The U.N., after almost a year released their report on war crimes committed by both Palestinians and Israeli's during the most recent conflict between the two.
The biggest problem I can spot with the report is how it states facts in the report but then if you read the article you notice this.
"The investigators were not granted entry to Israel or the conflict area, and relied instead on more than 280 confidential interviews and some 500 written submissions for their findings."
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying either side was innocent of war crimes but historically we have seen that Hamas has no reservations whatsoever or lying openly about casualties both incurred and dealt.
I do know that the Israeli system for launching air strikes/artillery against civilian buildings involved Warnings including Phone calls, Text messages, loud speakers hailing residents and finally a knock on the door as its called which is basically a mortar landing in front of the building which is the last warning before the destruction of the building.
Now, whether or not Israel followed that system all the way is another matter entirely.
I do think it a bit telling that Israel has called this investigation an attack against them from the very start while Hamas has largely supported it, and yet we now learn that the investigation wasn't even in the countries in question.......
Kilkrazy wrote: You have to assume that all Palestinians are mind controlled by Hamas to dismiss witness testimony as worthless.
There is also evidence in the form of photos and video, hospital admissions records and so on. Of course it is possible that Hamas faked all of that.
Perhaps they even faked Israeli forces press releases about strikes launched, and so on.
im not saying they are all brainwashed, but the fact that Israel found weapons Cache's inside UN compounds worries me, especially since the UN didn't bother to mention that to anyone prior to the war.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps they didn't know it was there. Even if they did, how does that affect the evidence?
Unless the implication is that all of the UN people are lying about stuff.
How would the U.N. not know that palestinians were caching weapons in UN buildings/compounds? The problem is that the UN turned a blind eye to many violations such as this and then after the war ended they try to blame Israel with war crimes.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps they didn't know it was there. Even if they did, how does that affect the evidence?
Unless the implication is that all of the UN people are lying about stuff.
The UN has a history of aiding terrorist organizations. Hezbollah used to routinely do command and control in Southern Lebanon from UN posts, after the IDF's withdrawal.
How is it that these UN personnel don't know that terrorist organizations are storing weapons in their staffed and allegedly secure facilities? It takes a special kind of person to believe that such a thing is possible, and that the UN are unbiased angels.
I don't think there are any "good" or "bad" guys down there.
I'm pretty sire the middle east cares more about destroying Israel than looking like bad guys, and I'm pretty sure Israel cares more about not being destroyed than about looking like good guys.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the UN is a biased organization but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't?
This is going to be one of those threads, isn't it?
Of course he's biased - toward protecting the 8-million+ citizens of Israel, just as any elected representative has a responsibility to work to protect their constituents.
The UN is supposed to be, yet fails miserably in actually being, an impartial international body that can effect change.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps they didn't know it was there. Even if they did, how does that affect the evidence?
Unless the implication is that all of the UN people are lying about stuff.
The UN has a history of aiding terrorist organizations. Hezbollah used to routinely do command and control in Southern Lebanon from UN posts, after the IDF's withdrawal.
How is it that these UN personnel don't know that terrorist organizations are storing weapons in their staffed and allegedly secure facilities? It takes a special kind of person to believe that such a thing is possible, and that the UN are unbiased angels.
A special kind of person? Now you've put that Sam Elliot meme in my mind!
I’ll just say one quick thing on this whole issue - I believe in the importance of a Jewish state because they have a long history of persecution at the hands of other groups. It would be nice if we didn’t need ethnic homelands, but this world isn’t a nice place in a whole lot of ways.
But everything I just said also applies to the Palestinians. The whole issue, therefore, has to be seen in the context of delivering to both sides viable nations. Unfortunately very few people actually get that, and missing that understanding they instead pick one side and spend their time arguing that it’s the other side who’s the real problem in this whole issue. After years of trying to engage with people on this I’ve ultimately got nothing but contempt for the tribal cheerleaders on both sides, and no expectation that anything I said could ever make any of them take a more reasonable view.
And that includes almost all the conversation I’ve seen around this UN report, here on Dakka and elsewhere. Bickering about whether one side or the other is really more responsible, whether the UN is more biased to one side or the other – it’s so small minded it’s just hateful.
The tragedy is that nothing will happen, Israel is a too big ally in the middle east for the US of A, so the extermination of the Palestine people will continue, The UN is a joke.
And blame? i Blame the English government who did not comply to the promise made to the Berbers after the Arab revolt was over, The Arabs, Christians and Jews were living in peace during those days and the Balfour Declaration was the beginning of the crap storm we are in today.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the UN is a biased organization but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't?
Who made that claim?
Implicitly, by condoning one biased actor (Netanyahu) telling another (the UN) to stuff it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I tent to lean towards what could be described as pro-Palestinian, but the entire situation is fethed up and isn't going to be solved while both sides want each other dead.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the UN is a biased organization but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't?
Who made that claim?
Implicitly, by condoning one biased actor (Netanyahu) telling another (the UN) to stuff it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I tent to lean towards what could be described as pro-Palestinian, but the entire situation is fethed up and isn't going to be solved while both sides want each other dead.
So would it be fair to say that no one said it, but you inferred it.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The tragedy is that nothing will happen, Israel is a too big ally in the middle east for the US of A, so the extermination of the Palestine people will continue, The UN is a joke.
And blame? i Blame the English government who did not comply to the promise made to the Berbers after the Arab revolt was over, The Arabs, Christians and Jews were living in peace during those days and the Balfour Declaration was the beginning of the crap storm we are in today.
Extermination...
Hard to have serious discussion when words like that are being thrown around.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The tragedy is that nothing will happen, Israel is a too big ally in the middle east for the US of A, so the extermination of the Palestine people will continue, The UN is a joke.
Interestingly enough, that extermination has led UNRWA refugees to grow in population more than 5 times their original number. That growth is not due to new refugees. It is due to population growth and how UNRWA considers folks married into refugee families (and their decedents) as refugees. Even if they have lived in UNRWA run cities for generations at this point.
I guess it is a good thing the Israelis are so incompetent at this extermination...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the UN is a biased organization but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't?
Who made that claim?
Implicitly, by condoning one biased actor (Netanyahu) telling another (the UN) to stuff it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I tent to lean towards what could be described as pro-Palestinian, but the entire situation is fethed up and isn't going to be solved while both sides want each other dead.
So would it be fair to say that no one said it, but you inferred it.
Well, either people are assuming that Netanyahu isn't biased, or people know that Netanyahu is biased but are letting him get away with it while attacking the UN. I simply assumed the least damning one of the two. If I cited Putin while claiming that there were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine I'd be (righly) laughed out of the thread, yet apparently Netanyahu categorically denying any war crimes whatsoever on part of the Israelis is credible enough that people approve of his message.
Further, there's a metric crap-ton of "oh, they're just biased against Israel as usual" and "bad people are on the human rights council, so they don't matter" in this thread. If those were directed against people they'd be ad hominem attacks. No one's actually criticizing the contents of the report, you're all just assuming that it's wrong because of who wrote it.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The tragedy is that nothing will happen, Israel is a too big ally in the middle east for the US of A, so the extermination of the Palestine people will continue, The UN is a joke.
And blame? i Blame the English government who did not comply to the promise made to the Berbers after the Arab revolt was over, The Arabs, Christians and Jews were living in peace during those days and the Balfour Declaration was the beginning of the crap storm we are in today.
The US isn't what keeps Israel as a country, at this point its the US that keeps Israel from taking over the rest of the Arab peninsula. If the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war are anything to go by they are more then capable of carrying out that mission if provoked....again.
Jehan-reznor wrote: The tragedy is that nothing will happen, Israel is a too big ally in the middle east for the US of A, so the extermination of the Palestine people will continue, The UN is a joke.
And blame? i Blame the English government who did not comply to the promise made to the Berbers after the Arab revolt was over, The Arabs, Christians and Jews were living in peace during those days and the Balfour Declaration was the beginning of the crap storm we are in today.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the UN is a biased organization but Benjamin Netanyahu isn't?
Who made that claim?
Implicitly, by condoning one biased actor (Netanyahu) telling another (the UN) to stuff it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I tent to lean towards what could be described as pro-Palestinian, but the entire situation is fethed up and isn't going to be solved while both sides want each other dead.
So would it be fair to say that no one said it, but you inferred it.
Well, either people are assuming that Netanyahu isn't biased, or people know that Netanyahu is biased but are letting him get away with it while attacking the UN. I simply assumed the least damning one of the two. If I cited Putin while claiming that there were no Russian soldiers in Ukraine I'd be (righly) laughed out of the thread, yet apparently Netanyahu categorically denying any war crimes whatsoever on part of the Israelis is credible enough that people approve of his message.
Further, there's a metric crap-ton of "oh, they're just biased against Israel as usual" and "bad people are on the human rights council, so they don't matter" in this thread. If those were directed against people they'd be ad hominem attacks. No one's actually criticizing the contents of the report, you're all just assuming that it's wrong because of who wrote it.
...and the fact that the report contains no substantive objective data. All of their information was derived from interviews, mostly conducted remotely IIRC.
And Israel, in turn, came about as a result of a terror campaign in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. The right of conquest really shouldn't have any bearing in a modern setting.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And Israel, in turn, came about as a result of a terror campaign in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. The right of conquest really shouldn't have any bearing in a modern setting.
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And Israel, in turn, came about as a result of a terror campaign in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. The right of conquest really shouldn't have any bearing in a modern setting.
Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
It is too late for that but the systematic land grab should stop, and look with all that land lost, what happened to the people?
For millenia the Jews have been oppressed but now the oppressed have become the Oppressor.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
They'd probably be happy to if the land wasn't used as staging areas for invading and attacking Israel.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.
What a great argument, and you should give the land back to the indians your government almost exterminated.
Ustrello wrote: Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you have no clue about the on-going land rights negotiations in Australia, a process that’s seen land rights restored to Aboriginal peoples, and billions paid for use of that land.
I’m also going to guess you haven’t spent one second considering the difference between land taken 200 years ago, and land under occupation where the original occupier is still alive.
Relapse wrote: They'd probably be happy to if the land wasn't used as staging areas for invading and attacking Israel.
Ah yes, and now we’re seeing old Auschwitz Borders defence. The central premise of which is that because Israel needs to be bigger to guarantee it’s people’s security, then another people don’t get to have a country.
The argument is also pretty much incomprehensible bs in the modern day, where the IDF is utterly dominant regional power, before you factor in US support.
Ustrello wrote: When people win wars they gain territory? Well color me surprised
Not surprising at all - but they're not willing to give citizenship to the people that live on that land. Palestinians are lesser beings to be trampled under mighty Israeli army boots and tried in Israeli military courts with harsher sentences than Israelis get for the same crimes in Israeli civil courts. Not to mention collective punishments carried out by the IDF on a regular basis. Guy suspected of taking a shot at an Israeli? Demolish his home, even if it leaves his whole extended family without a place to stay. True, Israel could sweep the whole area clear. But that would make them the real bad guys. Instead they settle for slowly making life in the Palestinian areas so bad that people will want to leave while also providing plentiful reasons for people to hate them and do something desperate.
Not that the Palestinian leadership is any better - after all, if there was no Israel to hate (or gods forbid an Israel to regard as a nice neighbor!) they'd be out of a job too. The place could use a neutral third party kicking them both into shape.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
They are far too disorganized and fractured to have a cohesive government without having the common enemy of Israel.
They would also immediately get invaded by all the other neighboring countries who only barely hate them less than the Israelis. If Israel disappeared tomorrow there wouldn't be a Palestine, it would just get divided between Syria, Egypt, etc... And they'd still be an oppressed people.
And frankly, if they weren't such racists and actually tried for peace they might actually have a future. Israel is the more advanced nation, and thus the better one to be a citizen of, in the area. A Palestinian state would just become another third world country. They should get absorbed into Israel and deal with it. It would be the best for everyone involved if it was just Israel. It would elevate them above the devolving societies around them.
Yep, all those times Israel was attacked, total figments of the imagination. You keep on believing that.
What are you talking about? Who said Israel was never attacked? Why are making things up?
So you're saying that if Israel holds on to that land a few years more it's cool?
And that's probably even sillier than the above comment.
Grey Templar wrote: The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel,
That was a pretty fair summary in 1948, but it's complete gibberish today. Things have changed a lot. Palestinian national identity and connection to the land is basically why the original plan, hoping they'd just wander off and join the surrounding Arab populations didn't work.
are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
Holy gak. You actually said that. Wow.
There is no viable government because they are occupied by another government. There's really nothing more to it than that.
They would also immediately get invaded by all the other neighboring countries who only barely hate them less than the Israelis. If Israel disappeared tomorrow there wouldn't be a Palestine, it would just get divided between Syria, Egypt, etc... And they'd still be an oppressed people.
While the surrounding Arab nations hold the Palestinians in contempt, and only really pretend to be concerned for them
And frankly, if they weren't such racists and actually tried for peace they might actually have a future.
That’s so far from reality it’s ridiculous. Have you read a single Palestinian proposal in the last decade?
