's why Morsi who was extremely sympathetic to Hamas still didn't do it, he had to take into consideration the geo-politics of the whole situation.


5)Well I have no idea how common you think fly overs are, but since you disagreed with the notion that fly overs can be common, then I suspected that you thought they were isolated events.
How about I ask you and then we can see if we can agree on that: Do you agree that fly overs are often, or do you think its just a few isolated fly overs?


6) So Ill ask you then: Are Palestinian 'collateral damage' acceptable in your eyes for the purpose of 'security' for Israel? Are incursions and arbitrary arrests acceptable for the purpose of security of Israel? Is house demolitions, confiscation of land and new construction of settlements acceptable for the purpose of security of Israel? Is imprisoning a population of over a million people acceptable for the purpose of security for Israel?

(I will either confirm my thoughts on your morals with the answer to these questions, or I will apologise for getting it wrong when I claimed to know what was in your mind. So set me straight, ok)

[pelsar]

474. not so fast..

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 08:38 AM - Edit history (2)

i would like first to know how you come to claim, just the very claim is what i'm interested in, what i know of the over flights of gaza?

i also would like to know how many of these flights are apaches..apparently via your post you know the approximate number..well?

if you don't know, why make the claim?

btw, no comment on hamas using gas in the tunnels on fatah members? ...well?
______

I still remember till now how Israel invaded Lebanon in 82, how Sabra and Shatila massacres were able to be carried out by right wing Christians because Sharon enabled them to do so

were you in horror when the PLO launched random missile strikes on israeli populations over years before that, or was that ok with you and didn't even bother you for a second?
well? lets see if you can even answer it, honestly....and then well discuss why you believe israelis shouldn't respond to missile attacks.
_______


the article:
Israel has accused the PA of taking such action to give the appearance of a crackdown on militants, but says their subsequent release shows the arrests are not serious.'

i don't really care who is writing it, the point being that the internal politics of hamas/PA is a complex matter and your simplification of them being BFF is s joke.....and for someone who knows arab/lebanese politics i can only suggest that you should know better, and your probably do, but you have made it clear that you don't let facts get in the way of your agenda, that is why you would claim that got along so well until israel interrupted them.

_________
So right now, if Hamas and the PA put in laws to guarantee a working democracy and they got elected 'legitimately', you would support a completely independent Palestinian state
you've got to be kidding? you actually would believe a promise that a dictator would make, to create a form of govt that would throw them and their friends out?

of course not, dictators by definition lie to their people and the world. They would have to do what israel did and what the US did. First you create the democratic foundations, change the culture so that this democracy is part of the culture...then you have a chance for a stable western style democracy. Its proven system..

of course you still haven't explained clearly why you support the creation of a facist dictatorship. My guess is, that you have no real interest in human and civil rights but are more of one of those racist/nationalists that believe in land ownership for specific races....but i'm just guessing

_____

gaza
its quite simple...your claims that Mubarak/morsi had to limit the imports lacks credibility:
Israel may not be pulling the strings of the Egyptian government in the past and now, but it (along with the U.S) certainly has influence over how freely open that border is

then why didn't morsi or mubarak simply close down the tunnels as did the egyptian army?...
The army did it in a few days.....

or perhaps morsi and mubarak decided NOT to closes down the tunnels?
Or maybe the US and Israel told morsi and Mubarak to keep the tunnels open?
did the egyptian army act on their own and close the tunnels against the US?israeli wishes?
is the egyptian army an israeli puppet and israel told them to close the tunnels?
or maybe Egypt has their own foreign policy and are not israeli puppets?

you don't have too many choices here, which ones are it?, as they are contradictory.
______________________________________________________

So Ill ask you then: Are Palestinian 'collateral damage' acceptable in your eyes for the purpose of 'security' for Israel?
before i answer and i will,
do you believe lsraelis have the ability to read thoughts?
do you believe israelis have bombs and bullets that know the difference between people that want to kill them and those that don't.

Do you believe that Isaelis should even defend themselves from attacks using existing technologies? Do you believe that we teach our children that when they go in the army they should kill Palestinians and arabs in general indiscriminately.

do you believe that attacking israelis, citizens and soldiers alike is justified.

so far on all of your posts, i get the impression that you see israelis (arab, jew, druze alike) as evil people that not just love killing, but that when we kill it is particularly heinous unlike the lebanese for example who massacred each other for over 10 years killing (how many?) the only reason the massacres at Sabra and Shatila bother you is because israel was involved, the other massacre Shatila & Buraj-el Barajneh involved Muslim (Shia) militiamen who killed the (Sunni) Muslim Palestinian and for that your "ok" with because the killers had the right genes.

or and this is an afterthought...it goes back to your belief about land ownership: if you have the right genes as in the Lebanese you can massacre each other at will for over 10 years and its "ok" (also whats happening in syria) but have an outside force come in, with different genes, and they do the massacring, well that is not ok. I believe that is actually a good summary of your viewpoint.

[politicman]

475. why wont you answer all my questions when you demand that I answer yours?

1) As I said, you disagreed with my comment about fly overs being common, so I assumed that if you disagreed with the comment then you thought otherwise, that they were isolated events. If I am wrong, I apologise and ask that you set me straight on what you think on that issue.


2) Honestly, I didn't see those rocket attacks as being as heinous as you make them out, NOT because I hate Israeli/Jews, but because Palestinians were chased out of their land and into Lebanon by Israel, they didn't want to just give up the fight for the land they were chased out of, so they attacked back.

Did they attack back in the right way, that can be debated seeing as how Israel was much stronger and they had no other alternative to fight back for their land.

Did you expect Arafat and his men to just accept that they were chased out of their land and give up the fight? Would you just surrender your cause if someone chased you out of your home?


3) No you disputed my statement that the PA was arresting Hamas members to placate Israeli and American demands, but was then releasing them, you asked for proof and I supplied that article, the proof you asked for.

I never said that PA and Hamas had a simple relationship where they were best buds, I said that Hamas disagreed with the PA on issues and how to govern BUT Hamas tolerated the PA having control of all the territories because they both had the same goal of liberation of Palestine. Those issues (including corruption and PA inability to hold Israel accountable for its breaches) grew to the point that Hamas decided to run at the elections because they felt they could govern better with no corruption.

I suggested/claimed that the reason Hamas completed turned against Fatah was that Israel showed preferential treatment to Fatah by easing pressure on the West Bank whilst at the same time tightening pressure on Gaza because Hamas was elected. I said that this gave the appearance that Fatah was pleasing Israel, or if you prefer the puppets of Israel.
I said that Israel didn't force Hamas to throw PA members off of buildings but Israels psychological ploy of dividing the Palestinians from the inside worked. Understand now?


4) Ok then let me simplify it for you.
If the Palestinians created democratic foundations, changed the culture and at their first 'legitimate' elections they elect a leader that is a bad person and doesn't recognise Israel, would you support all that I asked in the earlier post.

(keep in mind that established western democracies elect bad men as leaders, Israel elected Sharon (and as I have said many times, your own country implicated Sharon in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila), America elected Bush who invaded Iraq on a compete lie, and both men have never recognised Palestine as an independent state.

Would you support all I asked earlier if Palestine elected a man like Sharon in a legitimate election within a legitimate western style democracy?


I don't support fascists and dictators, I just don't agree with you that Israel has the right to imprison and punish the Palestinians until they establish a proper western style democracy. They Palestinian people will eventually demand one if they are left alone to focus on improving their lives rather than having to worry that they will be imprison forever.
And if you say you cannot leave them alone until they create a proper democracy because it concerns your future, then I will remind you that western style democracies still elect men like Sharon and Bush.



5) Again you either deliberately change my argument or don't read and understand my argument properly.
I never argued that Egypt couldn't close the tunnels if they wanted, in fact I argued the opposite. I argued that the reason Egypt never closed the tunnels was precisely for the fact that they couldn't completely open the crossing.
Egypt wanted things to get into Gaza, and because it was simply not feasible to completely open up the crossing due to Israeli and American objections, etc, Egypt let the tunnels stay open as a way to get things into Gaza whilst having deniability.
Now the Egyptian army is not so sympathetic to Hamas, so they have gone ahead and closed tunnels.

