Israeli Ambassador [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

putty

01-24-2004, 09:55 PM

What makes you think you guys arent brainwashed into believing the Palestinians are solely to blame? :)

You either misunderstood or are inserting your own prejudices here. I never said that the Palestinians are solely to blame for the current situation.

Also, there is no massive increase in anti-semitism, at least not in the UK.

If you say so. It's too bad that a study released in 2003 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) said just the opposite. It points to an increase in anti-semitic attacks and specifically found a turning point of October 2000. Coincidently, that was the start of the latest intifadah.

In your UK, they reported 22 synagogue attacks in the 22 months prior to Oct 2000 and 78 such attacks in the 22 months after Oct 2000. But hey, if you say that there is no increase I'll take your word for it. The data shows that an increasing number of anti-semitic attacks are being purpetrated by Muslim youth and other supporters of the Palestinians including the Left wing ant-globalization crowd. The report concluded that the line of anti-Israel criticism and anti-semitism has been crossed and cited many instances of using old anti-semitic stereotypes as part of criticism of Israel. It also cited the fact that swastikas are commonly seen at anti-Israel rallies. Not to mention the fact that the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion was widely seen at the Durban Conference on racism in South Africa that became an anti-Israel conference for all intents & purposes.

After the EUMC commissioned this report, they decided not to publish it, objecting to the way it was conducted. One of the German members of the EUMC called the non-release of this report "appalling". Berlin's Technical University, which conducted the study for EUMC said that the EUMC signed off on the design and parameters of it and only objected when they saw the results. Since 9/11, the EUMC has published 3 anti-Islamicism studies and have yet to publish and anti-semitism one despite the glaring rise.

The artist in question is Jewish so hes hardly likley to be a raving anti-semite is he? If you listen to the Israeli Gvt he is though.

Again, I think that you've misunderstood. The question is why was Israel a topic at an exhibit related to a conference on genocide. Why were the three pieces related to Israel showing things from the Palestinian view? Why the lone opposing piece objected to by Syria and so, was not displayed?

I found it very amusing that the Swedish representatives went on about how there is no excuse for violence. You can disagree and vent your disatisfaction but there is no need to ruin the display. This is all about a display that itself tries to explain how semingly normal people get pushed to violence! Nice double-standard.

This is a microcosm of the greater view that Israel is being singled out. Why were there no exhibits displaying the beauty of Chechen suicide bombers? Iraqi suicide bombers? 9/11 suicide bombers? Why are there no sweeping street protests complaining about the occupation of Kurdish land? Why no protests about Syria (a supporter of the terrorist Hezbollah group) that is occupying Lebanon?

Do you think that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace? Most of your fellow Eurpeans do. Even the results of that portion of the poll were called "unstable" and the held back by the EU as they released the results of portions of the same poll related to Iraq. It's laughable.

European leaders and the press have crossed the line so many times that they've convinced their populations that Israel is (to quote the French amabassador to the UK), "a shitty little country".

If you really want to dig into how the US media works find out who owns the major networks and their religeous affiliation.

:helpsmile:

According to the EUMC report's definition of anti-semiticism, the 1st form is "...the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA..."

Congrats!

Now, if you want to learn something about truth... GE (NBC) is the biggest media company and is publicly owned. Time Warner (CNN) is also public. So Sony, Disney(ABC), Viacom (CBS), MGM, Clear Channel and most other media giants. One that is privately owned is Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch who is not a Jew.

You can take that to whoever misinformed you.

You wont hear many people in the UK attributing blame 100% to either side. Which makes you think.. who are the brainwashed ones

And in spite of serious disagreements among Jews & Muslims relating to the current conflict, have you ever thought about why there are no Jews attacking Muslims in Argentina, Turkey, France, UK and elsewhere? Why do Jews & Muslims living within Israel get along quite well, although there are obviously trying moments.