Just as one example, one of the more interesting wikileaks was the private Palestinian offering put to Israel in the mid-2000s – the abandoned the previous position of the 1967 borders, and in fact letting Israel keep all land they’d taken up until that day. Israel rejected it without discussion.
Israel is the more advanced nation, and thus the better one to be a citizen of, in the area.
Heh, a lot of people fall for the trappings of wealth and power in assuming who must be right, but this is probably the first time I’ve seen someone outright state that being richer and stronger means you’re right.
A Palestinian state would just become another third world country. They should get absorbed into Israel and deal with it. It would be the best for everyone involved if it was just Israel. It would elevate them above the devolving societies around them.
Okay, just to put this bluntly – this isn’t going to happen and you have no idea what you’re talking about. If the Palestinians were brought in to Israel then they’d be the majority population. The Israelis will not accept being a minority in their own country, for very obvious and very good reasons.
As such the two state solution is the only viable solution.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And Israel, in turn, came about as a result of a terror campaign in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine. The right of conquest really shouldn't have any bearing in a modern setting.
I bet you're even serious with that statement. Thats the whole point of warfare.
whembly wrote: Sooo... then what? The Isreali should pack up and leave?
Is that a real question?
I mean, yes, obviously Israel should end the occupation of land outside the borders they agreed to 1949. And from there everyone should start working on the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The alternative is that a whole people will continue to be stateless, and that will bring with a continuation of terrorism.
Then australia should give the island back to aboriginals, seeing as how you illegally took it from them.
What a great argument, and you should give the land back to the indians your government almost exterminated.
Which is entirely the point of course - these "they should pack up and leave" arguments are completely ridiculous.
Why not just come out and call the Palestinians savages, Templar?
Not sure where you get racism from someone criticizing a nationality (if you can even call it that). "Palestinian" is not a race, nor is it a distinct ethnicity or culture in any way. These people are Syrio-Jordanians, and different in no way from other Syrians and Jordanians in their ethnicity, culture, and history prior to about 60 years ago.
Why not just come out and call the Palestinians savages, Templar?
Palestinian is not a ethnicity, nationality, race, or anything else. Its a complete fabrication of terrorists and their supporters to try and give legitimacy where there is none.
The only "2 state solution" that would really work is for the so called "Palestinians" to move into the countries bordering Israel. Any Palestinian state created will just be at eternal war with Israel, causing continual pain and suffering. Whereas if they left the area it would only be a decade or so of issues, assuming the countries that brought them in weren't themselves oppressive to their own people. And I would wager that most of these people would jump at the chance to get away, but these other countries keep them boxed in between a rock and a hard place because they just want to let 2 of their hated enemies duke it out among themselves.
Palestine was the name given to Israel after the Romans destroyed the country, it was a biblical slur, referring to Philistines who the Israeli's utterly destroyed in an earlier war. After this the Jews were basically exterminated until finally only a small percent of actual jews remained, the Irony here is that if a lot of the current "Palestinians" traced their heritage back far enough they would find out they were in fact jews who converted to save their lives from Shariah Law.
The current invention of "Palestinians" is a blatant attempt to create negative publicity for Israel, in fact Hamas has even said as such in interviews. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanians and until about 30 years ago most of them held Dual Citizenship as "Palestinians" and Jordanians.
The British Mandate would have made Israel and turned over about 80% of the land into what was then called "Trans-Jordan". Instead the Arabs fought a war against the Jews in an attempt to destroy a jewish state before it could be created in what they consider to be sacred Muslim lands. The only reason that Israel exists at all is because they won their War of Independence, the Six Day War and the surprise Yom Kippur War. In each of these wars Israel fought more then 3 countries and still prevailed through sheer willpower.
If you think for a second that Israel has survived because America has supplied it with weapons/munitions and money then you need to go research how Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iraq and Jordan acquired their armies. All of them except for Jordan were supplied by the Soviets with more tanks, planes and RPG's then anything the USA gave to Israel, and then Jordan was supplied directly by the US and had more advanced tanks then Israel for the longest time.
Israel has fought for its right to exist and at this point nothing is going to take it away from them.
Frazzled wrote: I bet you're even serious with that statement. Thats the whole point of warfare.
? Is that why Iraq and Afghanistan just became the 51st and 52nd states in the Union?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Not sure where you get racism from someone criticizing a nationality (if you can even call it that). "Palestinian" is not a race, nor is it a distinct ethnicity or culture in any way. These people are Syrio-Jordanians, and different in no way from other Syrians and Jordanians in their ethnicity, culture, and history prior to about 60 years ago.
They identify as Palestinian today, and that is the only measure of identity. They didn't identify as such 60 years ago, but it's funny what 60 years of hardship will do.
Probably the bigger point, though, is that you can’t sidestep accusations of racism by claiming the target isn’t one of the universally accepted racial groups. That kind of small minded literalism misses the point completely. When a person forms in their own mind a group, and then decides that group always behaves that way, he’s being racist. Whether that group is a commonly understand racial group or something you just made up is irrelevant. The point and the problem is that it’s a fundamentally stupid way of thinking about how people work.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Sure the israelians with their superior weaponry are only defending themselves
Dude...
Israel was attacked. Not like some low level gang-banging incursion, but FULL. OUT. WAR.
As such, territories are acquired.
Israel started the war and sunk a US navy ship while they were doing it.
Israel pre-empted the 6 day war. Released Egyptian/syrian documents prove that they were about to launch an invasion of Israel, furthermore, when you position 9/10ths of 2 countries army along a border that small its pretty obvious what your intentions are. Furthermore, by denying freedom of the seas Eygpt started the war. But lets not let facts stand in the way of your assessment. As for the USS Liberty incident. Israel has officially apologized for that.
Ghazkuul wrote: The current invention of "Palestinians" is a blatant attempt to create negative publicity for Israel, in fact Hamas has even said as such in interviews. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanians and until about 30 years ago most of them held Dual Citizenship as "Palestinians" and Jordanians.
Most everyone involved expected the Palestinians would drift away in to the surrounding Arab countries. They didn’t, and instead formed a national identity. Such is life, and the only moral response is to find a way to incorporate that belief in to a long term solution that leaves no-one stateless or incapable of prosperity.
The British Mandate would have made Israel and turned over about 80% of the land into what was then called "Trans-Jordan". Instead the Arabs fought a war against the Jews in an attempt to destroy a jewish state before it could be created in what they consider to be sacred Muslim lands.
And when the Jews didn’t have the land they wanted, they fought a terror campaign to get it. And now they have the power to take land without overt use of force, they simply take it. Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.
The only reason that Israel exists at all is because they won their War of Independence, the Six Day War and the surprise Yom Kippur War. In each of these wars Israel fought more then 3 countries and still prevailed through sheer willpower.
And technical and military skill, and series of poor decisions among the Arab nations compounded by poor co-ordination. Putting it down to willpower makes it sound like one of RE Howard’s crappier stories.
"They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.
The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.
Ghazkuul wrote: "They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.
So you didn’t read what I said… “Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.”
I mean fething hell, my reply to you had less words than The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and you still couldn’t get to the end. Incredible.
The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.
No, they didn’t. They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked.
Ghazkuul wrote: "They fought a terror Campaign" so the hundreds of jews who were killed in a similar "terror campaign" were what? militants? Both sides fought with what they had, and the british played the roll of police. Don't try to play up one sides short comings while completely forgetting the other sides atrocities.
So you didn’t read what I said… “Trying to read history to justify one side or the other is bs.”
I mean fething hell, my reply to you had less words than The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and you still couldn’t get to the end. Incredible.
The arabs had as much "technical skill" and "Military Skill" as the Jews during the yom kippur war and still lost.
No, they didn’t. They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked.
On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as training, then egyptian leader, anwar Sadat performed sweeping changes and upgrades across the board for his military, gone were the peasant conscripts. The general staff was thoroughly trained and the equipment was so well ingrained within their units that the Egyptians had more anti tank weapons in a single regiment then the Israelis did in their entire army.
Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany... Incidentally, I think he's forgotten all those times that the Israelis have offered all the lands they've taken back to their respective countries, on the condition that they sign a peace treaty and recognize Israel as a legitimate, Jewish nation. In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.
And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews. See the no donations fulfilled by the arab nations, and why they are kept in refugee camps and not allowed to assimilate into the country, see black september in jordan.
I'd be very, very wary of calling another user a Nazi. Especially when that user isn't actually espousing that view, but rather trying to highlight the issue with the arguments given by one side. If you read his posts and the entire thread thoroughly, rather than going off half cocked, you'll see the context of his statements. It is incredibly rude to call another user a Nazi for their posting, especially when it is for views they do not hold. And rule #1 is politeness, so keep that in mind.
Ghazkuul wrote: On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.
So you could summarise that with "(the Arab forces) They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked."
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
Holy gak, what a ridiculous thing to say. I mean, I’d claim to be offended, but you’re just some clown on the internet so how can anyone be offended by what you mashed in to a keyboard?
Anyhow, just to go through the entirely pointless exercise of showing why your statement was wrong and based on nothing typed in this thread, here’s the first thing I said in this thread;
“I believe in the importance of a Jewish state because they have a long history of persecution at the hands of other groups. It would be nice if we didn’t need ethnic homelands, but this world isn’t a nice place in a whole lot of ways.”
If you could promise that in future you’ll read and think and learn, and try to avoid just jumping in to threads with silly accusations, I think we’d all be better off.
In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.
That argument basically collapses when you actually think about both sides, because it basically amounts to saying the Palestinians have to be stateless so Israel can better defend its own state.
Ustrello wrote: And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews.
Uurgh. That’s a non-point rolled up in to a baseless accusation. Good job, way to maintain the gakky tone in this thread.
Anyhow, there’s no shortage of contempt for the Palestinians among the Arab nations. They complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, but those are crocodile tears and their only real aim is to make Israel look bad.
But so what? How does that mean the Palestinians should continue to be kept stateless, and with no chance for prosperity?
Ghazkuul wrote: On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers. That was what faced the Egyptian/Syrian alliance when they launched a surprise attack against the Israeli's. So please, tell me how 150 tanks fought 1,400 tanks to a standstill long enough for Israeli's reserves to be called up, armed and deployed? Common military math says that for an attacking force to have a reasonable chance of success when attacking a fortified position the attacker needs 3 to 1 superiority in manpower. the syrians had almost 10 to 1 and the egyptians had 160 to 1 and still Israel won in the end.
So you could summarise that with "(the Arab forces) They wasted what were superior forces on paper and got spanked."
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
Holy gak, what a ridiculous thing to say. I mean, I’d claim to be offended, but you’re just some clown on the internet so how can anyone be offended by what you mashed in to a keyboard?
Anyhow, just to go through the entirely pointless exercise of showing why your statement was wrong and based on nothing typed in this thread, here’s the first thing I said in this thread;
“I believe in the importance of a Jewish state because they have a long history of persecution at the hands of other groups. It would be nice if we didn’t need ethnic homelands, but this world isn’t a nice place in a whole lot of ways.”
If you could promise that in future you’ll read and think and learn, and try to avoid just jumping in to threads with silly accusations, I think we’d all be better off.
In each instance, said nation has refused and reaffirmed their desire to basically utterly destroy Israel at the first opportunity, so Israel maintains the lands they've seized as a buffer zone.
That argument basically collapses when you actually think about both sides, because it basically amounts to saying the Palestinians have to be stateless so Israel can better defend its own state.
Ustrello wrote: And conveniently forgets that most of the arab world hates the palestinians as much as the jews.
Uurgh. That’s a non-point rolled up in to a baseless accusation. Good job, way to maintain the gakky tone in this thread.
Anyhow, there’s no shortage of contempt for the Palestinians among the Arab nations. They complain about the treatment of the Palestinians, but those are crocodile tears and their only real aim is to make Israel look bad.
But so what? How does that mean the Palestinians should continue to be kept stateless, and with no chance for prosperity?
I specifically said that the Israeli's won because of force of will, and you claimed it was not that, I showed you how the odds were stacked against them and instead of saying "Yes the israeli's fought harder" you say that the Arabs threw away their advantages. Your basically saying everything except "yep your right the Jews fought harder".
As far as the Palestinians have to be a stateless people...No, no they don't. Any Palestinian who wishes to join Israel is welcome to, after a back ground check to make sure they aren't hamas agents these Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel and hold all the same rights as the Jewish citizens. The Palestinians CHOOSE to be a stateless people because they don't want to live under any government except one that they invent specifically for their little group of former Jordanian citizens. Fathers and mothers are still alive right now as well as grand parents who held Jordanian citizenship and threw it away to make Israel look bad.
So in the end does that mean that the Palestinians should be kept as a stateless people with no chance for prosperity? yes if they ignore the chances that are presented to them.
Lastly, only one country has negotiated a lasting peace with Israel, Egypt. In return for a lasting peace, Israel gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula, which Israel captured TWICE from the Egyptians in two different wars. If Syria Promised a lasting peace they would have been given the Golan Heights, instead they choose to fund terrorism and allow the to live in their country. Look what good that has done them recently.
Ghazkuul wrote: I specifically said that the Israeli's won because of force of will, and you claimed it was not that, I showed you how the odds were stacked against them and instead of saying "Yes the israeli's fought harder" you say that the Arabs threw away their advantages. Your basically saying everything except "yep your right the Jews fought harder".