Get it now? Or do you just like to misrepresent my argument and take some of my sentences out of context to make your argument seem better?



No I don't believe Israel has bombs and bullets that know who wants to kill them and who doesn't, but Israel knows that when they drop a 100-500kg bomb on a building that the huge blast will kill innocents as well, you know they have a term for that, its called collateral damage.

So again I ask: Are Palestinian 'collateral damage' acceptable in your eyes for the purpose of 'security' for Israel?

I saw what the civil war did in Lebanon, I know how many were killed in that civil war, it ruined Lebanon, I would never wish that on anyone.
The problem is that Israel always justifies its actions by pointing out that it is the only western style democracy in the region and because of this it is morally superior.
So if you expect everyone to accept your actions on that basis, then why do you object when you are held to a higher standard than those less moral nations in the region?


You still didn't address the question I asked you regarding how expanding settlements and taking more Palestinian resources provides security for Israel? Do you think expanding settlements and taking resources provides you security and is it acceptable in your eyes?


Again, if your country uses that argument that it is morally superior than the other in the region, then don't complain when you are held to a higher moral standard.
If you are not morally superior, then can the world assess all your actions in the same light as your neighbouring countries? Can people call your bombings as terrorist actions just like they describe Palestinian actions?

[pelsar]

478. dont change your original claims....

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2014, 05:10 AM - Edit history (2)

never said that PA and Hamas had a simple relationship where they were best buds, I said that Hamas disagreed with the PA on issues and how to govern BUT Hamas tolerated the PA having control

you used the word HAPPY to express their relationship...there one helluva difference between the words tolerate and happy.

so which is it and which writing is a mistake? 'happy and tolerate" are two very different words, there is no excuse for you not to know the difference.

But at least you did supply the article....
_____________________________________________

you disagreed with my comment about fly overs being common,
you said more common than i knew, and you mentioned there were "more apaches...this indicates that you can read my mind.
Infact i have absolutely no idea how many apaches are over gaza today. I suspect zero, they are expensive to fly and whereas in the past they were used to spot kassams, that is no longer true. There is no reason for an F-16 to fly over gaza if its not dropping a bomb since the flight is about 5 seconds, hence that too is probably zero. That leaves drones, but this is just me guessing, since i haven't been in the area for about 5 years and didn't see a single apache/F16 over gaza.

now then, i am requesting once again, don't write what you know nothing about...you look foolish and your credibility with your claims is zero. i now assume u do not know what your writing about and you just make up "facts"....perhaps you can no longer tell the difference?
______________________

this is good and clear,
I didn't see those rocket attacks as being as heinous as you make them out, NOT because I hate Israeli/Jews, but because Palestinians were chased out of their land and into Lebanon by Israel, they didn't want to just give up the fight for the land they were chased out of, so they attacked back.

so basically if i can summarize, knowing that the rockets land randomly and are aimed at cities, you have no moral problem with their attacking and terrorizing civilians. Which brings me to the maalot example where the Palestinians crossed the border and massacred israeli high school students. I assume this too is acceptable given their limitations on their ability to fight back.

at least your clear about that, which explains a lot, so basically israeli citizens pretty much deserve it and in fact, in your eyes really can not justify defending themselves..... (btw, some of the hizballa rockets landed on arab christians and in fact they apologize for it, so i guess they just want to kill jews, is this too your belief? just killing jewish israelis is acceptable and not the christian arab ones?)

____

Again you either deliberately change my argument or don't read and understand my argument properly
its not deliberate, we clearly think differently and forums are easy to misunderstand one another....
____________
Egypt let the tunnels stay open as a way to get things into Gaza whilst having deniability
you live in a fantasy world where u believe words have more weight than actions. Do you really believe that egypt "saying" the border is limited, all the while there are hundreds of trucks unloading new mercede benz, etc to bring in to gaza was "unknown to both Egypt and Israel?...you did see the pictures correct? there is nothing to deny.

since it was so obvious to everyone involved...and israel did nothing, obviously israel had zero influence (you claim israel wanted to limit it). We live in the real world out here, where actions have far more importance than mere words.

___________
If the Palestinians created democratic foundations, changed the culture and at their first 'legitimate' elections they elect a leader that is a bad person and doesn't recognise Israel, would you support all that I asked in the earlier post

I have no problem with that....Who they elect in a democratic society is actually their business and then the actual people, would bear the consequences for their actions, good or bad and as in working democracies they get to change their govt to change policies. In case you don't understand, that does not exist in dictatorships.
____________

So again I ask: Are Palestinian 'collateral damage' acceptable in your eyes for the purpose of 'security' for Israel?

now thats an interesting question coming from you. From what you've written, the Palestinians on their attacks on Israel, using rockets on civilians is acceptable, meaning they can't have "collateral damage" since the civilians are infact the targets.

is "collateral damage acceptable"...your claiming that in warfare israel infact has the ability to limit "collateral damage" to zero, something which infact today is impossible. So before i answer, are you assuming that israel in fact has this ability? (I'll answer, just need to clarify you question a little bit more)
______________

Again, if your country uses that argument that it is morally superior than the other in the region, then don't complain when you are held to a higher moral standard

I'm not israel and your not a Palestinian, the question is what you believe. I get the impression that infact you do have a double standard. As you wrote, the Palestinians have the right to try to kill israeli civilians (I'm not clear on this, can they kill all israeli civilians or just the jewish ones?)

but israel does not have that same right....meaning different morals for killing for different people, is that your position?

[politicman]

479. when you read, make sure to answer the last question in this post

1) WOW, you really are a frustrating person because of the fact that you will constantly take a single word out of a whole paragraph or a whole post and repeatedly bring up that single word instead of addressing the broader argument.

But I will address yet again your stupid argument about the words 'tolerate' being different from 'happy'. sigh.

Ok, Yes the two words can mean totally different things depending on the context of the argument, but just for you I will point out that I have used the word 'tolerate' in earlier posts. Because you refuse to discuss the broader point and only want to discuss whether one word in a whole paragraph is appropriate, I have to keep repeating the argument ad nauseam, I change chop and change certain words so that I am not just writing the exact same sentences again and again until you understand.

Case in point, below is one of the earlier posts where I used the word 'tolerate'.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=55920




2) Are you really that obtuse? I have multiple times explained why I assumed what you thought about flyovers, in the last post I apologised for assuming what you thought and asked you to set me straight on what you do think.
Yet you continue on that same point endlessly even though I apologised for making assumptions on what you think.



3) I honestly am starting to regret having this discussion with you as you are clearly blinded to reality.
I explained how the Palestinians who were chased out of their land and into Lebanon didn't want to just give up their fight to reclaim their land, and the only way they could fight back was to fire rockets into Israel.

And instead of answering my question to you regarding if you would just give up the fight to reclaim your home if you were chased out of it, you just skipped over the question to make it seem like the Palestinians were doing some so bad.


I will pose the question again in capital letters so its stands out and you cannot avoid it:
WOULD YOU JUST GIVE UP AND NOT FIGHT TO RECLAIM YOUR HOME IF I OR ANYONE ELSE CHASED YOU OUT OF IT AND TOOK IT OVER?

(please answer honestly, cause I have a follow up question for which ever answer you give)



4) you said:
'Egypt let the tunnels stay open as a way to get things into Gaza whilst having deniability
you live in a fantasy world where u believe words have more weight than actions. Do you really believe that egypt "saying" the border is limited, all the while there are hundreds of trucks unloading new mercedes benz, etc to bring in to gaza was "unknown to both Egypt and Israel?...you did see the pictures correct? there is nothing to deny. '

Where to start on this whole mistake of a paragraph. WOW, now you change your argument, now you argue that because some things were allowed across the border that it indicates that Egypt had total say on when to open and close it without any influence from Israel or the U.S.
I NEVER claimed that the border was closed every minute of every day, I originally said that Hamas Israel closed the borders whenever it wanted. You argued that this was untrue because the Rafah crossing was controlled by Egypt and the E.U.
I proceeded to point out that even though Egypt had physical ownership of the Rafah crossing, it constantly closed it to placate Israel and the U.S (basically meaning that Israel had influence over the opening and closing of the border even though they didn't physically control it), and then proceeded to point out that Egypt's knowledge of the tunnels existence was a way for Egypt to let things cross into Gaza and have plausible deniability. They would close the border to place Israel and Egypt all the while knowing that the tunnels would still get some things through to Gaza.