Why do you not find Israeli newspapers publishing reports about how Muslims use Jewish childrens' blood in cooking the Eid feast? FYI, this is what the Saudi official govt. newspaper published around 2 years ago in regards to the holiday of Purim and the Jewish use of blood from Muslim children to bake cookies. It gave a detailed description ofhow this is done. Egyptian govt TV last year showed a miniseries re-enacting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I'm sorry but it does seem that your anti-Israel stance has been hijacked by those who use it as a thinly veiled disguise for anti-semitism. Just like Islam as a religion has been hijacked by those using as an excuse for their violence.

ButWay

01-24-2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by putty@24 January 2004 - 07:02
It's been reported that there was 1 piece that represented the Israeli view but it was pulled after pressure from Syria.

Where did you hear that, in fox news?

there will be an Israeli artist displaying he's work but he got delayed, for he's own reasons.
And on a side note the Israeli artist thought that it was crazy starting all this beef over a piece of art that could be interpreted in Manny different ways

leftism

01-24-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by putty
According to the EUMC report's definition of anti-semiticism, the 1st form is "...the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA..."

Congrats!

Now, if you want to learn something about truth... GE (NBC) is the biggest media company and is publicly owned. Time Warner (CNN) is also public. So Sony, Disney(ABC), Viacom (CBS), MGM, Clear Channel and most other media giants. One that is privately owned is Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch who is not a Jew.

According to the law of the Talmud and the present laws of Israel, Rupert Murdoch is a Jew. His father married Elisabeth Joy Greene who is from a wealthy Jewish family.

As for those other companies, just because they are "publicly owned" means nothing. Shareholders do not get to make decisions about the political stance an organisation will take. As long as the profits keep flowing in they are happy bunnies. :)

Is it anti-semitic to point out that huge swathes of the media are owned by Jew's and thus put forward a pro-Israel stance? If it is then that means you're anti-muslim for pointing out the anti-Israel stance that the Saudi media takes.

Now.. this huge rise in anti-semitism in the UK.. who am I to say anything? I only live 10 miles from the biggest Jewish centre in the UK so what do I know!

It may be different in France and other countries with large populations of muslim youth but I can only speak from local knowledge of the UK.

Now.. the reason you are not seeing "exhibits displaying the beauty of Chechen suicide bombers? Iraqi suicide bombers? 9/11 suicide bombers?" etc is because they are TERRORISTS not civilized governments. There is nothing noteworthy in a snake biting you, its a god damn snake what do you expect? If a person bites you its a different matter and will obviously attract more attention.

The fact is that in Europe we have a far more balanced view of the middle east situation compared to the USA, and because we are not fanatically pro-Israel like much of the US seems to be, the pro-Israel lobby is trying to put it down to nothing but anti-semitism.

I am not saying that anti-semitism doesnt exist, I'm just vehemently opposed to this ludicrous notion put forward by pro-Jewish groups that the only reason Europe disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is because we're all a bunch of Jew haters. I find that extremely offensive.

hobbes

01-24-2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by leftism@24 January 2004 - 23:44
The fact is that in Europe we have a far more balanced view of the middle east situation compared to the USA, and because we are not fanatically pro-Israel like much of the US seems to be, the pro-Israel lobby is trying to put it down to nothing but anti-semitism.

I am not saying that anti-semitism doesnt exist, I'm just vehemently opposed to this ludicrous notion put forward by pro-Jewish groups that the only reason Europe disagrees with Israeli foreign policy is because we're all a bunch of Jew haters. I find that extremely offensive.
I find it extremely offensive to be called "fanatically pro-Israel".

Do you mean that your "policies" toward Israel are more "balanced" than the "US" or that your citizens because, of your unique unbiased BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/default.stm) (which we have absolutely no access to), have a more accurate picture of what is going in Israel? Your use of the phrase "much of the US" suggests to me that you are talking about the people, not our policies. I could be wrong.

As I have said many times, the average American does not even know where Israel is and certainly couldn't give a shit. Certainly most Americans can see the "protective wall" (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/chi-0401140294jan14,0,7205400.story?coll=ny-nationworld-headlines)(Which, of course, we don't know about) being built is a covert way of driving Palestineans from their land.