You’ve misunderstood completely. I said claiming it was will alone was like something out of a gakky RE Howard novel. This is because will alone means jack. You need skill, co-ordination, strong leadership and all the other things that turn a bunch of people who want something in to an army of real quality. Talking just about will mythologises the establishment of Israel but also patronises the people who actually won the Israeli’s their country.
As far as the Palestinians have to be a stateless people...No, no they don't. Any Palestinian who wishes to join Israel is welcome to, after a back ground check to make sure they aren't hamas agents these Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel and hold all the same rights as the Jewish citizens.
First up, it is incredibly difficult for anyone born in the West Bank or Gaza to gain Israeli citizenship. So trying to claim that’s a plausible solution for a couple of million Palestinians is pretty silly.
But it’s also kind of meaningless, because it simply isn’t ever going to be the solution for the Palestinian population as a whole. If they absorbed Palestine in to Israel, then within a generation they’d be a minority in their own country. For very obvious and very good reasons Israel is simply never going to accept that.
Lastly, only one country has negotiated a lasting peace with Israel, Egypt. In return for a lasting peace, Israel gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula, which Israel captured TWICE from the Egyptians in two different wars. If Syria Promised a lasting peace they would have been given the Golan Heights, instead they choose to fund terrorism and allow the to live in their country. Look what good that has done them recently.
And now we’re back to this crap about how the surrounding Arab countries are bad. First up, who in the feth thinks this is news? Syria did something bad… say it ain’t so!
Second up, what in the hell does it have to do with the Palestinian’s having a right to belong to a state? The surrounding countries could be ruled by satan, and the people in them could consist entirely of paedophiles and people who answer their phone during the movies, and it wouldn’t mean gak for what the Palestinians, like all people, deserve – to belong to a country.
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
The hell man?
The Palestinians have been there as long if not longer than the Jews. Remember the Caananites and their god Baal? (which hilariously just means lord) Yep, that's the forebears of Palestinians. They had the same religion as the other Phonecian types in the area who were trading as far as most of the mediterranean circa 900 bc. So whilst the Jews were wandering around being nomads, the Phonecians had cities with trading empires.
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
I doubt you're going to bother even considering that you're wrong, but criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Judaism. The demonym is Israeli, not Jew. This has to be the oldest, most commonly spouted bull-gak argument in the conflict's history, and you're still making it with a straight face.
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
The hell man?
The Palestinians have been there as long if not longer than the Jews. Remember the Caananites and their god Baal? (which hilariously just means lord) Yep, that's the forebears of Palestinians. They had the same religion as the other Phonecian types in the area who were trading as far as most of the mediterranean circa 900 bc. So whilst the Jews were wandering around being nomads, the Phonecians had cities with trading empires.
Mythical people my arse.
Just as a heads up the Palestinians you are referring to are also jewish History my friend, you should read it. Palestinian is a term given to people who lived in Palestine. Palestine is the name given to Israel AFTER the romans destroyed the country. It was a roman insult to the jews, referencing the Phillistines who the Jews had beaten in a previous war.
Anyone who lived in modern day Israel was called a Palestinian, which means that the tens of thousands of Jews living their are PALESTINIANS!
If your going to pull up Caananites being the forefathers of the Muslim Palestinians you must also point out that they are also Jewish as well. The only dividing line between Israeli's and Arabs is religion, not who was their first.
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
The hell man?
The Palestinians have been there as long if not longer than the Jews. Remember the Caananites and their god Baal? (which hilariously just means lord) Yep, that's the forebears of Palestinians. They had the same religion as the other Phonecian types in the area who were trading as far as most of the mediterranean circa 900 bc. So whilst the Jews were wandering around being nomads, the Phonecians had cities with trading empires.
Mythical people my arse.
The connection between "Palestinians" and Caananites is very, very weak. I challenge you to provide strong direct evidence that modern "Palestinians" are descended from Caananites any more so than anybody else in that region.
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
I doubt you're going to bother even considering that you're wrong, but criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Judaism. The demonym is Israeli, not Jew. This has to be the oldest, most commonly spouted bull-gak argument in the conflict's history, and you're still making it with a straight face.
Antisemites often hide behind the names, "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel."
The fact is that nearly all Jews support the state of Israel (with a few notable exceptions), Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, and given the stereotypical, bigoted, and libelous claims of these antisemites (i.e., "anti-Zionists") it is clear that their main problem with Israel is that it's full of Jews. If they judged Israel by the same metric by which they judge the myriad Arab Muslim countries in the world, they would not be "anti-ZIonists" anymore.
Well feth. Gaza was never historically Jewish, never. The Phonecian influence in Gaza, Tyre, Acre, ect is huge. The Phonecians were there long before the Romans got there. INteresting fact, the Phonecians spread to Carthage...are you seeing where i am going with this?
Roman history in regard to Carthaginians could be regarded a duplicitous at best.Think about that, most roman historians wrote increadibly innacurate things about phonecians.Modern day Israel was called palestine? fething hilarious. The "jewish empire" lasted all of 300 years, the Caaananites had been there since before 900bc , with probably apart from the Egyptians the most sophisticated society around that area (yes that includes the Jewish nomads).Israel, as seperate from Judea was a tiny kingdom no one cared about and everyone pissed on.Jews didn't even include those from Judea as Jews , hence the whole Samaritan thing.Te Samaritans also had a seperate religion based around a holy place being different from the other Jews.This lead to a lot of discrimination.History? I don't know what you read, but it certainly doesn't include a history of the Carthaginians.
There is a theory of historical thought that on one of their nomadic journeys the jews absorbed a god from a neibouring tribe. Lord, Baal, Lord
The connection between "Palestinians" and Caananites is very, very weak. I challenge you to provide strong direct evidence that modern "Palestinians" are descended from Caananites any more so than anybody else in that region.
The fact that they had the same religion as the Phonecians and therefore the Carthaginians points to the fact they are the same culture. THe fact that Gaza was a major trade hub during Phonecian influence also points to this. IT was also big after that influence had faded.
The fact is that nearly all Jews support the state of Israel (with a few notable exceptions), Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, and given the stereotypical, bigoted, and libelous claims of these antisemites (i.e., "anti-Zionists") it is clear that their main problem with Israel is that it's full of Jews. If they judged Israel by the same metric by which they judge the myriad Arab Muslim countries in the world, they would not be "anti-ZIonists" anymore.
I talk to a Jewish guy regularly who had moved to Israel in the 80s, I asked his opinion of the state, he said "it is so corrupt" and I could hear the dissalusionment in his voice.His opinion of LIkud was actually worse than mine and he laughed when i asked him of a likud politicians statement in regard to sudanese/african immigrantshttp://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-agree-africans-are-a-cancer/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">. http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-agree-africans-are-a-cancer/ He laughed and said with pain, it gets much worse.
Jews existed for a long time without the Israeli state and still do. The next suburb from me has an extremely high number of South African Jews and where are they from? South Africa , just South Africa, some of them even have wires up to tell them where they can walk on the Sabbath, but no not Israeli, still South African.
Nearly all Jews? Anecdotal but 90% of the guys I meet don't. I do sometimes ,open up the conversation with "do I look Jewish?" coz about half of the Lebanese guys I meet ask me if I am.this means we have an open conversation without any kind of politically correct intrusion.I like this kind of discussion as it is open and I hear more real opinions than otherwise. (if anyone wants to give a gak about my supposed ancestry- I had meditterainian spots as a kid, whilst my grandmother supposedly had an affair with a jewish guy, I also in the previous generation had a great grandma who fethed a sailor. I think i'm just medditerranean. Doesn't stop me from being described as jewish 2 times a week.. Jews, arabs, phonecians , persians....who gives a gak......unless your forcing someone to live in a ghetto.
@Ghazkuul, please just stop. I don't agree with sebster on a number of things on this subject (we've hashed it out before), but your arguing is practically a caricature it's so devoid of logic or reasoned fact.
NuggztheNinja wrote:The fact is that nearly all Jews support the state of Israel (with a few notable exceptions),
Absolute rubbish. Have you never heard the saying, 'Three Jews in a room equals four opinions'?
The "Palestinians", who themselves are a mythical people group with no identity or history beyond hating Israel, are not and will never be capable of having a stable government for several reasons.
The hell man? The Palestinians have been there as long if not longer than the Jews. Remember the Caananites and their god Baal? (which hilariously just means lord) Yep, that's the forebears of Palestinians. They had the same religion as the other Phonecian types in the area who were trading as far as most of the mediterranean circa 900 bc. So whilst the Jews were wandering around being nomads, the Phonecians had cities with trading empires.
Mythical people my arse.
The connection between "Palestinians" and Caananites is very, very weak. I challenge you to provide strong direct evidence that modern "Palestinians" are descended from Caananites any more so than anybody else in that region.
The Palestinians have continuously lived in the area since ancient times. They are probably not only descended from the ancient Philistines, but also from the ancient Isrealites and all other peoples that have lived in the area. Ancestry is not so clear as it is often presented. Because of the time involved (and thus the sheer amount of ancestors you have) and different peoples interacting with each other, people tend to end up with ancestors from pretty much every group that ever lived in every area where those groups lived. So the truth is that both modern Palestines and Isrealis have exactly the same ancient ancestors. The difference is in the more recent ones. The Palestinians are descended from the Arabs and pretty much every other group that lived in the area since ancient times, whereas most Isrealis have European or North African ancestry. Also, there is nothing mythical about Phoenecians.
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
I doubt you're going to bother even considering that you're wrong, but criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Judaism. The demonym is Israeli, not Jew. This has to be the oldest, most commonly spouted bull-gak argument in the conflict's history, and you're still making it with a straight face.
Antisemites often hide behind the names, "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel."
The fact is that nearly all Jews support the state of Israel (with a few notable exceptions), Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, and given the stereotypical, bigoted, and libelous claims of these antisemites (i.e., "anti-Zionists") it is clear that their main problem with Israel is that it's full of Jews. If they judged Israel by the same metric by which they judge the myriad Arab Muslim countries in the world, they would not be "anti-ZIonists" anymore.
If people can't seperate semites (an ethnic group) from Zionism (a political movement) they have a serious problem. There is a huge difference between anti-semites and anti-Zionists, and comparing them is pretty ridiculous given that many Jews themselves are anti-Zionists.
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
I doubt you're going to bother even considering that you're wrong, but criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Judaism. The demonym is Israeli, not Jew. This has to be the oldest, most commonly spouted bull-gak argument in the conflict's history, and you're still making it with a straight face.
And if all he was saying was 'I don't like Israel's aggressive defense policies', then I'd agree with you. Nor am I saying that Israel has never done anything wrong, just that some of the anti-israel comments in this thread are profoundly innane.
The Palestinians have continuously lived in the area since ancient times. They are probably not only descended from the ancient Philistines, but also from the ancient Isrealites and all other peoples that have lived in the area.
Ancestry is not so clear as it is often presented. Because of the time involved (and thus the sheer amount of ancestors you have) and different peoples interacting with each other, people tend to end up with ancestors from pretty much every group that ever lived in every area where those groups lived. So the truth is that both modern Palestines and Isrealis have exactly the same ancient ancestors. The difference is in the more recent ones. The Palestinians are descended from the Arabs and pretty much every other group that lived in the area since ancient times, whereas most Isrealis have European or North African ancestry.
Also, there is nothing mythical about Phoenecians.
If people can't seperate semites (an ethnic group) from Zionism (a political movement) they have a serious problem. There is a huge difference between anti-semites and anti-Zionists, and comparing them is pretty ridiculous given that many Jews themselves are anti-Zionists.
The difference between antisemites and anti-Zionists is that the first group is open about their hatred and bias against Jews, whereas the second group attempts to hide it under the veil of political beliefs. It is possible to be critical of Israel without opposing Zionism. Many Jews of critical of Israel. All Israelis are critical of some of Israel's policies, just as all Americans are critical of some US political policies. But, they are not anti-American...the equivalent of an anti-American is someone who believes that the United States should not exist. Are you really going to tell me that someone who believes that the ~7 million Jews in Israel should be murdered or expelled is NOT an antisemite?
And again, please read my response more carefully - I challenged Bullockist to provide strong evidence that "Palestinians" are more related to the Caananites than anyone else in that region. Intermarriage, a nomadic lifestyle, all of those things make such a thing exceptionally difficult. They can identify as whatever they want, but they still are no different than Syrians and Jordanians.
Ketara wrote: @Ghazkuul, please just stop. I don't agree with sebster on a number of things on this subject (we've hashed it out before), but your arguing is practically a caricature it's so devoid of logic or reasoned fact.
NuggztheNinja wrote:The fact is that nearly all Jews support the state of Israel (with a few notable exceptions),
Absolute rubbish. Have you never heard the saying, 'Three Jews in a room equals four opinions'?
Your right Ketara, I should stop pointing out facts that disagree with your opinions. my bad.
Ketara wrote: @Ghazkuul, please just stop. I don't agree with sebster on a number of things on this subject (we've hashed it out before), but your arguing is practically a caricature it's so devoid of logic or reasoned fact.