Do you get it now? If not, read the above paragraph again and again until you do.



5) So basically what you are saying is that if the Palestinians create a 'legitimate' democracy and then elect a mad man (like Sharon) and proceed to continue the fight against Israel, that you would still support a Palestinian democracy?

So the reason that Israel is imprisoning the Palestinians, the reason it is stealing land and resources, the reason it refuses to let the Palestinians have a statehood, the reason it demolishes homes and builds security barriers is only because the Palestinians don't have what Israel calls a proper democracy?

The reason I asked the last question even though I know the answer from you will be no, is to point out that you said that the Palestinians in a democracy would be able to change their policies if they wore bad consequences for their actions, BUT that is a disingenuous argument from you.

Because Israel is the stronger party, when its people elected Sharon and his bad policies, no one was able to make Israel wear the consequences of its actions and so the Israeli's followed up and elected Bibi with even more bad policies.
If the Palestinians elect a leader with bad policies, Israel can make them wear consequences thus essentially forcing Palestine to change its policies.

The above illustrates that Israel will always be right because as the saying goes, 'might is right'.




6) Lastly I will answer your other point in my next response because this is getting too long already and I want to again repeat a question I have asked you plenty of time and you have ignored:

Do you think that it is acceptable for Israel to constantly expand settlements on Palestinian land and steal their resources for the purpose of 'security' for Israel ?????

9please don't dodge this question this time)

[pelsar]

482. i dont agree to the "mud system"

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 04:40 AM - Edit history (4)

the mud system, is when you make multiple accusations all using words that are wrong to describe the environment and when its brought up, you quickly move on to the next accusation.

if your argument uses a wrong word to describe the environment, then your whole paragraphs foundations is wrong, and probably your point of view as well. Hence it must be stopped, corrected...then the argument is suddenly different.

and i don't agree that once "caught" you quickly use a different word in your next post. Seems to me, if your honest and don't want to lie, you should either admit it was the wrong word, explain why you used it, and then suggest a more descriptive word. Eventually you'll perhaps stop using those "wrong words".

as in my claim that hamas gassed fatah members in one of their tunnels..... (maybe it wasn't gas? maybe it wasn't a tunnel? maybe there weren't fatah members?), maybe i confused cigarette smoke with other lethal gas (cigarette smoke is considered lethal is it not?)


________________________________________

explained how the Palestinians who were chased out of their land and into Lebanon didn't want to just give up their fight to reclaim their land, and the only way they could fight back was to fire rockets into Israel.
I read it.. history disagrees with you, but that was not what i asked...I asked if you agree with their sending rockets in to civilians areas . i.e targeting civilians.

simple question for you to answer, and after that, we'll discuss your ignorance about the rockets and let you decide why you wrote it: ignorance, or lie or you wrote the "wrong word" again.
____________________

WOULD YOU JUST GIVE UP AND NOT FIGHT TO RECLAIM YOUR HOME IF I OR ANYONE ELSE CHASED YOU OUT OF IT AND TOOK IT OVER?
the answer is, conditional, if after being chased out, i'm given the opportunity to start all over again, with a new citizenship and new life, i, like the millions of refugees of the decade of 1940 and others, I would do just that, start all over again. If i'm stuck in a refugee camp with no options then yes i would join the fight...its not about your primitive "land ownership religion, its about living a decent life.

and I'm afraid the numbers are against your opinion, most refugees may "dream of going home' but in reality they start their new life and concentrate on that, not "killing people to go back "home."

refugees and others want first and foremost to live quietly and securely.
___

gaza...yes i read your explanation.....

wasn't your first accusation that unless egypt does what israel wants, israel might attack?


"and then proceeded to point out that Egypt's knowledge of the tunnels existence was a way for Egypt to let things cross into Gaza and have plausible deniability
and i made fun of it, since clearly you have no idea what the environment looks like

since the 100's of trucks that brought in the stuff for the tunnels were known to israel, hence your opinion of "plausible deniability" is nothing more than a joke.

but if that is what you believe than clearly israel doesn't really have such influence on Egyptian foreign policy, not practically as per your original accusation and clearly egypt was not afraid of israel attacking, as per your original accusation since egpyt basically ignored israels concerns

you seem to believe that words that politicians speak are actually more "real" than the physical events that occur. You do know that politicians lie for a living? and that events that occur are what is referred to as facts and history. I get the impression that you confuse the two.

_____________________________________________

So basically what you are saying is that if the Palestinians create a 'legitimate' democracy and then elect a mad man (like Sharon) and proceed to continue the fight against Israel, that you would still support a Palestinian democracy?

yes, the big difference being that if attacked by this Palestinian democracy, we will have the knowledge that it is the "will of the people" and as far as I'm concerned we can then use nice big bombs on gaza city, actually flatten their electrical system, and do everything you believe we do now, but actually do it...and keep on doing it until their raise the white flag and accept our unconditional terms of surrender. That would be the only "bad policy" that i would be concerned with, them attacking us.

but democracies rarly go to war with each other and in general are more concerned with what the demands of the people are, and usually its about security, economy, water pipes, sewers and dull things like that, hence there is a far better chance to hear what the Palestinians actually want with a democracy and then with a dictatorship and what their fanatical friends (like u) that tell them what they should believe.

More so in a democracy, we will hear via the free press and free speech their actual arguments for and against going to war, something that is not heard now...so infact neither u nor i have any idea how many are actually concerned with this "land religion of yours and actually support it, plus in democracies opinions can be changed, as that is the essence of democracies, that is one reason why they are good (in case you don't understand).

_____

the settlements..I'm against them, against their growth, just don't interpret it as some concern for the Palestinians. Is it "acceptable" is it "moral"? again your whole argument of land ownership based on the genes (racism) of some people as far as i'm concerned is up there with throwing virgins in to volcanoes ....the only immorality that is related to the settlements is that it means the Palestinians live under an occupation, that is the part that is immoral, not the actual building of a home on state land. (when built on private land, that too is wrong)
___

[politicman]

484. you have the gall to call my morals into question?

WOW, finally your true thoughts emerge. First you acted like you were all about human rights and better lives for the Palestinians by arguing that they should have a democracy over a dictatorship, then the truth comes out that you want them to have a democracy only as way for Israel to either : a) have a Palestinian government that isn't a threat to Israel whilst it continues to steal more land, or b) have a government that Israel can use to basically decimate Palestinians until the 'completely surrender'.

And you have the gall to call anyones morals into question when you think like this, I don't blame you as your immoral and illegal theories are a by product of your indoctrination in Israel.

But to use your own tactics, could you please supply a link to the claim you made that Hamas gassed Fatah in tunnels. I will reserve judgement on the accuracy until I can see your link, thanks.


1) As a moral issue, I completely disagree with anyone targeting and killing innocent civilians, period. As a practical issue, there are grey areas, because sometimes people at war don't have the ability or precision to prevent innocents from being killed.

Example: Palestinians don't have the kind of aid (both monetary and military) that's Israel gets from the Americans, and even if they did, Israel would never permit Palestinians to acquire military equipment that could be a match against its own.
So unlike Israel, Palestinians don't have sophisticated missiles that can target specific buildings and targets, they have rockets that don't have guidance systems, meaning they shoot them in a general direction and hope for the best. Civilians get killed, which is unfortunate.

Israel on the other hand has extremely sophisticated missiles with advanced guidance systems that they can use to hit any target they aim for. And still many civilians are killed.

So to conclude, the practical situation of this conflict is that one side has less sophisticated equipment for their arsenal which can only be used by shooting blindly in the direction of a town and resulting in civilian deaths, AND the other side has extremely advanced and powerful bombs that they can guide straight to a specific target and still result in civilian deaths.
The grey area being that Palestinians have no other way of fighting back, thus even though I don't agree that any innocent person anywhere should be targeted and killed, I cannot see any other way for Palestinians to fight back until they are able to get the same kind of weapons that Israel has.