Your right Ketara, I should stop pointing out facts that disagree with your opinions. my bad.
You don't even know what my opinions are, and yet you're rushing to say that you have facts disagreeing with them?
The Palestinians have continuously lived in the area since ancient times. They are probably not only descended from the ancient Philistines, but also from the ancient Isrealites and all other peoples that have lived in the area. Ancestry is not so clear as it is often presented. Because of the time involved (and thus the sheer amount of ancestors you have) and different peoples interacting with each other, people tend to end up with ancestors from pretty much every group that ever lived in every area where those groups lived. So the truth is that both modern Palestines and Isrealis have exactly the same ancient ancestors. The difference is in the more recent ones. The Palestinians are descended from the Arabs and pretty much every other group that lived in the area since ancient times, whereas most Isrealis have European or North African ancestry. Also, there is nothing mythical about Phoenecians.
If people can't seperate semites (an ethnic group) from Zionism (a political movement) they have a serious problem. There is a huge difference between anti-semites and anti-Zionists, and comparing them is pretty ridiculous given that many Jews themselves are anti-Zionists.
The difference between antisemites and anti-Zionists is that the first group is open about their hatred and bias against Jews, whereas the second group attempts to hide it under the veil of political beliefs. It is possible to be critical of Israel without opposing Zionism. Many Jews of critical of Israel. All Israelis are critical of some of Israel's policies, just as all Americans are critical of some US political policies. But, they are not anti-American...the equivalent of an anti-American is someone who believes that the United States should not exist. Are you really going to tell me that someone who believes that the ~7 million Jews in Israel should be murdered or expelled is NOT an antisemite?
And again, please read my response more carefully - I challenged Bullockist to provide strong evidence that "Palestinians" are more related to the Caananites than anyone else in that region. Intermarriage, a nomadic lifestyle, all of those things make such a thing exceptionally difficult. They can identify as whatever they want, but they still are no different than Syrians and Jordanians.
Just as it is possible to be critical of Isreal without hating Jews, it is also very much possible to be critical of Zionism and not hate Jews (in fact, many Jews that have stayed behind here in Europe are anti-Zionists). Jew, Israeli and Zionist are three seperate things and it is possible to hate one but not the other. There is probably racists hiding behind anti-Zionism, but that does not mean all anti-Zionists are also antisemites. Someone who wants all Jews in Israel expelled would be an anti-semite, someone who is against the Isreali government would be anti-Israeli (but not neccessarily anti-semite), while someone who is against Israel being a 'Jewish state' would be anti-Zionist (but again not neccessarily anti-semite). Again, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is stupid. Just take a look at the Jewish Anti-Zionist movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jewish_Anti-Zionist_Network, Anti-Zionism of Orthodox Jews who believe there should not exist a Jewish state before the Messiah arrives or Soviet anti-Zionism. There is plenty of not-racist criticism of Zionism
And yes, proving that Palestinians are more related to ancient Caananites or Isrealites than Syrians are is probably impossible, altough I don't know much about genetics. But in any case, the truth about ancestry doesn't matter anything. All that matters is culture and identity. If modern Palestinians identify as descendents of the ancient Caananites, than they are. Ethnicity is after all a cultural, artificial thing.
Ketara wrote: @Ghazkuul, please just stop. I don't agree with sebster on a number of things on this subject (we've hashed it out before), but your arguing is practically a caricature it's so devoid of logic or reasoned fact.
Your right Ketara, I should stop pointing out facts that disagree with your opinions. my bad.
You don't even know what my opinions are, and yet you're rushing to say that you have facts disagreeing with them?
And you wonder why I advise you to stop.
You advise me to stop and say that my posts are "Caricature" and "Devoid of Logic or reasoned fact" and yet my posts are fact filled and accurate. So I interpreted that to mean you disagreed with the facts and your opinion differed from the one I had validated with the above posted facts. So what your really saying is, you have no idea how to argue against me and instead are going to spam and use random posts aimed at misdirection. Keep it up.
Just as it is possible to be critical of Isreal without hating Jews, it is also very much possible to be critical of Zionism and not hate Jews (in fact, many Jews that have stayed behind here in Europe are anti-Zionists). Jew, Israeli and Zionist are three seperate things and it is possible to hate one but not the other. There is probably racists hiding behind anti-Zionism, but that does not mean all anti-Zionists are also antisemites. Someone who wants all Jews in Israel expelled would be an anti-semite, someone who is against the Isreali government would be anti-Israeli (but not neccessarily anti-semite), while someone who is against Israel being a 'Jewish state' would be anti-Zionist (but again not neccessarily anti-semite).
Again, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is stupid.
Just take a look at the Jewish Anti-Zionist movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jewish_Anti-Zionist_Network, Anti-Zionism of Orthodox Jews who believe there should not exist a Jewish state before the Messiah arrives or Soviet anti-Zionism. There is plenty of not-racist criticism of Zionism
And yes, proving that Palestinians are more related to ancient Caananites or Isrealites than Syrians are is probably impossible, altough I don't know much about genetics. But in any case, the truth about ancestry doesn't matter anything. All that matters is culture and identity. If modern Palestinians identify as descendents of the ancient Caananites, than they are. Ethnicity is after all a cultural, artificial thing.
There are a few outspoken fringe nutcase groups, as I have already acknowledged, but they are a very small minority. Do you have any information at all on their numbers? Jews who identify as "anti-Zionists" are very few and far between.
And when you look at what the opposite of "Israel being a Jewish state" really means, it means that it would become yet another Arab Muslim state. What Arab Muslim states have Jewish citizens that aren't routinely murdered and terrorized? Let's be honest about what they're really saying here - that "Anti-Zionists" have more of a problem with Jews having their own country, than with Jews being murdered and terrorized. Again, how is that anything but antisemitism?
You advise me to stop and say that my posts are "Caricature" and "Devoid of Logic or reasoned fact" and yet my posts are fact filled and accurate.
So very fact filled.....
Ghazkuul wrote:im not saying they are all brainwashed
Implying that some members of the UN are 'brainwashed'. I assume this is by some fairly awesome pro-Arab Space-Nazi Brainwashing beam technique, right? Or members of the UN being kidnapped by Hamas, and drugged/indoctrinated in a KGB style operation?
The US isn't what keeps Israel as a country, at this point its the US that keeps Israel from taking over the rest of the Arab peninsula.
Yes. Because Israel wants to take over that much territory, but the secret puppetmasters in the US that control Israel prevent them from doing so. C
That's just from the first page. I could go on, but judging by how quickly you leapt to the attack just now, I don't doubt for a second that it would be a wasted effort.
You advise me to stop and say that my posts are "Caricature" and "Devoid of Logic or reasoned fact" and yet my posts are fact filled and accurate.
So very fact filled.....
Ghazkuul wrote:im not saying they are all brainwashed
Implying that some members of the UN are 'brainwashed'. I assume this is by some fairly awesome pro-Arab Space-Nazi Brainwashing beam technique, right? Or members of the UN being kidnapped by Hamas, and drugged/indoctrinated in a KGB style operation?
The US isn't what keeps Israel as a country, at this point its the US that keeps Israel from taking over the rest of the Arab peninsula.
Yes. Because Israel wants to take over that much territory, but the secret puppetmasters in the US that control Israel prevent them from doing so. C
That's just from the first page. I could go on, but judging by how quickly you leapt to the attack just now, I don't doubt for a second that it would be a wasted effort.
Wow way to pull things out of context. Are you a writer at CNN? Anyway, i post solid facts about Israel and the Palestinian conflicts and you post conspiracy theories, clearly your not suited to an intellectual debate so please go find a different target to troll.
Side note: Brainwashing also implies propaganda, something you should be intimately familiar with since you have such a trollish history.
Ghazkuul wrote:im not saying they are all brainwashed
Implying that some members of the UN are 'brainwashed'. I assume this is by some fairly awesome pro-Arab Space-Nazi Brainwashing beam technique, right? Or members of the UN being kidnapped by Hamas, and drugged/indoctrinated in a KGB style operation?
What? No, no, no, no. Mossad's the ones brainwashing them and using those bad eggs to drum up sympathy for Israel. ...Of course learned from interrogating all those Argentinian Space-Nazis.
Of course they've been pulled out of context, they're single quotes from three pages back. They couldn't help but be anything else without reposting those three pages of discussion. This does not mean that the statements do not stand or fall on their own merits (or lack thereof).
I'd welcome your highly detailed explanation as to how those two statements mean something other than what they seem to quite clearly say if you feel it is unfair. If you can take a statement that
'The US isn't what keeps Israel as a country, at this point its the US that keeps Israel from taking over the rest of the Arab peninsula'
and make it about something other than a) Israel wanting to take over the Middle-East (otherwise it wouldn't need restraining), or b) the US exercising the power to stop it from doing so (and thus being secretly in control of Israel), please go ahead. It should be interesting to read.
Anyway, i post solid facts about Israel and the Palestinian conflicts and you post conspiracy theories,
I posted your own statements. If those qualify as conspiracy theories, that's hardly my fault.
clearly your not suited to an intellectual debate so please go find a different target to troll.
Side note: Brainwashing also implies propaganda, something you should be intimately familiar with since you have such a trollish history.
As someone who holds what might occasionally be called 'intellectual debates' at a professional level, I daresay I have some small capacity in that direction (that or I've luckily evaded detection thus far by the anti-intellectual police). A note though; point blank calling other people 'trolls' is usually considered a violation of Rule #1.
Yes. Because Israel wants to take over that much territory, but the secret puppetmasters in the US that control Israel prevent them from doing so
Generally I would consider that to be a conspiracy theory. The US aren't secret "puppet masters" but are instead a close ally that help Israel.
As far as the US keeping Israel from taking over the Arabian peninsula, you need look no farther then Desert Storm. Iraq fired SCUD missiles into Israel, hoping to make Israel attack Iraq which Saddam Hussein hoped would bring other Arab countries into his war with the US. The US basically told Israel to not retaliate and low and behold, Israel listened. You could also use the example of the 6 day war where Henry Kissinger successfully urged the Israeli's to NOT take over Cairo or Damascus. Or you could use the example of the Yom Kippur War where by use of economic aid and resupply of essential military hardware, the United States kept Israel from starting a larger area conflict with Syria by destroying Damascus or by invading Cairo, which the Israeli's were yet again capable of. Would you like more examples of the United States using economics and political leverage to stop Israel from seizing more Arab territory?
Also It isn't a violation of Rule #1 if you call someone a troll if they are in fact trolling. That would be the same as someone calling me a Marine and me then being offended by it. If you pull quotes out of context, and misconstrue those quotes to make someone look bad you are trolling them. Either way if you really are experienced at debating in an intellectual setting please provide me with proof beyond propaganda and hearsay that Israeli is guilty of the War crimes listed in the UN document.
Ah the Israelis don't want to own the Middle East. That'd be wildly impractical. The land they have at the moment is either for settlement or as a buffer zone. Amalgamating a ton of people, notably who are non-Jews, would just leave to a nightmare for the Israelis.
Oh, and nor are the Israelis America's lapdogs as you put it. Sure they listen to the US, but there's a lot of pragmatism. The US tells the Israelis don't go bomb that airbase because they've just signed a treaty with X country. The Israelis say screw that they're within X distance of Israel and making threats. The whole thing's a minefield of politics, though the Israelis prefer to err on the side of caution most of the time (caution not meaning violence, rather it can mean a lack of as well considering that they could go about launching nukes at everyone if they felt like that, but well that'd be just silly now wouldn't it).
Yes. Because Israel wants to take over that much territory, but the secret puppetmasters in the US that control Israel prevent them from doing so
Generally I would consider that to be a conspiracy theory. The US aren't secret "puppet masters" but are instead a close ally that help Israel.
Correct. But the US does not prevent Israel from doing what it wants, anymoreso than France does Britain. Being an ally and having influence is different to controlling. And if we're talking about the US restraining a supposed Israeli desire to control the Arabian Peninsula, we're talking about control.
As far as the US keeping Israel from taking over the Arabian peninsula, you need look no farther then Desert Storm.
The Arabian Peninsula which includes, Yemen, Qatar, Oman, and many others, right?
Iraq fired SCUD missiles into Israel, hoping to make Israel attack Iraq which Saddam Hussein hoped would bring other Arab countries into his war with the US. The US basically told Israel to not retaliate and low and behold, Israel listened.
No. They advised Israel not to respond. Israel is a sovereign nation, and makes its own decisions.
You could also use the example of the 6 day war where Henry Kissinger successfully urged the Israeli's to NOT take over Cairo or Damascus. Or you could use the example of the Yom Kippur War where by use of economic aid and resupply of essential military hardware, the United States kept Israel from starting a larger area conflict with Syria by destroying Damascus or by invading Cairo, which the Israeli's were yet again capable of. Would you like more examples of the United States using economics and political leverage to stop Israel from seizing more Arab territory?
Firstly, you've yet to demonstrate that Israel wants to seize Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, and many others, which is a fairly large(if not fatal) error to your argument! And secondly, in your original statement, you appeared to make no verbal distinction between controlling another nation and influencing it.
Hence my comments on the matter.