2) I too would start all over again if I was given that opportunity after being chased out of my home, but the choice should be mine, no one else's. If I like the 'decent life' I am afforded in the country I was chased into, then I would choose to stay, if I wanted to go back to my home, then I should be allowed to return.

But the point is that IT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE, not a decision made by someone else.

Otherwise society would have chaos. Imagine if someone in your street chased you out of your home and argued that since you are now forced to live in a different street, that you have no right to reclaim your childhood home that was taken over by force because it is not about 'land ownership religion, its about living a decent life.'
Imagine that the above scenario was practiced by every one in your street, town, city, country, it would be complete chaos.

There would be no need for ownership of any land or home because under your 'it not about land ownership religion, its about living a decent life.', buying and selling homes or land would be useless if someone could just kick you out and use your argument.


3) Please show me the sentence where I said that 'Israel would attack Egypt'. Just include the link where I said those specific words.

You also misrepresent my argument on Israeli influence. I did not argue that Israeli has influence on Egyptian foreign policy, I argued that Israel has influence on the opening and closing of the Rafah crossing simply because it directly influences Israel and was an 'implied' condition when Israel agreed to hand over control of that border to Egypt.

To prove this I have a simple question:
If Egypt suddenly decides to completely and permanently open that border and supplies of food and arms are streaming into Gaza, then Israel would have no ability to tighten pressure on Gaza whenever Israel is attacked, and Gaza would be able to keep bringing in more and more rockets to fight back with.

Do you think Israel would not have a problem with losing the ability to restrict Gaza from acquiring sophisticated weapons which could be brought in by a completely open border with Egypt?


4) WOW, so in your eyes, the democracy with more might is right. Because Israel would be the stronger democracy, then it would always be right as the Palestinians would never be able to flatten Israel if someone like Sharon is elected again and steals more Palestinian land., etc.

A free press means nothing in a democracy when the press tows the company line and accepts the unjust actions of its government under the banner of being 'patriotic'.
Just look back at the press in America when Bush used the press to sell his WMD lies. All a democracy has to do is scream that another country is a threat, and the press will do its bidding by justifying everything under the banner of 'security'.


5) You try to spin it by making up your own facts.
The settlements are not being built on 'state land', they are being built on land that is taken from the Palestinians.

Why is that so hard for you to understand. Israel builds on settlements on land that is not theirs, meaning they take land from Palestine and build settlements on it.
I have pointed out to you how Israel demolishes homes to have a security buffer, then later builds settlements and then requires a new security buffer to protect these settlements by bulldozing more homes.

Remember when I asked you to draw a straight line through the middle of a square. Then place a dot close to the straight line on one side of that square. Now move the line to the opposite side so that the dot has a little protection. Now again place a new dot close to that straight line and move that line a little more to give protection to that new dot. Repeat again.

See how land keeps being taken from Palestine to protect each new settlement that is built?

[pelsar]

486. promoting dictatorship is immoral....

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:26 AM - Edit history (11)

thats why i have the gall to question your morals....and you have no qualms about creating a new dictatorship

First you acted like you were all about human rights and better lives for the Palestinians by arguing that they should have a democracy over a dictatorship, then the truth comes out that you want them to have a democracy only as way for Israel

i said it twice, my concern is not so much for the Palestinians in having a democracy....its about living in peace with stability. They have a democracy we all stand a better chance of living in peace and stability. As far as the settlements go and the border, i don't really give a shit, democracies have a better chances of putting land ownership and other religions as secondary to secular state issues.

I believe its you who are using "human rights" as a moral stance (while you promote a dictatorship?)
_________________


land ownership religion, its about living a decent life.'
are you claiming that one can't have a decent life if one is not living on the very same land that ones genetic parents lived on?

Otherwise society would have chaos. Imagine if someone in your street chased you out of your home and argued that since you are now forced to live in a different street, that you have no right to reclaim your childhood home that was taken over by force because it is not about 'land ownership religion, its about living a decent life.


do you know ANYTHING about HISTORY? Anything at all.

I was once told and now i see it clearly with you, that ideologies require that history be ignored, long term, short term its pretty much irrelevant to you isn't it? (You also probably don't like cultural anthropology as it defines how different cultures react to different situations)

People have be chased out of their homes since the first tribes got organized and when those that were chased out or moved, for whatever the reason, made new decent lives in their new lands. (Whereas states always had a thing for land and its resources, as far as decent living on the individual basis, its never been a factor.

you do know about post WWII and the ethnic cleansing that went on post WWII, the resettlement of the refugees, their new lives correct? that was the decade of 1940's the very same decade that Israel was established. And millions of people all over the word made new decent lives on land that was NOT their fathers or grandfathers. Now that short history lesson is finished, do you still want to claim that one cannot have a decent life if they are not on their grandfathers/ fathers land?

and your claiming that all of those millions of post WWII refugees (and from other wars) have lived miserable lives (not decent).....that is your claim, or do you want to "modify and retract again.? (because its so easy to refute....)

______

3) Please show me the sentence where I said that 'Israel would attack Egypt'. Just include the link where I said those specific words.

Egypt has tightly controlled that border so as not to trigger another Israeli assault or incursion, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=55958
perhaps you meant just attacking gaza (others here have claimed israel will attack egypt)
___________________________________________________
To prove this I have a simple question:
If Egypt suddenly decides to completely and permanently open that border and supplies of food and arms are streaming into Gaza, then Israel would have no ability to tighten pressure on Gaza whenever Israel is attacked, and Gaza would be able to keep bringing in more and more rockets to fight back with.

Do you think Israel would not have a problem with losing the ability to restrict Gaza from acquiring sophisticated weapons which could be brought in by a completely open border with Egypt?

do you still want to go with "tightly controlled" or does that too need a "modification and retraction (another one)?

what are you proving? The tunnels were open and arms and building supplies were brought in and everyone knew about it. How else did the rockets go from kassams to military grade Grads, how else did the modern shopping mall get built along with the 5 star hotel? The tunnelers were interviewed by israeli TV by Time magazine. Israel already had no ability to influence egypt, that was obvious to all. Why the Egyptians chose to let the importers do it via tunnel as opposed to above ground is politics.

Your either claiming israel has influence or it doesn't, make up your mind. and of course:
WHAT would Israel do if Egypt did something the Israel didn't like?....(if your claiming that israel has influence)

btw....you may not get this, but the more sophisticated the weapons the Palestinians have the more lives they will lose......as they up their arsenal as they have been doing, they just up the violence....
_______

tsk tsk tsk..

1) As a moral issue, I completely disagree with anyone targeting and killing innocent civilians, period. As a practical issue, there are grey areas, because sometimes people at war don't have the ability or precision to prevent innocents from being killed.

I asked you a few things, this time try to answer:
you mentioned that the rockets where their only choice, i asked you to do some research and you'll find that its not true....i assume you would rather not face the fact that you are wrong again. So shall i tell u and let you once again retract your "mistake" or shall u do the research?

I cannot see any other way for Palestinians to fight back until they are able to get the same kind of weapons that Israel has.
is there a 'gray" area, when a Palestinian goes to a high school and guns down the students? is that your definition of gray area. How about when the kassams from gaza are launched at the same hour consistenly when school is let out (when parents are picking up their kids). I'm just trying to define this "gray" area of yours. Are those "gray areas? and they have no choice but to try to kill as many kids as possible?


AND the other side has extremely advanced and powerful bombs that they can guide straight to a specific target and still result in civilian deaths.

these precision munitions...when they explode are the explosions controlled, does the shrapnel know who to hit and who not to hit?
and these precision munitions that israel has, are they 100% precise, never missing?

so i understand that israel is intentionally killing civilians? the pilots wait until enough civilians are near the target and then they shoot?

btw, you never did answered: hizballa shot some rockets at the christian/arab/jewish town and killed some arab-israelis and apologized. What do you think? should they have apologized or not?
___________________________________________


so a free press is also of secondary importance to you?
A free press means nothing in a democracy when the press tows the company line and accepts the unjust actions of its government under the banner of being 'patriotic'.

just for basic information: you do know that obama was elected and much of that was because of the press, its exposes on the war etc...But we are getting a good feel for your priorities:
1) its not free speech and a free press
2) its not civil rights

but it is ethnically based land ownership....under a dictatorship if need be, and then they can have a decent life
_________________________________________

The settlements are not being built on 'state land', they are being built on land that is taken from the Palestinians.
it is state land as its not private owned.
_____________

[politicman]

487. my response

1) You said:
'thats why i have the gall to question your morals....and you have no qualms about creating a new dictatorship'.

Just because I don't agree with occupying or imprisoning the Palestinians until they create a 'legitimate' democracy, DOES NOT mean I endorse dictatorships.
That's s false choice offered by you, either I accept the occupation or imprisonment of Palestinians until they create a democracy, or I support a dictatorship. Its also hypocritical of Israel.

Tell me, why isn't Israel occupying or imprisoning the Egyptians as they also share a border with Israel that could threaten your country?

More importantly, do you support taking the same measures against Egyptian dictatorship that you advocate against the Palestinians? How about Syria?



2) You said:
'are you claiming that one can't have a decent life if one is not living on the very same land that ones genetic parents lived on? '


No, I am claiming that people cannot have decent lives if they are forced out or fear being forced out of their homes and land , then their homes are demolished or and land taken over.
Yes I know about WWI and WWII and every instance before those when people were stripped of their land and homes (Australia where I currently am had a native population before this country was made, America the same and many other countries), BUT that was in the past, international law and conventions were established to stop this occurring again.

Just because it was normal practice in the past for people to be forced out, does not mean that Arafat and his men should have just given up their fight to reclaim their land. They had as much right as anyone to fight to get their land back, AFTERALL all fights for liberations that ever occurred in history or in future would be void under your logic.

I'll ask you the same question you asked me:
Why was Israel formed on those lands? Why do Israeli politicians and apologists claim that they land is historically theirs and they are just reclaiming it?
Why are Jewish people (from Russia and other parts of the world) allowed to return to a place they have never seen before when at the same time, Palestinians who were forced out, are not allowed the same right of return even though they have abetter claim?



3) Like you figured, I meant Israel might attack Gaza again. But I wouldn't put it past Israel to one day actually attack Egypt if it felt that Egypt was compromising its security by allowing the latest sophisticated weaponry into Gaza.


4) Egypt wilfully let the tunnels stay open because they knew Israel wouldn't accept Rafah crossing to be permanently open. Even though common logic dictates that Israel knew that Egypt was allowing these tunnels, it still provided the Egyptians with plausible deniability.
See, for Israel to move in and take control of Rafah crossing again would not be an easy thing to sell to the U.S and the rest of the world unless Israel could produce proof that the Egyptian government POLICY was to allow things into Gaza that could compromise Israeli security.
So even though every one knew of the tunnels, Egypt could claim plausible deniability, as in, these tunnels were outside the control of Egyptian authority and not a government policy.

To breach the peace treaty, Israel would need solid documented proof that Egyptian policy was in breach of it first.



5) You said:
"I asked you a few things, this time try to answer:
you mentioned that the rockets where their only choice, i asked you to do some research and you'll find that its not true....i assume you would rather not face the fact that you are wrong again. So shall i tell u and let you once again retract your "mistake" or shall u do the research?'

Please do tell me.
But only tell me if your answer is not going to be that the Palestinians other choices were to either a)accept being forced into Lebanon and give up their fight to liberate their land, OR, b)to engage in battle with tanks and airplanes with no sophisticated weaponry of their own which would result in them being slaughtered OR c)to bring their case to the U.N and wait for the day that Israel accepts U.N resolutions.

Just keep in mind that in WWII, the Nazi's invaded France and occupied it, the French didn't just give up their fight and accept their new life under Nazi's, they fought back with the French Resistance.
Do you believe that the French fighting back through resistance was a bad idea?


6) No they are not grey areas, targeting civilians is wrong, period. But with Israel being so militarily superior to the Palestinians, what other way do they have of inflicting damage back onto Israel whilst Israel abuses them.
It is wrong to target civilians (btw, both Israeli and Palestinians do it), but what other way do the Palestinians have of fighting back when they are not allowed a military with equipment capable of fighting your army?

Israel is the stronger power, it has a military that is the strongest in the whole middle east, so short of the Palestinians accepting the Israeli outrageous demands, what else can they do. Please tell me?

7) You said:
'so i understand that israel is intentionally killing civilians? the pilots wait until enough civilians are near the target and then they shoot?'

When an Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian child in the head because that child is throwing rocks from a far distance, is that not targeting a child?
When Israel uses a bomb to wipe out an entire building, knowing that the force of that huge blast will kill innocents as well, is that not the same as targeting civilians?
Its not like they don't know, they have seen hundreds of times before that the resulting blast will absolutely kill innocents as well, yet they go ahead with it. that's targeting innocents in my eyes.


I don't need to prove my case, the stats and figures do it for me. Go and look at the total number of innocents killed on both sides, you will see that Palestinian innocents killed far outweigh Israeli innocents killed.

Just in children alone, the following figures tell the story: (I used google and found this stat without any effort at all)

Israeli children killed: 129
Palestinian children killed: 1519

Do you want to defend the above figures? Feel free to tell me again how the Palestinians are in the wrong for targeting innocents when these figures show that you guys have killed a lot more.


Lastly, the land where settlements are being built are not Israeli lands. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the U.N and the world, that the human rights organizations all say that settlements are illegal because they are being built on Palestinian lands.

As in, Israeli government approves settlements to be built on land that not even America (your closest ally) deems as belonging to the state of Israel?

[pelsar]

488. you skipped this one..

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

btw, you never did answered: hizballa shot some rockets at the christian/arab/jewish town and killed some arab-israelis and apologized. What do you think? should they have apologized or not?

2nd time you skipped it, i'll get back to the rest a bit later

[politicman]

489. here you go

Oops, sorry, my post got a little long and didn't realize I missed it, but I will reply for you ok.

Why Hezbollah apologized is anyone's guess, maybe they really do want to exterminate just Jewish people OR maybe they realize that Arab-Israeli's are not supportive of Israel's crimes.


I tend to think that Hezbollah recognizes that Arab-Israeli's are undecided or don't support the crimes of their government and so apologized for the rockets, showing that they are not against the peaceful Israelis but only against the ones that agree with their government's crimes (like you and pretty much everyone else who is Jewish).

Do I think that they should have apologized, yes I do. Because it's not a smart idea to alienate those that are undecided about you or even supportive of you. Why NOT apologise when you kill some people that you don't think deserve it.

By the way, why won't Israel apologise when it does the same thing?


(There I gave you my answer, now please do not miss any of my questions to you, after all you pushed me to answer every single on your own questions. And please do not just focus on a single word, but actually answer the meat of my questions. Thanks)

[pelsar]

490. you have gone where no DU'er has gone before....

Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 02:06 AM - Edit history (4)

you get the medallion of internet courage...no one, not a single "pro palestinian" here has dared to write what you have, though i believe they agree with you, hence i must say its been interesting and enlightening.

_______________________________________________________

And please do not just focus on a single word, but actually answer the meat of my questions. Thanks)

You use those single words to describe an environment that doesn’t exist (every house in gaza bombed). You use those single words to demonize a whole society. I will always call out those “single” words because they are not true, what they do show however is your attitude toward accuracy and factual information…..call it what you like, but using false information is not truthful, its lying. But i suspect you are one of those that believes “the ends justifies the means”..I don't. I believe the process and method influence the end result.

____
. Because it's not a smart idea to alienate those that are undecided about you or even supportive of you.

so if the hizballa/Hamas kill people who have the "wrong" political view point that is good or at least acceptable and if they have the right one (as per your point of view), they should not. Arab Israeli villages that support their Govt can be targeted, whereas arab israeli villages with the “right” political point of view should not be, but all jewish cities and towns can be targeted because most israeli jews probably support the govt policies.