Also It isn't a violation of Rule #1 if you call someone a troll if they are in fact trolling.
Yes it is, actually. If you think someone is trolling, you hit the little red triangle, and a general mod takes a look. Calling someone a troll has one of two effects
a) starting a fight on whether or not the other person is a troll, and
b) taking the thread off-topic.
Not to mention that if the person (like myself ) isn't trolling, but merely expressing an opinion, it's an insult (and thus in violation of rule #1).
Either way if you really are experienced at debating in an intellectual setting please provide me with proof beyond propaganda and hearsay that Israeli is guilty of the War crimes listed in the UN document.
I never said they were or were not guilty, but rather just pointed out some of your more ludicrous statements.
Wyrmalla wrote: Ah the Israelis don't want to own the Middle East. That'd be wildly impractical. The land they have at the moment is either for settlement or as a buffer zone. Amalgamating a ton of people, notably who are non-Jews, would just leave to a nightmare for the Israelis.
Oh, and nor are the Israelis America's lapdogs as you put it. Sure they listen to the US, but there's a lot of pragmatism. The US tells the Israelis don't go bomb that airbase because they've just signed a treaty with X country. The Israelis say screw that they're within X distance of Israel and making threats. The whole thing's a minefield of politics, though the Israelis prefer to err on the side of caution most of the time (caution not meaning violence, rather it can mean a lack of as well considering that they could go about launching nukes at everyone if they felt like that, but well that'd be just silly now wouldn't it).
True, I used a bit to much of an exaggeration when I said the US keeps Israel from taking over the Arabian peninsula. However, the Israeli's have had intentions several times on taking a country's capital away from them to use as a bargaining chip for peace. Also I would never say that Israel is America's lap Dog. They are a loyal ally and when I say America keeps them from certain actions its through diplomacy and economics as well as military supplies not so much Israel doing whatever the US tells them to do just because.
At the end of the day though, the UN is exceedingly biased against the Israeli's and almost every UN meeting about the middle east has at least one country demanding to have Israel vilified at some point.
DarkLink wrote: Sebster sounds so anti-Jewish he'd fit right in with 1930's Germany...
I doubt you're going to bother even considering that you're wrong, but criticizing Israel is not the same as criticizing Judaism. The demonym is Israeli, not Jew. This has to be the oldest, most commonly spouted bull-gak argument in the conflict's history, and you're still making it with a straight face.
And if all he was saying was 'I don't like Israel's aggressive defense policies', then I'd agree with you. Nor am I saying that Israel has never done anything wrong, just that some of the anti-israel comments in this thread are profoundly innane.
Ghazkuul wrote: If your going to pull up Caananites being the forefathers of the Muslim Palestinians you must also point out that they are also Jewish as well. The only dividing line between Israeli's and Arabs is religion, not who was their first.
Emphasis mine. Just to be clear, the term Arab doesn't have a specific religious connotation - it's primarily a linguistic group. There are other cultural and ethnic factors involved, but being a native speaker of Arabic is the primary indicator. Arab does not equal Muslim. And there are a lot of Muslims who are not Arabs. There are Arab Christians and Druze, as well as Jews, and Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Some within these groups might not self-identify as "Arab" specifically (but rather just Christian, or Jewish, or by nationality, or as an "Arabic-speaking Christian" or "Arabic-speaking Jew") but the bottom line is that while Arab identity and who does and doesn't identify as Arab can be somewhat complicated, Arab is not a religious group and we shouldn't be using it as such.
Ghazkuul wrote: If your going to pull up Caananites being the forefathers of the Muslim Palestinians you must also point out that they are also Jewish as well. The only dividing line between Israeli's and Arabs is religion, not who was their first.
Emphasis mine. Just to be clear, the term Arab doesn't have a specific religious connotation - it's primarily a linguistic group. There are other cultural and ethnic factors involved, but being a native speaker of Arabic is the primary indicator. Arab does not equal Muslim. And there are a lot of Muslims who are not Arabs. There are Arab Christians and Druze, as well as Jews, and Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Some within these groups might not self-identify as "Arab" specifically (but rather just Christian, or Jewish, or by nationality, or as an "Arabic-speaking Christian" or "Arabic-speaking Jew") but the bottom line is that while Arab identity and who does and doesn't identify as Arab can be somewhat complicated, Arab is not a religious group and we shouldn't be using it as such.
I'll change the word arab to Arab Muslim or just plain Muslim, it doesn't change the points made
Ghazkuul wrote: If your going to pull up Caananites being the forefathers of the Muslim Palestinians you must also point out that they are also Jewish as well. The only dividing line between Israeli's and Arabs is religion, not who was their first.
Emphasis mine. Just to be clear, the term Arab doesn't have a specific religious connotation - it's primarily a linguistic group. There are other cultural and ethnic factors involved, but being a native speaker of Arabic is the primary indicator. Arab does not equal Muslim. And there are a lot of Muslims who are not Arabs. There are Arab Christians and Druze, as well as Jews, and Israeli citizens who are Arabs. Some within these groups might not self-identify as "Arab" specifically (but rather just Christian, or Jewish, or by nationality, or as an "Arabic-speaking Christian" or "Arabic-speaking Jew") but the bottom line is that while Arab identity and who does and doesn't identify as Arab can be somewhat complicated, Arab is not a religious group and we shouldn't be using it as such.
I'll change the word arab to Arab Muslim or just plain Muslim, it doesn't change the points made
Oh, that's fine, I understood what you meant and I wasn't taking issue with that specifically, in the sense that the problem is, at its root, a religious issue. I'm just trying to encouraging the use of informed language.
At the end of the day, the impression I’m really left with from threads like this is how simplistic and emotive the issue is treated outside of Israel and & Palestine. The people I’ve spoken to and the interviews I’ve read from people who actually have a stake in the game, both Israelis and Palestinians, well there’s certainly emotion there but it’s complex, and around that emotion is a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the issue. There’s certainly a wide range of opinions on the actions of both Israel & Palestine, and I haven’t necessarily agreed with the conclusions given, in each case I’ve learned a lot, and come away respecting the amount of thought each person had put in to the issue.
But then you read a thread like this, and it’s actually just kind of sad. People proclaiming all kinds of nonsense, completely fact free opinions, proposing utterly ridiculous solutions. And in amongst all that you get more accusations of bias than you see when Israelis and Palestinians discuss the issue. It’s extraordinary.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Antisemites often hide behind the names, "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel."
They do. It is a harmful and dangerous trick played by anti-semites. Calling it out when it actually happens is essential, because anti-semitism needs to be countered as hard today as ever, especially with the rise of extremist Islam.
But that's why it's so dangerous for people to manipulate the accusation, to use it merely for political purposes, as a ploy to quieten people who are only criticising Israeli policy, or simply saying Palestinians deserve better than they have. Every time an accusation of anti-semitism is used disingenuously, it means later, genuine accusations are less likely to be properly heard. And that's dangerous.
DarkLink wrote: And if all he was saying was 'I don't like Israel's aggressive defense policies', then I'd agree with you. Nor am I saying that Israel has never done anything wrong, just that some of the anti-israel comments in this thread are profoundly innane.
Quote them, fething please quote them. Go find this 'inane' anti-Israel stuff, and quote it back to us. Because I can't speak for any other poster, but all I've said is that Palestinians deserve to belong to a nation, and for practical reasons that can't be part of Israel. Apparently that's equal to Hitler... so I'd dearly fething love for you to find something as inane as that among the Palestinian arguments.
I'll say it: I have nothing against Judaism, but detest Israel.
Note: not really a fan of Hamas et al, but they at least are honest about what they are. The Israelis get all self righteuos about how they're defending their homeland from the corruption of Palestinian terrorists.
Or how they have a divine mandate to seize additional living room from the subhumans to the east.
One of these days, I should really post videos of the Knesset dubbed in German. I'd post video of Hitler over it, and see if people can spot the real Hitler.speeches.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'll say it: I have nothing against Judaism, but detest Israel.
Note: not really a fan of Hamas et al, but they at least are honest about what they are. The Israelis get all self righteuos about how they're defending their homeland from the corruption of Palestinian terrorists.
Or how they have a divine mandate to seize additional living room from the subhumans to the east.
One of these days, I should really post videos of the Knesset dubbed in German. I'd post video of Hitler over it, and see if people can spot the real Hitler.speeches.
'
This is probably one of the most offensive things Ive seen posted. Please try not to compare Israeli's to Nazi's and hitler if you could.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'll say it: I have nothing against Judaism, but detest Israel.
Note: not really a fan of Hamas et al, but they at least are honest about what they are. The Israelis get all self righteuos about how they're defending their homeland from the corruption of Palestinian terrorists.
Or how they have a divine mandate to seize additional living room from the subhumans to the east.
One of these days, I should really post videos of the Knesset dubbed in German. I'd post video of Hitler over it, and see if people can spot the real Hitler.speeches.
I've seen some absolutely idiotic things posted on this forum, but you win the prize.
Welcome to ignore. I'll be missing nothing of importance.
BaronIveagh wrote: I'll say it: I have nothing against Judaism, but detest Israel.
Note: not really a fan of Hamas et al, but they at least are honest about what they are. The Israelis get all self righteuos about how they're defending their homeland from the corruption of Palestinian terrorists.
Or how they have a divine mandate to seize additional living room from the subhumans to the east.
One of these days, I should really post videos of the Knesset dubbed in German. I'd post video of Hitler over it, and see if people can spot the real Hitler.speeches.
No, fething no. This is just a classic example of trying to layer a heroes & villains narrative over the really complex reality of the situation. And coming up with a really crude caricature of everyone involved as a result.
I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
you mean the tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of Jews who escaped persecution and death after WW1 and WW2? yeah those buggers.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
you mean the tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of Jews who escaped persecution and death after WW1 and WW2? yeah those buggers.
This is probably one of the most offensive things Ive seen posted. Please try not to compare Israeli's to Nazi's and hitler if you could.
Try it sometime. I've seen them spew the most racist bs you can imagine. if a US politician said half this stuff, he'd be run out on a rail.
and, why not?
So far, they've been heading full steam in that direction, driving people from their homes, putting them in camps and unlivable ghettos and using any occasion they push back to decry them as terrorists and claim it justifies all the things they do.
They've on more than one occasion, even before Palestinian terrorism became a big thing, all but used the term Final Solution. Hell, they elected a man who was a self admitted war criminal, mastermind of the rape and murder of hundreds, if not thousands (exact numbers on the rapes were not clear, the murders went into the thousands) of civilians, wanted by international court until US pressure got the charges dropped, to their highest office.
This is probably one of the most offensive things Ive seen posted. Please try not to compare Israeli's to Nazi's and hitler if you could.
Try it sometime. I've seen them spew the most racist bs you can imagine. if a US politician said half this stuff, he'd be run out on a rail.
and, why not?
So far, they've been heading full steam in that direction, driving people from their homes, putting them in camps and unlivable ghettos and using any occasion they push back to decry them as terrorists and claim it justifies all the things they do.
They've on more than one occasion, even before Palestinian terrorism became a big thing, all but used the term Final Solution. Hell, they elected a man who was a self admitted war criminal, mastermind of the rape and murder of hundreds, if not thousands (exact numbers on the rapes were not clear, the murders went into the thousands) of civilians, wanted by international court until US pressure got the charges dropped, to their highest office.
Any actual evidence of any of this or is this just more of your hate mongering?
NO side is innocent but so far the only group that has called for the genocide of a people are the Arabs. Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and several other country leaders have openly stated they plan to destroy Israel and kill all the jews.
Regardless, don't compare Israel to Hitler and the Nazi party, the difference is night and day and if you really believe they are the same thing I would advise you to open a history book.
This is probably one of the most offensive things Ive seen posted. Please try not to compare Israeli's to Nazi's and hitler if you could.
Try it sometime. I've seen them spew the most racist bs you can imagine. if a US politician said half this stuff, he'd be run out on a rail.
and, why not?
So far, they've been heading full steam in that direction, driving people from their homes, putting them in camps and unlivable ghettos and using any occasion they push back to decry them as terrorists and claim it justifies all the things they do.
They've on more than one occasion, even before Palestinian terrorism became a big thing, all but used the term Final Solution. Hell, they elected a man who was a self admitted war criminal, mastermind of the rape and murder of hundreds, if not thousands (exact numbers on the rapes were not clear, the murders went into the thousands) of civilians, wanted by international court until US pressure got the charges dropped, to their highest office.
Any actual evidence of any of this or is this just more of your hate mongering?
NO side is innocent but so far the only group that has called for the genocide of a people are the Arabs. Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and several other country leaders have openly stated they plan to destroy Israel and kill all the jews.
Regardless, don't compare Israel to Hitler and the Nazi party, the difference is night and day and if you really believe they are the same thing I would advise you to open a history book.
The Nazi-Israel connection is completely idiotic, and only drawn by antisemites. The Nazis committed mass executions. Israel offers medical treatment to Arab Muslim terrorists carrying out attacks on Israeli civilians. The difference is night and day. It takes a real glue sniffer to honestly believe the two are even close to equitable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
By the "political agenda of Israel" you mean survival? Heavens forbid!
I would say the centuries of pograms in Europe, culminating in the Nazi extermination attempt on the Jews pretty much shattered any sense of equilibrium.
Regardless, don't compare Israel to Hitler and the Nazi party, the difference is night and day and if you really believe they are the same thing I would advise you to open a history book.
I would advise you to do the same, since Hitler and the Nazis did not start with death factories. They instigated a policy of planned, indirect annihilation by denying their targets the basic means of survival, seizing property and denying them medical access. Think on that, and now read this:
Amnesty International Report on Israel for 2010, Executive summery wrote:
Israeli forces continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) throughout 2009, hampering access to essential services and land. The restrictions included a military blockade of the Gaza Strip, which effectively imprisoned the 1.5 million residents and resulted in a humanitarian crisis. Despite this, Israel often stopped international aid and humanitarian assistance from entering Gaza. Permission to leave Gaza to receive medical treatment was denied or delayed for hundreds of seriously ill Palestinians and at least 28 individuals died while waiting for permission to travel. Israeli forces continued to forcibly evict Palestinians, demolish their homes and expropriate their land in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, while allowing Israeli settlements to expand on illegally confiscated Palestinian land.
Throughout the year, Israeli forces used excessive and, at times, lethal force against Palestinian civilians. Allegations of ill-treatment against Palestinian detainees continued and were rarely investigated. Hundreds were administratively detained without charge; others were serving sentences imposed after unfair military trials. Israeli soldiers and settlers who committed serious human rights abuses against Palestinians enjoyed virtual impunity.
Since 1993, 11k Palestinians have been forced out of Jerusalem alone by the Israeli government. The Israeli government, in 2010, spent 6.3 billion dollars forcibly driving Palestinians out of their homes, destroying over 15k. This does not count destruction by military action, this is strictly the annihilation of the homes of civilians outside combat zones.
The Nazi-Israel connection is completely idiotic, and only drawn by antisemites. The Nazis committed mass executions. Israel offers medical treatment to Arab Muslim terrorists carrying out attacks on Israeli civilians. The difference is night and day. It takes a real glue sniffer to honestly believe the two are even close to equitable.
That's because you need to read history. Things didn't start with camps, etc, but instead ramped up to it. By the way, 'anti-Semite' is someone who hates jews. I have no problem with Jews. I have a problem with how Israel treats Arabs and Jews from places other than Europe. I have a problem with how Isreal can commit war crimes and then people pretend that Israels gak doesn't stink.
and I definitely have a problem with people who hide behind accusations of antisemitism in any criticism of Israel.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
By the "political agenda of Israel" you mean survival? Heavens forbid!
If the survival of the state of Israel is dependant on the oppression of the Palestinians, what does that say about the state of Israel?
Baronlveagh your accusations are yet again unfounded. Amnesty international as we have already shown in this very same forums is extremely biased against the Israeli's. AS far as the blockade, it is a UN sanctioned blockade and furthermore EGYPT is also blockading Gaza because they don't want that hotbed of terrorists to come into Egypt.
Your lack of understanding of both sides leads you to believe that Israel is a great evil. GO read a history book that wasn't written from a pro palestinian viewpoint and you might change your opinion of all this.
Ghazkuul wrote: Your lack of understanding of both sides leads you to believe that Israel is a great evil. GO read a history book that wasn't written from a pro palestinian viewpoint and you might change your opinion of all this.
Oh, agreed that both sides do bad things. But Israel holds supreme military power. They could wipe out all the palestinians if they wished, but doing so would also exclude them from polite company. All the palestinians can do is shoot makeshift rockets that seldom even hurt anyone. And the Israeli response, when there finally is one, usually kills ten times or more people than the number of Israeli killed.
Yes, Israel can claim land they have conquered in open war just as any other nation. But they also have to provide for the people living there, and offer them citizenship if they don't wish to move. Instead Israel opts for slowly seizing land, evicting the people that live on it. You might have noticed that many peace talks are broken off after Israel announces yet another few thousand apartments will be constructed on occupied land? The Israeli government doesn't want peace. Hell, an orthodox Jew even killed the last prime minister who tried!
Ghazkuul wrote: Your lack of understanding of both sides leads you to believe that Israel is a great evil. GO read a history book that wasn't written from a pro palestinian viewpoint and you might change your opinion of all this.
Oh, agreed that both sides do bad things. But Israel holds supreme military power. They could wipe out all the palestinians if they wished, but doing so would also exclude them from polite company. All the palestinians can do is shoot makeshift rockets that seldom even hurt anyone. And the Israeli response, when there finally is one, usually kills ten times or more people than the number of Israeli killed.
Yes, Israel can claim land they have conquered in open war just as any other nation. But they also have to provide for the people living there, and offer them citizenship if they don't wish to move. Instead Israel opts for slowly seizing land, evicting the people that live on it. You might have noticed that many peace talks are broken off after Israel announces yet another few thousand apartments will be constructed on occupied land? The Israeli government doesn't want peace. Hell, an orthodox Jew even killed the last prime minister who tried!
So Israel is supposed to happily eat rockets shot at it?
Ghazkuul wrote: Baronlveagh your accusations are yet again unfounded. Amnesty international as we have already shown in this very same forums is extremely biased against the Israeli's. AS far as the blockade, it is a UN sanctioned blockade and furthermore EGYPT is also blockading Gaza because they don't want that hotbed of terrorists to come into Egypt.
Your lack of understanding of both sides leads you to believe that Israel is a great evil. GO read a history book that wasn't written from a pro palestinian viewpoint and you might change your opinion of all this.
I'd say that you're the one that doesn't understand.
The UN does not sanction it. In fact, the UN has called on Israel to lift it 15 times. So far, the US has run interference on any more serious actions against Israel re this.
Egypt keeps the boarder shut for two reasons. One is to prevent a flood of refugees they can't afford to feed. The second is to keep 2 billion dollars a year flowing into the Egyptian budget from the US, so long as they cooperate with Israel on this matter.
So, the IDF didn't conduct nutrition studies to determine how much food to allow into Gaza to keep them just on one side of starvation? Funny, the documents that they released under court order say otherwise.
Who exactly would you consider unbiased? The ICRC report was even more scathing. EU report accused Israel of deliberately creating a humanitarian crisis. Human Rights Watch called it a violation of the Geneva conventions (protection of civilians in occupied territory).
So Israel is supposed to happily eat rockets shot at it?
Well, Hamas had actually upheld their end of the agreement to stop that, until Israel started bombing them again, at which point they started firing rockets again. (I checked the dates)
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
By the "political agenda of Israel" you mean survival? Heavens forbid!
If the survival of the state of Israel is dependant on the oppression of the Palestinians, what does that say about the state of Israel?
What does it say about the "Palestinians?"
What is your solution? Israel is here, and it's here to stay, so "pack up and move" (aka genocide) is not going to happen. Sorry to disappoint.
Its easy to say they should when most europeans and other haven't experienced war in 70 years on their territory. Or in the case of americans 150 plus (excluding the Aleutian islands)
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
By the "political agenda of Israel" you mean survival? Heavens forbid!
If the survival of the state of Israel is dependant on the oppression of the Palestinians, what does that say about the state of Israel?
What does it say about the "Palestinians?"
What is your solution? Israel is here, and it's here to stay, so "pack up and move" (aka genocide) is not going to happen. Sorry to disappoint.
What is your solution? Israel is here, and it's here to stay, so "pack up and move" (aka genocide) is not going to happen.
And, yet, they expect exactly that of the Palestinians who's homes they bulldoze and buisnesses they seize and families they place in ghettos and camps. Hence, all the shooting.
I suppose an American wouldn't see a problem with it, though, considering you stole your whole country from someone else.
What is your solution? Israel is here, and it's here to stay, so "pack up and move" (aka genocide) is not going to happen.
And, yet, they expect exactly that of the Palestinians who's homes they bulldoze and buisnesses they seize and families they place in ghettos and camps. Hence, all the shooting.
I suppose an American wouldn't see a problem with it, though, considering you stole your whole country from someone else.
So did every other country in the world, welcome to the real world.
Everyone pull back a step. 1 word (especially if that words is just lol) posts are spamming the forum. Making sweeping declarations about a country based on a poster's flag when they aren't (to my understanding) originally from that country is breaking Rule #1 Be Polite. People guilty of this sort of thing go reread the rules before posting any more please
I'm assuming you want both of the statements proven: fair enough:
One; The defendants in the Doctor's Trial, Nuremberg, 1946, argued that they had not committed crimes in their use of human experimentation, as there was little difference between what they had done, and US and Russian experiments. Sixteen were found guilty, seven immediately hanged.
Two: Chile was not inhabited before the majority of the current occupants got there (several thousand years ago). They were occupied by Spain, but eventually won back their own nation. Genetic testing has shown that most of the inhabitants are partially to mostly native, even if they self identify as non natives.
The lack of empathy being shown to everyone in that part of the world in this thread boggles in the mind. It's almost as if everyone gets drawn into a 'them or us' mentality, and sweet reason deserts them. Either Israelis are defenders of the peace or hell bent on genocide/oppression, and the Palestinians are either terrorists or sweet innocents.
I'm assuming you want both of the statements proven: fair enough:
One; The defendants in the Doctor's Trial, Nuremberg, 1946, argued that they had not committed crimes in their use of human experimentation, as there was little difference between what they had done, and US and Russian experiments. Sixteen were found guilty, seven immediately hanged.
Two: Chile was not inhabited before the majority of the current occupants got there (several thousand years ago). They were occupied by Spain, but eventually won back their own nation.
I'm assuming you want both of the statements proven: fair enough:
One; The defendants in the Doctor's Trial, Nuremberg, 1946, argued that they had not committed crimes in their use of human experimentation, as there was little difference between what they had done, and US and Russian experiments. Sixteen were found guilty, seven immediately hanged.
Two: Chile was not inhabited before the majority of the current occupants got there (several thousand years ago). They were occupied by Spain, but eventually won back their own nation.
Um..no? Try its been inhabited since 12,000 bc
Did you read the post you quoted before writing that? I did mention that part. Interestingly, they even resisted efforts by the Inca to dislodge them.
I'm assuming you want both of the statements proven: fair enough:
One; The defendants in the Doctor's Trial, Nuremberg, 1946, argued that they had not committed crimes in their use of human experimentation, as there was little difference between what they had done, and US and Russian experiments. Sixteen were found guilty, seven immediately hanged.
Two: Chile was not inhabited before the majority of the current occupants got there (several thousand years ago). They were occupied by Spain, but eventually won back their own nation. Genetic testing has shown that most of the inhabitants are partially to mostly native, even if they self identify as non natives.
Chile had indigenous peoples, just most died due to European disease. And even if they hadn't your entire argument is that out of the entire world...Chile never had its land taken over. Not a strong argument my friend.
I'm assuming you want both of the statements proven: fair enough:
One; The defendants in the Doctor's Trial, Nuremberg, 1946, argued that they had not committed crimes in their use of human experimentation, as there was little difference between what they had done, and US and Russian experiments. Sixteen were found guilty, seven immediately hanged.
Two: Chile was not inhabited before the majority of the current occupants got there (several thousand years ago). They were occupied by Spain, but eventually won back their own nation.
Um..no? Try its been inhabited since 12,000 bc
Did you read the post you quoted before writing that? I did mention that part. Interestingly, they even resisted efforts by the Inca to dislodge them.
Seeing how you edited it after I posted. But the point seems to have eluded you, every current country has stolen most of their land from a predecessor at one point or another.
I could probably point out more if I was going to spend some time and research the subject more thoroughly.
The disease thing was less relevant in the case of Chile due to it also being highly unattractive to migrant populations during the height of European expansion.
I can't point to anyplace though that has not had war at some point.
Back on topic, I notice you didn't try and refute the meat of my post though, about the Doctor's trial.
Seeing how you edited it after I posted. But the point seems to have eluded you, every current country has stolen most of their land from a predecessor at one point or another.
That wasn't what I edited (the quote stays the same even if I edit the original post)
Actually, there are probably quite a few pacific island nations that are largely the same people who have been there since people showed up.
That aside, tell me how any of that justifies crimes against humanity in Gaza.
I could probably point out more if I was going to spend some time and research the subject more thoroughly.
The disease thing was less relevant in the case of Chile due to it also being highly unattractive to migrant populations during the height of European expansion.
I can't point to anyplace though that has not had war at some point.
Back on topic, I notice you didn't try and refute the meat of my post though, about the Doctor's trial.
I ignored it because you knew what I was referring to, but chose to be flippant.
I could probably point out more if I was going to spend some time and research the subject more thoroughly.
The disease thing was less relevant in the case of Chile due to it also being highly unattractive to migrant populations during the height of European expansion.
I can't point to anyplace though that has not had war at some point.
Back on topic, I notice you didn't try and refute the meat of my post though, about the Doctor's trial.
I ignored it because you knew what I was referring to, but chose to be flippant.
Posting with two accounts these days? I was talking to the other guy. you know, the one claiming that the UN was backing this gak?
I could probably point out more if I was going to spend some time and research the subject more thoroughly.
The disease thing was less relevant in the case of Chile due to it also being highly unattractive to migrant populations during the height of European expansion.
I can't point to anyplace though that has not had war at some point.