You would make Stalin, Ho Chi min, Hussain, Khommeni, Assad proud…they too targeted people and cities who had the wrong political point of view and killed them/exiled them, imprisoned them.

so i guess we can confirm that human rights are not really part of your beliefs…targeting jewish cities and towns is ok because probably most of the inhabitants agree with the govt policies

_________________________________________

. Just because I don't agree with occupying or imprisoning the Palestinians until they create a 'legitimate' democracy, DOES NOT mean I endorse dictatorships.
That's s false choice offered by you, either I accept the occupation or imprisonment of Palestinians until they create a democracy, or I support a dictatorship. Its also hypocritical of Israel.


how is it a false choice? hamas is a theocratic dictatorship and the PA is a koran based moderate dictatorship. They have no tradition/culture/foundations of democracy and the sole democratic party got about 1% of the vote. (something like that). You have to live in fantasy land to believe that with independence they will have a democracy…and why do you even believe that one day they will? Is Iran becoming a democracy? Syrian, Lybia? I

but I’ve learned that its not really relevant to you is it? How they govern, whether or not they hang homosexuals, imprison their midgets, throw virgins into wells, its not as important as having the proper race control the land, I was under the mistaken impression that civil rigths and human rights were more important. I was wrong.


.Tell me, why isn't Israel occupying or imprisoning the Egyptians as they also share a border with Israel that could threaten your country?
More importantly, do you support taking the same measures against Egyptian dictatorship that you advocate against the Palestinians? How about Syria?

I do not recognize any dictatorships as good nor acceptable, and i don’t care whose genes are in control of any one govt, and if i had my way they would be removed from the face of the earth. the minimum one can do today, as one like me who believes that civil rights takes precedence over race based governments is not add to the dictatorships of the world.


.I'll ask you the same question you asked me:
Why was Israel formed on those lands? Why do Israeli politicians and apologists claim that they land is historically theirs and they are just reclaiming it?
Why are Jewish people (from Russia and other parts of the world) allowed to return to a place they have never seen before when at the same time, Palestinians who were forced out, are not allowed the same right of return even though they have abetter claim?

_______________________
AGAIN?

did you miss history class? the jews were tossed out by the romans, by using the word CLAIM, you saying the jewish culture/religion in is in doubt……Well, perhaps explain why you used it…..

Israeli politicians and us jews can believe in our history and culture all we want, but the right to create a country is based on it being a democracy, and that outweighs any historical connection to anywhere

Dictatorships are immoral, occupations are immoral, democracies are moral got it? Anybody who believes in supporting/creating a new dictatorship (for whatever the excuse it) cannot be much of a believer in "human rights". the two are on opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

anybody, any group that is willing to do what it takes to create a working democracy has full rights to do so…its that simple. Racism, as per your viewpoint has no place in new governments in the world today.

Israel was established in 1948, once a country is established it has the right to make its own laws and rules, something i thought you believed in? (or is israel the only exception to this belief of yours?)

but, as i understand it, you put a “time limit” on this “land god religion of yours”. The jews have been gone more or less about 4,000 years, so if the Palestenians are kept out for 2,000 years do they loose these rights to return? How much time before a “people loses their rights?”
___________________________________


Egypt wilfully let the tunnels stay open because they knew Israel wouldn't accept Rafah crossing to be permanently open. Even though common logic dictates that Israel knew that Egypt was allowing these tunnels, it still provided the Egyptians with plausible deniability.

But but but, you claimed israel had influence on egyptian policy and Israel wouldn’t accept advanced arms being brought into gaza which is what hamas did…. why didn’t israel use its influence to stop the smuggling, after all you claimed Israel had the influence?
______________________________________________________________________


No they are not grey areas, targeting civilians is wrong, period. But with Israel being so militarily superior to the Palestinians, what other way do they have of inflicting damage back onto Israel whilst Israel abuses them.

How about aiming at army bases? All around gaza are various sizes of army camps, their are air force bases within grad range….so what reason do they have for aiming at israeli cities other than the jewish citizens having the wrong political point of view?

you claim it is wrong, you excuse it, and previous to that you claim if they are jewish cities its acceptable....very confusing.

you now have new knowledge, you now have learned that the Palestinians can infact choose to try to kill civilians or try to kill soldiers, they can try to kill jews or non jews and they have clearly have tried to kill jewish civilians. (6,000 kassams on civilian areas)

you now have a few options as i see it:
1) declare targeting civilians as moral (at least those with the wrong political point of view, i.e. the jews),
2 admit that in fact you are wrong once again and that they do have choices
3) they have made the immoral choice






Its not like they don't know, they have seen hundreds of times before that the resulting blast will absolutely kill innocents as well, yet they go ahead with it. that's targeting innocents in my eyes.


since hamas keeps it forces within the civilian areas, in regular apt buildings and shoots from them, I’ assuming your saying that its immoral to israel to attempt to stop them from shooting…using todays technology. Small bombs that don’t destroy the building, doesn’t stop the shooting

btw your precious UN has declared long ago that military installations in civilians areas are legit targets with the accompanying civilian deaths, and NATO agrees, China agrees, Russia agrees, US agrees, Syria agrees, etc etc etc (judging by their actions)... so i guess the consensus (you do believe in the consensus?) apparently agrees with israeli tactics.

but if you disagrees with all of those, what you saying indirectly and practically is that Israel doesn’t have the right to stop the attempts to murder its citizens….would you like to confirm that?



____________________
I don't need to prove my case, the stats and figures do it for me. Go and look at the total number of innocents killed on both sides, you will see that Palestinian innocents killed far outweigh Israeli innocents killed.


of course they do, Israel goes to great lengths to protect its civilians, shelters everywhere. Gaza for instance has tunnels for hamas but not for its civilian population, launch a rocket next to apt building or playground its reasonable to expect a returning missile that will probably kill people. Hamas is well aware of the consequences of firing rockets….and does virtually nothing to protect its civilians.

_____________________________
Lastly, the land where settlements are being built are not Israeli lands. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the U.N and the world, that the human rights organizations all say that settlements are illegal because they are being built on Palestinian lands.


I’m not a believer in your “land religion” i’m a believer in stable democracies. Neither the UN nor the human rights organizations put stable democracies at the top of their list of better societies, so they really don’t get much credit from me. Hence as far as i’m concerned no dictatorship has the rights to any land, no matter who and what they are or who they claim to be.
__________________
so why do you believe that only certain races should rule the land in certain places?

[politicman]

448. some proof of limted damge from Palestinian rockets

Heres an image to prove the limited damage of Palestinian rockets

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/air-raid-sirens-wail-jerusalem-article-1.1203145


Now heres an image to prove the devastation of Israeli missiles

http://imeu.net/news/article0015217.shtml

(scroll down the images to see the devastation)


Now please tell me again if you think that Palestinian rockets really are that damaging, especially compared to Israeli missiles.

[pelsar]

452. I believe killing people...is not "limited damage"

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 03:48 AM - Edit history (1)

i guess its a different perspective. I believe that if you or ones family member is killed or wounded, then that can be considered "damaging" i also consider sending over 6,000 rockets that land randomly anywhere and send over 100,000 people day and night into a 15 second dash to a shelter, terrorism

clearly you don't.

[politicman]

453. some more links for you

Im going to respond here so it all stays in order.

1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

From the wiki-pedia entry :
'Human rights organizations and the United Nations criticize the ongoing demolitions[4] of Palestinian homes as violating international law, and Amnesty International has contended that the Israeli government actually uses demolitions to collectively punish Palestinians[1] and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements.[5][6]'

Do you require more proof than a human rights organizations saying the exact same thing I have said?
I bet you will now argue that Amnesty International is biased against Israel, am I right?


Here is another link, although you probably are going to claim they are biased and not reliable.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/8650-israel-to-build-a-new-settlement-near-ramallah

From the link:
'Once again, explained Ladadwa, Israel is imposing a fait accompli on the 30 families who own the land. "When land was confiscated in 2007 for agricultural purposes, we weren't afraid we were going to lose it, but today, with the beginning of the construction of the settlement, it seems that we are going to lose it forever."'

...snip

'Noting that the settlement will need additional land "for security purposes", Ladadwa pointed out that once the settlement is built, Israel will control the hills all around the village. "This is also strategic building," he said, "not just for new homes." Forty per cent of the occupied West Bank has now been taken by Israel for settlements and their infrastructure. With 170 illegal settlements, around 500,000 settlers live on occupied Palestinian land, almost 200,000 of them in Jerusalem.'

[pelsar]

457. I"m still looking....

you had a definitive claim:
Palestinans homes are removed for and "replaced with settlers homes...your claim is clear, you links are all about land confiscation, house demolition, etc

i get it, your just add up the different pieces and come to the conclusion that you want. Hence the different events, in your mind are all part of the organized and nefarious israeli govts plan.

reaching the conclusion you believe (your 2 + 2).

however, what would happened if you had to stick just to the actual events and facts? That in fact post 67, Palestinian homes are not replaced with jewish ones? (since u can't find any definitive article about it happening). If it was happening it would be all over the news.

If we then add up your other conclusions based on your same methodology (taking different events and putting them together as one) and show how wrong they are, what would you do? change you opinion or simply not accept that your conclusions were wrong?

[politicman]

458. read my link carefully, pay attention to the highlighted sentence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_demolition_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

From the wiki-pedia entry :
'Human rights organizations and the United Nations criticize the ongoing demolitions of Palestinian homes as violating international law, and Amnesty International has contended that the Israeli government actually uses demolitions to collectively punish Palestinians and to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements.'


Can you not read? The highlighted sentence says that Amnesty International contends that Israel demolishes homes for 2 purposes: one of those being to seize property for the expansion of Israeli settlements. Get it, demolishes homes to seize property for settlement expansions. And any honest discussion would have to acknowledge that Israel creates buffer zones around settlements so as to give the settlers protection.
So in essence, Amnesty International, A HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATION, says exactly what I say, that Israel demolishes homes for settlement expansion.
You still contend I haven't provided a link to prove my statement? Its a link from a human rights organisation.

[pelsar]

459. I will give u that....

its vague enough for you to believe what you want as the way they write it, one can easily get to your conclusion, that homes are destroyed and replaced with settlements, when its actually property and demotion of the Palestinian equipment and structures as opposed to homes, but for that you would have to actually see the environment.

and this buffer zone?...do you know what a buffer zone actually is? will you please describe it for me, since you claim to know what it is? (is it more than a road going around the outside of the settlement with fence?

[politicman]

461. its not vague, its clear

It is not vague, the way it is written it clearly states that 'Palestinian homes are demolished for punishment AND to seize property for settlement expansion'.

The key word you need to focus on is 'and'.

The 'and' demonstrates that Amnesty International believes homes are demolished for both purposes.

Also to answer your question, buffer zones are areas of land that Israel clears so as to provide security to the settlers. These buffer zones can consist of the wall Israel has built, it can consist of clearing hills that are close to some settler areas, and it can consist of open fields that provide room between settlers and the nearest Palestinians.

These buffer zones are always made from Palestinian land that is cleared, meaning after a settlement is established, Palestinian homes and olive fields are cleared so as to not be a threat to the newly constructed settlement.

[pelsar]

462. i shall explain to you what you don't know

since you've never been here:
the homes that are demolished are almost always within the villages....and the settlers are not moving in to the villages, nor are their homes seized for the settlers within those villages, hence the demolitions are not for the settlers...

thats why what is written is vague, it was written for people like u who have no idea that the settlements are on the tops of the hills while the arab villages are on the sides. But again as i wrote there is no way on convincing someone who has never been here as to the actual environment.

now there will be exceptions such in hebron and E.Jerusalem where the settlers use all kinds of legal tricks and investors to get the Palestinian homes, which is why the PA has a death sentence on those who sell to israelis, but that is something else.

the buffer zones...actually its been quite a few years since i've been in the west bank...about 10, so i really can't say if what you claim is true or not. Back then, there were no buffer zones other then the exterior road. So i'll let you give me a few relevant links so that i can catch up and maybe even visit them...

fair enough?

[politicman]

466. lets discuss...

Now we can have an actual constructive discussion about this issue because we are slowly discussing the most important aspect of this and not wording used.

I will give you that many settlements are on hills, those hills were still Palestinian land but I will give you that those hills may not have had any houses on them that needed to be demolished for settlement construction.

The problem is that (besides the fact that it is all Palestinian land being taken over), Israel has demolished thousands of homes, some were demolished to make way for the fence, and many were demolished to make room for other kinds of buffer zones. As I said earlier, land doesn't just appear out of nowhere, for settlement construction to expand land had to become 'available' or 'vacated', thus my statement that homes are demolished for security zones, later down the track settlements are expanded and because we know that land doesn't just appear out of nowhere, those settlements end up on land that had homes on them years earlier.

Do you understand the concept now?
If you claim you need to bulldoze homes for security buffer zones to protect settlers and then settlements keep expanding, that means more homes need demolishing and more land is taken over.
Draw a box with a straight line through it, now place a number close to one side of that line, now you need to move that line further to one side to protect that number, now place another number close to this new straight line and repeat the process. Are you not slowly taking over the entire box?
Do you see where I am going with this?

[pelsar]

469. you don't get an argument with me over their system...

the settlers use a variety of means to take over the land...and they've been doing it for years and they're slowly creeping down the the hills, they destroy 100 year old olive trees, etc.

and i'm familiar with the wall, which the settlers in fact were against, but most of israel demanded it.

what i don't accept, is hyperbole and non facts....

[politicman]

473. please dont excuse it

Sometimes settlers move in illegally and construct illegal settlements, I will give you that, BUT it is the responsibility of the state of Israel to stop them and even remove the settlements.

Many, many of the settlements on Palestinian land are state sanctioned. Just like the latest approval for new settlement constructions.


Again I ask, do you disagree that settlements are on Palestinian land?

If we keep having more and more new settlements constructed on Palestinian land and then security buffer zones are required for these new settlements, isn't more and more Palestinian land being taken over?

If new land was being constantly stolen, then why would more and more houses need to be demolished for buffer zones. You wouldn't need any new buffer zones if more land wasn't taken, you would need houses to be demolished for these buffer zones and Palestinians wouldn't be served with demolition papers, do you agree?

[pelsar]

477. an explanation is not excuse

since clearly you believe that one can make up information as long as the "goal" is correct you've come to confuse information with an 'agenda" ..its not

Information should be "neutral" its used to form an opinion but the information itself should be without extraneous opinion.
Its a good thing to know and a better thing to believe in, as it gives one some credibility, i'm afraid with your writings, every claim you make i suspect is not true.


I happen to disagree with the whole settlement project
and of course the state is responsable for the actions of its citizens.

and am against them for several reasons. However, it is not because some people with a certain culture and having some traditions combined with some having lived there for a some years have some kind of god/man given right to the land, That concept to me, whereas has some secondary value is not why I'm against the settlements.

---------------------------------------------------
of course the additional land is being given to the settlers (taken by them), they want the whole place and will do what they can using a variety of methods to do it, legal, semi-legal and not legal, (they have the very same god given right to the land as the Palestinians, just ask them or their god)

[politicman]

480. why omit one key fact in your argument?

Again you try to make your point by omitting some important facts that tear your argument up if you include them.

All the settlements are not as you say (taken by them), many of the settlements have been government approved projects.
Government after government going back for at least 2 decades have authorized many settlements, and these governments represent the will of the Israeli people because they keep electing them.

You may not agree with the settlements, but your country is carrying them out whilst at the same time claiming it just cares about security and wants to live in peace.

So before you or any Israeli makes the argument again that Israel just wants security and peace, take a good look at those settlements and stop yourselves before you embarrass yourselves again by making that argument.

The argument of imprisoning the Palestinian people for the security of Israel holds no water when Israel keeps expanding settlements on Palestinian land.

[pelsar]

483. of course they're govt approved...

the govt supplies them with electricity, sewers, approval for roads etc. And whereas i also don't agree with paying high taxes, so?

you have to skip over a lot of history and ignore so many facts to get to your simplistic conclusion.

The argument of imprisoning the Palestinian people for the security of Israel holds no water when Israel keeps expanding settlements on Palestinian land.

we want security and peace..but first comes security..peace with facist dictatorships, that kind that you support does not bring peace.

so you never did explain this support you have for dictatorships or this "land religion of yours"
what makes land ownership so important to you that it takes precedent over basic human civil rights?