Back on topic, I notice you didn't try and refute the meat of my post though, about the Doctor's trial.
I ignored it because you knew what I was referring to, but chose to be flippant.
Posting with two accounts these days? I was talking to the other guy. you know, the one claiming that the UN was backing this gak?
Seeing how you were referring to the doctors trial, which was directed at me. Maybe you should keep track of your conversations
Calling people who have their backs against the wall Terrorists in their own country while their last pieces of land are devoured by the Israelian machine is tragic.But Americans with their fixation on the right to bear arms cry foul when Israel invades the parts of land that is still considered Palestinian or Jordanian, And people defending their last area they can still call their own, I don't approve the suicide bombing methods, but the people in gaza never stood a chance against the might of the Israelian army.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Calling people who have their backs against the wall Terrorists in their own country while their last pieces of land are devoured by the Israelian machine is tragic.But Americans with their fixation on the right to bear arms cry foul when Israel invades the parts of land that is still considered Palestinian or Jordanian, And people defending their last area they can still call their own, I don't approve the suicide bombing methods, but the people in gaza never stood a chance against the might of the Israelian army.
And by that post you know that you are posting for a stance of ignorance of middle eastern history. Throughout the history of the middle east, no country has ever been called "Palestine". and the term Palestinian refers to the group who lived in the area renamed "Palestine" (not a country) after rome destroyed Israel back in the day. The Current crop of Palestinians are nothing more then political pawns in the game of "Destroy Israel" played by Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. but hey lets keep pretending everything is the Israeli's fault......
Jehan-reznor wrote: Calling people who have their backs against the wall Terrorists in their own country while their last pieces of land are devoured by the Israelian machine is tragic.But Americans with their fixation on the right to bear arms cry foul when Israel invades the parts of land that is still considered Palestinian or Jordanian, And people defending their last area they can still call their own, I don't approve the suicide bombing methods, but the people in gaza never stood a chance against the might of the Israelian army.
And by that post you know that you are posting for a stance of ignorance of middle eastern history. Throughout the history of the middle east, no country has ever been called "Palestine". and the term Palestinian refers to the group who lived in the area renamed "Palestine" (not a country) after rome destroyed Israel back in the day. The Current crop of Palestinians are nothing more then political pawns in the game of "Destroy Israel" played by Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. but hey lets keep pretending everything is the Israeli's fault......
The issue is that Israel is evicting and neutralizing the native people who have lived there more longer than the Jews themselves, Destroying Israel are the least of the worries of the countries you sited, when was the last time again when those counties combined and attacked Israel? They have currently more internal strife because of the Arab spring, And most of them Are fighting among themselves or are in conflict with ISIS.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Calling people who have their backs against the wall Terrorists in their own country while their last pieces of land are devoured by the Israelian machine is tragic.But Americans with their fixation on the right to bear arms cry foul when Israel invades the parts of land that is still considered Palestinian or Jordanian, And people defending their last area they can still call their own, I don't approve the suicide bombing methods, but the people in gaza never stood a chance against the might of the Israelian army.
And by that post you know that you are posting for a stance of ignorance of middle eastern history. Throughout the history of the middle east, no country has ever been called "Palestine". and the term Palestinian refers to the group who lived in the area renamed "Palestine" (not a country) after rome destroyed Israel back in the day. The Current crop of Palestinians are nothing more then political pawns in the game of "Destroy Israel" played by Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. but hey lets keep pretending everything is the Israeli's fault......
The issue is that Israel is evicting and neutralizing the native people who have lived there more longer than the Jews themselves, Destroying Israel are the least of the worries of the countries you sited, when was the last time again when those counties combined and attacked Israel? They have currently more internal strife because of the Arab spring, And most of them Are fighting among themselves or are in conflict with ISIS.
the jews are also from their and have lived their the same length of time (barring the euro jews) so your argument is invalid from the start
Automatically Appended Next Post: ohh and the last time was about 40 years ago. fairly recent
Jehan-reznor wrote: I find it interesting that people who oppose the political agenda of Israel are called antisemitic people, that is like all the Americans that do not agree with Obama's policies are called racists.
I am against what Israel is doing tho the native people who lived there before the zionists came and destroyed the equilibrium that existed between the religious factions for hundred of years.
By the "political agenda of Israel" you mean survival? Heavens forbid!
If the survival of the state of Israel is dependant on the oppression of the Palestinians, what does that say about the state of Israel?
What does it say about the "Palestinians?"
What is your solution? Israel is here, and it's here to stay, so "pack up and move" (aka genocide) is not going to happen. Sorry to disappoint.
Find me somewhere in this thread where anyone is calling for Israel as a nation to "pack up and move". If you can't, could you please stop the strawmen? It's getting old.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Calling people who have their backs against the wall Terrorists in their own country while their last pieces of land are devoured by the Israelian machine is tragic.But Americans with their fixation on the right to bear arms cry foul when Israel invades the parts of land that is still considered Palestinian or Jordanian, And people defending their last area they can still call their own, I don't approve the suicide bombing methods, but the people in gaza never stood a chance against the might of the Israelian army.
And by that post you know that you are posting for a stance of ignorance of middle eastern history. Throughout the history of the middle east, no country has ever been called "Palestine". and the term Palestinian refers to the group who lived in the area renamed "Palestine" (not a country) after rome destroyed Israel back in the day. The Current crop of Palestinians are nothing more then political pawns in the game of "Destroy Israel" played by Syria, Egypt, Lebannon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. but hey lets keep pretending everything is the Israeli's fault......
The issue is that Israel is evicting and neutralizing the native people who have lived there more longer than the Jews themselves, Destroying Israel are the least of the worries of the countries you sited, when was the last time again when those counties combined and attacked Israel? They have currently more internal strife because of the Arab spring, And most of them Are fighting among themselves or are in conflict with ISIS.
the jews are also from their and have lived their the same length of time (barring the euro jews) so your argument is invalid from the start
Automatically Appended Next Post: ohh and the last time was about 40 years ago. fairly recent
Your completely ignoring the fact that Israel are using military power to grab land. Whatever you call the land, and whatever race or religion claims some historic right to it, Israel continue to claim land beyond all agreed boarders and use military force to take it and build houses on it to gain sympathy. Or do you have another justification for Israels continual expansion?
Beyond that the same land was used as staging posts to invade Israel multiple times... Hey keep invading a country with the aim to take all of its land and you don't have the right to complain that that country then turned around, handed you your ass and took your land instead. Would the argument stand had one of its enemies did the same thing to Israel? Probably. Would there be an Israel if it hadn't taken the stance that it has when it comes to warring with its neighbors? Probably not...
Your completely ignoring the fact that Israel are using military power to grab land. Whatever you call the land, and whatever race or religion claims some historic right to it, Israel continue to claim land beyond all agreed boarders and use military force to take it and build houses on it to gain sympathy. Or do you have another justification for Israels continual expansion?
Wyrmalla wrote: Beyond that the same land was used as staging posts to invade Israel multiple times... Hey keep invading a country with the aim to take all of its land and you don't have the right to complain that that country then turned around, handed you your ass and took your land instead. Would the argument stand had one of its enemies did the same thing to Israel? Probably. Would there be an Israel if it hadn't taken the stance that it has when it comes to warring with its neighbors? Probably not...
And exalted
You can't launch several failed invasions at a country without expecting repercussions. Israel has continuously offered peace for land. Your BS argument that Israel hasnt holds no water, especially in view of the recent Gaza war where yet again Israel offered peace for certain concessions, such as Gaza being a weapons free area. The Palestinians refused because they don't want peace, they want Israel for their own.
It hurts every time this conversation comes up. Really leaves me feeling like the guy in Looper.
Be born in Palestine and have a snowball's chance in hell of growing up with a profession of any sort? Probably watching the 'freedom fighters' get all the good food and supplies? Hearing them talk about how they're going to make everything better?
Be born in Israel and have a better standard of living, and a future, but don't forget to be ready for rockets to come and snuff out a relative at any moment.
Don't forget the people that don't often come up in the debate, the Christians in Palestine. They're lower than the Moslems.
But feth Looper kid's solution.
EDIT: In a way though, (minus the suicide), Looper Kid's solution is the only one without war. You have to let go you of (probably justified) grievances or one of you is going to end up dead.
But who can be the first to do that? And who has the authority for force them to? No one, in my opinion.
"Yes, your wife was murdered. But I am telling you to let it go."
"Yes, your mother was murdered. But I am telling you to let it go."
Scrabb wrote: It hurts every time this conversation comes up. Really leaves me feeling like the guy in Looper.
Be born in Palestine and have a snowball's chance in hell of growing up with a profession of any sort? Probably watching the 'freedom fighters' get all the good food and supplies? Hearing them talk about how they're going to make everything better?
Be born in Israel and have a better standard of living, and a future, but don't forget to be ready for rockets to come and snuff out a relative at any moment.
Don't forget the people that don't often come up in the debate, the Christians in Palestine. They're lower than the Moslems.
But feth Looper kid's solution.
EDIT: In a way though, (minus the suicide), Looper Kid's solution is the only one without war. You have to let go you of (probably justified) grievances or one of you is going to end up dead.
But who can be the first to do that? And who has the authority for force them to? No one, in my opinion.
"Yes, your wife was murdered. But I am telling you to let it go."
"Yes, your mother was murdered. But I am telling you to let it go."
The biggest problem is that as the current situation stands, if Israel put down their weapons then Israel would be destroyed within weeks. If Palestinians put down their weapons their would be peace and prosperity. But the latter wont happen because the level of brainwashing at the lowest level means they don't see Israel as an actual country and instead view it as an evil that has to be destroyed at any cost.
Ghazkuul wrote: Israel has continuously offered peace for land. .
'Give us all your stuff, and we won't murder you all'. Hell of a deal there.
And, btw:how does that turn out?
Oh, right, they murder you all anyway, herd your families into camps and take your children from you for 'reeducation'. I can't imagine why the Palestinians choose to fight.
If Palestinians put down their weapons their would be peace and prosperity.
Like there was between 2012 and 2014! Oh, wait, no, instead Israel doubled down and expanded the list of things that Palestinians couldn't own, and herded even more people into ghettos.
Also, minor detail, it wasn't the Palestinians who started the current round of violence. Israel started bombing Gaza in retaliation for the deaths of three boys (IIRC): It turned out that MOSSAD and the IDFknew that the Palestinians had nothing to do with it, and they had been grabbed for ransom by organized crime. Jewish organized crime at that. But they suppressed the information to get their war, knowing as soon as they started bombing, Hamas would launch rockets in response.
On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were abducted in the West Bank: Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah. Israel blamed Hamas, with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that he had "unequivocal proof" that Hamas was involved and that the abduction was linked to Palestinian reconciliation, and the IDF stated that the two men Israel suspected of having kidnapped the teenagers were known members of Hamas. No evidence of Hamas involvement was offered by Israeli authorities at the time.
High-ranking members of Hamas denied the group had any involvement in the incident, and ex-Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin doubted Hamas had any involvement. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank attributed the abductions to the Qawasameh clan, notorious for acting against Hamas's policies and any attempts to reach an entente with Israel. Hamas political chief Khaled Meshal said he could neither confirm nor deny the kidnapping of the three Israelis, but congratulated the abductors. The kidnappings were condemned by human rights organizations. Documents released by Israel suggest that Hamas member Hussam Qawasmeh organized the kidnappings with $60,000 provided by his brother Mahmoud through a Hamas association in Gaza, after requesting support for a "military operation".
On 20 August, Saleh al-Arouri, an exiled Hamas leader based in Turkey, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens: "Our goal was to ignite an intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as within the 1948 borders... Your brothers in the Al-Qassam Brigades carried out this operation to support their imprisoned brothers, who were on a a hunger strike... The mujahideen captured these settlers in order to have a swap deal."Palestinian security forces said the kidnappings were organized by Saleh al-Arouri.
Khalid Meshaal, head in exile of Hamas's political wing since 2004, acknowledged that Hamas members were responsible, but stated that its political leaders had no prior knowledge of the abduction, were not involved in military details and learnt of it through the ensuing Israeli investigations. He also said that while Hamas was opposed to targeting civilians, he understood that Palestinians "frustrated with oppression" were exercising a "legitimate right of resistance" against the occupation by undertaking such operations. Israel states that the IDF and the Shin Bet have foiled between 54 and 64 kidnapping plots since 2013. The PA said it had foiled 43 of them.
Maybe you didn't recall correctly. Not that anyone will be surprised at that.
Maybe you didn't recall correctly. Not that anyone will be surprised at that.
Ah, nope.
It turned out that Salah al-Arouri had nothing to do with it, despite claiming he did. In fact, it turned out that none of the people in your little blub there had anything to do with it.
It was really run by the Qawasmeh group, who operate out of Hebron. They have ties to Hamas, but don't take orders from them, and occasionally actively try to sabotage Hamas efforts toward any kind of peace with Israel. According to the testimony of Hussam Qawasmeh, they had planned on contacting Hamas to negotiate an exchange. The Kidnapping had fallen apart when one of the boys asked if the other two could ride along. Not knowing what to do, the kidnappers panicked and killed the kids.
Examining events, a few Hamas operatives, one of whom was a relative, Hassan Qawasmeh, were peripherally involved, providing them with a car other materials, and, afterwards, attempting to assist them in escaping to Jordan.
I was, however, mistaken about them being Jewish. But it was organized crime, rather than Hamas, and it was known to the IDF, who were chasing these guys around Hebron since before the airstrikes even started.
For some real hilarity, having that last name in Hebron may get you killed out of hand by IDF. In a sad mixup, IDF troops looking for Wael Mahmoud Said Bitar entered the apartment of Omar al-Qawasmeh, 66, who lived one floor over Bitar. They took his wife at gunpoint, and then shot the old man in his sleep. Then noticed that the dead man was not the 32 year old Bitar.
Ustrello wrote: So what does a bunch of dead indians have to do with palestiane?
Probably something to the effect of: negotiations held under the barrel of a gun don't work out well for those whom the gun is pointed at.
That and the fact that Israel's offer to the Palestinians is pretty similar. "Give us everything you own, and you get to live." If you don't agree, they kill you. If you do agree, they pack you off to an unlivable hell and deny you the basic requirements to survive.
Maybe you didn't recall correctly. Not that anyone will be surprised at that.
Ah, nope.
It turned out that Salah al-Arouri had nothing to do with it, despite claiming he did. In fact, it turned out that none of the people in your little blub there had anything to do with it.
It was really run by the Qawasmeh group, who operate out of Hebron. They have ties to Hamas, but don't take orders from them, and occasionally actively try to sabotage Hamas efforts toward any kind of peace with Israel. According to the testimony of Hussam Qawasmeh, they had planned on contacting Hamas to negotiate an exchange. The Kidnapping had fallen apart when one of the boys asked if the other two could ride along. Not knowing what to do, the kidnappers panicked and killed the kids.
Examining events, a few Hamas operatives, one of whom was a relative, Hassan Qawasmeh, were peripherally involved, providing them with a car other materials, and, afterwards, attempting to assist them in escaping to Jordan.
I was, however, mistaken about them being Jewish. But it was organized crime, rather than Hamas, and it was known to the IDF, who were chasing these guys around Hebron since before the airstrikes even started.
For some real hilarity, having that last name in Hebron may get you killed out of hand by IDF. In a sad mixup, IDF troops looking for Wael Mahmoud Said Bitar entered the apartment of Omar al-Qawasmeh, 66, who lived one floor over Bitar. They took his wife at gunpoint, and then shot the old man in his sleep. Then noticed that the dead man was not the 32 year old Bitar.
Ustrello wrote: So what does a bunch of dead indians have to do with palestiane?
Probably something to the effect of: negotiations held under the barrel of a gun don't work out well for those whom the gun is pointed at.
That and the fact that Israel's offer to the Palestinians is pretty similar. "Give us everything you own, and you get to live." If you don't agree, they kill you. If you do agree, they pack you off to an unlivable hell and deny you the basic requirements to survive.
So hamas only had a partial role in the killing of 3 innocent underage Israeli teenagers. Good for them, of course it doesn't change the fact that it was still a Palestinian terrorist group kidnapping children and then executing them.
The fact remains though that only 1 country has agreed to peace with Israel and that is Egypt and surprising nobody, that peace has lasted. Israel gave Egypt back the entire Sinai Peninsula and peace has been complete since then.
So hamas only had a partial role in the killing of 3 innocent underage Israeli teenagers.
In the sense that Kevan Bacon was also involved, yes. I'll use the late Mr Whitlock as an example: He sells guns to Hamas, he also sells guns to me. If I shoot up a convenience store with them, was that Hamas' fault? To use an example from this incident, i go to my cousin, who's a Hamas guy, and ask him to smuggle me out of the country. Is he doing it because he's Hamas, or because he's my cousin?
Good for them, of course it doesn't change the fact that it was still a Palestinian terrorist group kidnapping children and then executing them.
Didn't say it was justified. Said that Israel used it as a justification to kill thousands of civilians in an unrelated area. Civilians, who, btw, included women and children. The terrorists were either killed or arrested. The IDF men who authorized the targeting of civilians were not punished.
The fact remains though that only 1 country has agreed to peace with Israel and that is Egypt and surprising nobody, that peace has lasted. Israel gave Egypt back the entire Sinai Peninsula and peace has been complete since then.
Aided by a hefty yearly bribe from the US, and the occasional US backed coup to make sure it stays that way.
So hamas only had a partial role in the killing of 3 innocent underage Israeli teenagers.
In the sense that Kevan Bacon was also involved, yes. I'll use the late Mr Whitlock as an example: He sells guns to Hamas, he also sells guns to me. If I shoot up a convenience store with them, was that Hamas' fault? To use an example from this incident, i go to my cousin, who's a Hamas guy, and ask him to smuggle me out of the country. Is he doing it because he's Hamas, or because he's my cousin?
Good for them, of course it doesn't change the fact that it was still a Palestinian terrorist group kidnapping children and then executing them.
Didn't say it was justified. Said that Israel used it as a justification to kill thousands of civilians in an unrelated area. Civilians, who, btw, included women and children. The terrorists were either killed or arrested. The IDF men who authorized the targeting of civilians were not punished.
The fact remains though that only 1 country has agreed to peace with Israel and that is Egypt and surprising nobody, that peace has lasted. Israel gave Egypt back the entire Sinai Peninsula and peace has been complete since then.
Aided by a hefty yearly bribe from the US, and the occasional US backed coup to make sure it stays that way.
actually the attacks occurred after a couple of Israeli kids kidnapped a Palestinian boy in retaliation and burned him alive, another deplorable act, what followed was the Palestinians shooting rockets into Israel and ambushing a border crossing. so don't lie and skew facts.
Relapse wrote: What is interesting is the fact that the Arab world is tearing itself apart and Israel is about the only country over there with any order.
What's the Netanyahu quote? "Democracy ends at our border".
Relapse wrote: What is interesting is the fact that the Arab world is tearing itself apart and Israel is about the only country over there with any order.
Maybe their leadership not being killed off by the US + allies, on the Saudis behalf, has something to do with it? Iraq, Syria, and Libya were stable until we opened the way for ISIS when we killed off the Saudis rival dictators.
Relapse wrote: What is interesting is the fact that the Arab world is tearing itself apart and Israel is about the only country over there with any order.
Maybe their leadership not being killed off by the US + allies, on the Saudis behalf, has something to do with it? Iraq, Syria, and Libya were stable until we opened the way for ISIS when we killed off the Saudis rival dictators.
If you believe that then you never studied ANY middle eastern history beyond what internet trolls tell you and what the news tells you. Syria went through more dictators/presidents in the last 50 years then the US has had presidents (exaggeration...but not by much) Libya? seriously? Go look at a map and then explain to me how Saddam Hussein kept Libya in line. And as far as Iraq being stable? try again, the kurds have fought several wars for independence...you might remember that whole human rights violation where Saddam gassed tens of thousands of people..yeah that was the kurds. Or that little Mapquest error where Iraq meant to go to White Castle but ended up invading Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia...yeah thats wicked stable.
Relapse wrote: What is interesting is the fact that the Arab world is tearing itself apart and Israel is about the only country over there with any order.
Maybe their leadership not being killed off by the US + allies, on the Saudis behalf, has something to do with it? Iraq, Syria, and Libya were stable until we opened the way for ISIS when we killed off the Saudis rival dictators.
If you believe that then you never studied ANY middle eastern history beyond what internet trolls tell you and what the news tells you. Syria went through more dictators/presidents in the last 50 years then the US has had presidents (exaggeration...but not by much) Libya? seriously? Go look at a map and then explain to me how Saddam Hussein kept Libya in line. And as far as Iraq being stable? try again, the kurds have fought several wars for independence...you might remember that whole human rights violation where Saddam gassed tens of thousands of people..yeah that was the kurds. Or that little Mapquest error where Iraq meant to go to White Castle but ended up invading Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia...yeah thats wicked stable.
Have you ever heard the phase "Best the devil you know". I never said any of the dictators was a nice guy so I dont know why half you crap you typed is about their crimes so please dont try to take some twisted moral high-ground with me. I stated they were stable because they were, relative to the shitstorm we have now.
Relapse wrote: What is interesting is the fact that the Arab world is tearing itself apart and Israel is about the only country over there with any order.
Maybe their leadership not being killed off by the US + allies, on the Saudis behalf, has something to do with it? Iraq, Syria, and Libya were stable until we opened the way for ISIS when we killed off the Saudis rival dictators.
If you believe that then you never studied ANY middle eastern history beyond what internet trolls tell you and what the news tells you. Syria went through more dictators/presidents in the last 50 years then the US has had presidents (exaggeration...but not by much) Libya? seriously? Go look at a map and then explain to me how Saddam Hussein kept Libya in line. And as far as Iraq being stable? try again, the kurds have fought several wars for independence...you might remember that whole human rights violation where Saddam gassed tens of thousands of people..yeah that was the kurds. Or that little Mapquest error where Iraq meant to go to White Castle but ended up invading Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia...yeah thats wicked stable.
Have you ever heard the phase "Best the devil you know". I never said any of the dictators was a nice guy so I dont know why half you crap you typed is about their crimes so please dont try to take some twisted moral high-ground with me. I stated they were stable because they were, relative to the shitstorm we have now.
Syria is only SLIGHTLY less stable then it has been in the last 50 years. Go read their history if you don't believe me. Libya? we haven't done anything to libya so they can deal with their own nonsense. and as far as Iraq. I would call a country that randomly invades its neighbors anything BUT stable. Yes the dictator kept the people from killing each other, because he forced half his population to live as secondary citizens and whenever they got uppity he would gas them.
The reason I point out the crimes is because that proves they were never stable. Blaming the US for removing Saddam is fine, but don't pretend that his country was stable before.
Syria is only SLIGHTLY less stable then it has been in the last 50 years. Go read their history if you don't believe me. Libya? we haven't done anything to libya so they can deal with their own nonsense. and as far as Iraq. I would call a country that randomly invades its neighbors anything BUT stable. Yes the dictator kept the people from killing each other, because he forced half his population to live as secondary citizens and whenever they got uppity he would gas them.
The reason I point out the crimes is because that proves they were never stable. Blaming the US for removing Saddam is fine, but don't pretend that his country was stable before.
How about the US removing the democratically elected government of Syria via military coup, which is what started the instability there in the first place?
I seem to recall that the US tried to assassinate the then government of Libya during Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986, and then aided in the overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011.
As far as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, there was nothing random to it. Kuwait was deliberately sabotaging Iraq's economy by literally stealing the oil out from under Iraq, selling it for pennies on the dollar, and demanding repayment of $60 billion that Iraq had borrowed from Kuwait to pay for the Iran - Iraq war. When the US Ambassador was asked the US position on the issue, Saddam's government was told the US had no opinion on the issue of an Arab-Arab conflict, and had no intent of starting a conflict with Iraq over it. When asked later why the Ambassador had told him that, her response was that the US had no idea he was going to take it that far.
Overthrown 5 years later, and there was no solid proof we did anything.
Oh, so a military dictatorship being overthrown means it no longer has any effects on the stability of a country? Good to know. Guess the Confederates weren't a problem then, seeing as they only lasted four years as opposed to five, no?
Overthrown 5 years later, and there was no solid proof we did anything.
Yeah, from there on the US and Russia played musical dictators.
And, according to declassified CIA documents, yes, yes you did.
A while ago, someone posted that there never was country called Palestine. I forget who, but actually, yes, there was before, the Mandate of Palestine, and herein lays the root of the problem.
During WW1 England promised various Arab provinces independence if they backed them against the Ottoman Turks. One of these was Palestine. Apparently they hadn't read up on how England plays this game, historically, or they'd have known better. However, they obligingly died in their thousands thinking they were getting independence out of it.
Imagine their surprise when England double crossed them and took over, supposedly only ruling until such time as they were 'self sufficient'.
Interestingly, the name Palestine is not a roman word. Variations on it go back as far as Rameses III in 1150BC, but the word was we now know it comes from Greek, which was the lingua franca of the region during the Roman era. Herodotus, in 450 BC, in his Histories, and Arrian, in Anabasis both refer to the area as Palestine rather than Judea. At the time, it was the equivalent of calling people from the US 'Americans'.
Other interesting notes: historical Judea was about about a quarter the size of modern Israel, according to the boundaries set following the return when Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon. Rome however lumped the current area all under the same administrative province briefly, along with Syria, Jordan, and Northern Iraq. (The Levant) The current boarders were the creation of the British and French, who wished to ensure that the region remained unstable, with no strong powers emerging, when they divided the place up.
Boy, did they succeed.
Edit: interestingly, several genetic studies have suggested that, at one point, Palestinians and Jews were the same people. Interestingly enough, Palestinians in the area of Nabalus are admitted to have been Samaritans before their force conversion to Islam under the Ottomans, and still use many Samaritan surnames.
History my friend, you should read it. Palestinian is a term given to people who lived in Palestine. Palestine is the name given to Israel AFTER the romans destroyed the country. It was a roman insult to the jews, referencing the Phillistines who the Jews had beaten in a previous war.