That you believe people can be imprisoned on their "own land" as long as the prison guards are related to the prisoners?

[politicman]

467. curious about your thoughts on this..

Even though this is not proof that outlines the statement I have made in previous threads, I still thought it would be interesting to include and get your thoughts on it:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=662843

???

[pelsar]

471. it wouldn't surprise me...

most arab construction is illegal and they have a very difficult time getting permits, more so than the jews which itself can take over a year for a small addition, hence many build illegally

so using the "illegal" building tactic the city gets to destroy arab housing...and clear the way for larger density housing.

which given jerusalems make up would probably have both arabs and jews in the same building complexes as in other places.
________

i'm sure you have a 'knee-jerk" reaction that its anti arab, which no doubt there is some, its also classic city growth: destroy the older low density housing and replace it with higher density hi rises.

israel is no different in that respect that every other city on the face of the earth dealing with increased populations.

[politicman]

472. please read again

Did you read the bit in the article where it says that Israel is slated to destroy a 100+ year old building?

Because I am pretty sure that that building was there since before Israel was formed, thus it cannot be an illegal construction without a permit. Seeing as how it was already constructed before permits were required for construction.


The problem is that nothing in this world will ever convince you that your country does bad things, that those bad things are sanctioned by the state and they are common.


You will use every excuse under the sun to excuse the actions of your country.

For crying out loud, why cant your country uproot all the illegal settlements, give back the resources your country has commandeered and let the Palestinians have their own recognized independent state without any interference by your country?

[politicman]

455. some more

In the context of clashes and war, Palestinian rockets are 'limited'.

Israel and Palestine are the two parties involved in this conflict, so naturally we have to view their missiles in comparison to the Israeli missiles. A bullet is 'damaging' in any circumstance so a rocket would be a lot more damaging, but in the context of a clash, Palestinian rockets cause 'limited damage'. In the context of a war, their rockets cause limited damage especially when compared to what they face in return.

Yes anyone weapon that kills or wounds a family member, neighbour, fellow citizen can be damaging, but what about the Palestinians that have to contend with missiles that obliterate entire buildings.

Believe it or not, I don't like anyone being hurt by weapons. I don't like seeing any Israelis killed as mush as I don't like seeing any Palestinians or Lebanese killed. But when I look and see that Israel is the much stronger party, and causes much more damage to its opponents BUT then cries foul when their opponents hit back, I cannot feel sympathy for them.
When I see Israel inflict 10 times the damage in retaliation for a few rockets, I think that is not right at all.
When I see that Israel imprisons a whole population, takes their land and resources and then complain when they hit back I cant feel sympathy, Im sorry.

I view it as the same as a school yard bully, when the bully pushes everyone around and steals their lunch money and then one kid tries to stand up for himself and throws one punch and then the bully complains to the principal even though he threw 100 punches at the kid he was bullying, you see where I am going with this.

[pelsar]

463. you tell me...

Now please tell me again if you think that Palestinian rockets really are that damaging

are you claiming that Palestinian rockets that kill israelis are not that "damaging"?

i didn't ask if your comparing...i 'm asking if in your opinion, as you wrote 'they are not that damaging" when they kill israelis.

[politicman]

449. some proof that Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes for settlements

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4460987,00.html

This is just one article, do you require more?

Also keep in mind that even though this article doesn't lay out in terms the way I phrased my statement, it does say that Israel bulldozed homes to make way for settlements.

So you can either accept that Israel goes through the process I laid out or that Israel is so morally corrupt that it wont even put on a pretence when it does such actions. Either way, point stands that Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes and replaces them with settlements.

[pelsar]

451. where?

i read:

Israel has bulldozed land slated for settler homes, nothing about bulldozing existing Palestinian homes or buffer zones

[bravenak]

331. Yes, I have noticed.

Now that things are moving forward with Iran it's getting ugly.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

481. And yet after all the naysayers, screamers and hasbarists have pissed on this thread it still stands

The Nakba is still alive and well in the minds of Israeli politicians...seeing how they want to create another one.

Liberman: Citizenship annulment is a condition for peace (WTF??)
http://972mag.com/lieberman-citizenship-annulment-is-a-condition-for-peace/85261/

Avigdor Liberman has come roaring back again. When the Israeli foreign minister returned to his post following a lengthy corruption investigation that ended in anti-climax of acquittal, some thought he had been chastened by time or political pragmatism and softened his firebrand style.

As if to cast aside those doubts, Liberman has given a stellar performance this week (and it’s only Thursday). He insisted that his party will oppose any Israeli-Palestinian agreement that does not include territorial and population swaps, as per his plan to excise a major swath of the Israeli citizenry who are Arab. He said that he would not agree to a single Palestinian refugee returning to Israel, which pretty well sinks the idea of even a symbolic number of returnees, as envisioned by most peace plans on the table since Camp David in 2000.
---
These provocations may be damaging, but they create a clear and present danger when tied to actual policies. Thus, his 2009 campaign slogan, “No loyalty, no citizenship!” referred to a very real battery of legislative initiatives, and originally included intentions to strip Arab citizens of their right to vote if they didn’t swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state. The idea was diluted but eventually turned into an amendment to Israel’s citizenship law that discriminates between Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants by forcing the latter to swear allegiance to the Jewish nature of the state.

Just another day on the apartheid picnic.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

485. What's worse, American billionaire shamelessly want a continuation of the Nakba.

http://972mag.com/which-american-billionaire-advocated-transferring-every-last-palestinian/85580/

A few years back, a known American billionaire, Sarah [Netanyahu's] friend [...], gathered a group of Israelis and gave them the following speech: “I hear that one Avigdor Lieberman is proposing land swaps with the Palestinians. What is this lefty thinking? We shouldn’t propose anything to them. Deport, that’s what is needed. Every last Palestinian.”

The prime minister has a tough, almost impossible mission: to satisfy [Secretary of State John] Kerry without upsetting his billionaire friend too much. Or the other way around: satisfy the billionaire without upsetting Kerry too much. Two Americans and one land of Israel.

This billionaire has a group of Israelis who [eat] out of the palm of his hand. When they suddenly and savagely attack Kerry, Netanyahu gets the message: today it’s Kerry; tomorrow it’s me.

Fucking unbelievably sick.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

491. The Nakba lives and continues: a malignancy on human rights.

http://972mag.com/settler-violence-it-comes-with-the-territory/85996/

Settler violence: It comes with the territory

Unlike any other aspect of the occupation, settler violence is something nobody outside the radical fringe in Israel will defend. This, alone, they’ll denounce. And yet, nobody — in Israel or internationally — has found the political will to put a stop to the decades-long phenomenon, even when the victims are U.S. citizens.
---
Settler violence, lately characterized mainly by masked young men roaming the West Bank and attacking Palestinian farmers with stones, clubs or rifles and burning their olive groves, their fields, and occasionally their schools, mosques and homes, is a unique feature of the occupation. Unlike every other aspect of it – the conquest of another people’s homeland by military force and land theft, the brutality, the house demolitions and expulsions, the whole system of officially sanctioned subjugation – settler violence is something nobody outside the radical fringe in Israel will defend. This, alone, they’ll denounce.
---
Settlers attack Palestinians in the West Bank on an average of once a day, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Last year there were 399 assaults – 93 in which Palestinians were injured, another 306 in which their property was damaged or destroyed. The frequency of these attacks has stayed fairly stable over the last four years, but it is quadruple the rate in 2006, when OCHA began tracking these incidents.

Just another day on the apartheid picnic: complete with Israeli terrorists.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

492. WATCH: Ilan Pappe on the 'ongoing Nakba'

http://972mag.com/watch-ilan-pappe-on-the-ongoing-nakba/89896/

On Land Day in Jaffa, a demonstration was held in the city’s clock square, but the highlight was a lecture by Professor Ilan Pappe on what he and others term the ongoing Nakba and a ‘single democratic state’ solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Pappe’s full lecture can be watched here in Hebrew.

Interesting quote.

"Ethnic cleansing has become the DNA of the State of Israel and the ideological foundation of Israel."