We probably have as many Jews here as there are in Israel itself. These people are certainly active and influental in promoting pro-Israeli policies, but to characterize most of America as being "fanatically pro-Israeli" is ludicrous.

It is amazing how the use of emotive language totally undermines any credibility the author might have. Typical of EBP.

Biggles

01-24-2004, 11:51 PM

Hobbes

Alas, it is a complicated world. There are those who would suggest that you are all paid up members of the KKK. However, there is the teeny problem that they didn't have a lot of time of Jews, Catholics, oh and those of Sub-Saharan origin.

Mutually exclusive springs to mind. But who am I to pee into the wind. (Was that Bob Dylan?)

:blink:

leftism

01-25-2004, 02:13 AM

hobbes.

I can only speak about the Americans I have talked to. They were fully aware that billions of their tax
dollars goes to Israel and they were quite happy with that situation. If anyone dared to mention that
Israel may be respnsible for any wrongdoing the suggestion was met with astounding ferocity. I think the
group was alt.politics.middle-east or something like that. You can take a look through google and see what
kind of stuff I'm talking about. This, to me at least, did seem like fanaticism. I've never encountered such
a mentality in England and I couldnt think of any other reason why saying that Israel isnt completely
blameless would merit such aggression. I accept that the word 'fanatacism' is rather emotive.. but seriously..
you had to be there. The word seemed very fitting at the time.

Now it seems that the USA is being told that we Europeans are just a bunch of closet Nazis and thats
why we dont support everything that Israel does. Again the only explanation I can find is that the US
media must be responsible for this. You know that hardly anyone in the US watches the BBC compared
to Fox, CNN or Sky. So just because the BBC is available in the US doesnt mean that my argument, i.e
that the media is to blame, is incorrect.

PS Sorry if the wrapping on my text is messed up but Im using konqueror in linux. Its a bit different :)
PPS The only EBP I know of is the x86 Extended Base Pointer but I dont think thats what your getting
at?

hobbes

01-25-2004, 02:44 AM

1. Don't despair, you may have run into a particularly motivated bunch. Certainly dealing with people that make little to no effort to see both sides tend to cause our emotions to seep into our otherwise objective opinions.

Israel does get a great deal of positive P.R. in the US because there are so many familiar and well loved Jewish people on TV and in the movies (Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Steward, and on and on). An endorsement of association for Israel. People here have so many more "touchstones" with Jewish people than they have with Palestineans.

If I went to work and asked around, most people would probably side with Israel, but overall there is a sense of disinterest and hopelessness about that situation.

There are people on this forum who believe that the conflict is 100% Israels' fault and that the Palestineans have no culpability, so I understand how you could get frustrated.

2. You may be getting some bad info. I certainly am not getting the opinion that you are closet Nazi's from my TV, nor would I believe it, if I were.

You know that hardly anyone in the US watches the BBC compared
to Fox, CNN or Sky. So just because the BBC is available in the US doesnt mean that my argument, i.e
that the media is to blame, is incorrect

Yes, a valid point.

It is just that emotive language and the brainwashed media/ BBC impartiality theme, brought back bad memories from this forums past.

putty

01-25-2004, 09:00 AM

According to the law of the Talmud and the present laws of Israel, Rupert Murdoch is a Jew. His father married Elisabeth Joy Greene who is from a wealthy Jewish family.

You know... I thought that this was very interesting since it's the first time I'd heard that he was Jewish. I decided to look it up and I have to say that the only websites where I found this mentioned was on alternative history websites or severely anti-semitic (yes, anti-semitic) sites. Coincidently, the same little blurb about "according to the Talmud and present laws of Israel" was also used on each of these sites. These sites all spoke of Murdoch being Jewish in the context of a vast Jewish conspiracy in which Murdoch as well as many other Jews knew of 9/11 weeks before it happened, implying that Jews were the purpetrators.

Example:
direct quote from convicted holocaust denier David Irving's site: "And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Murdoch2.html

Other sites that repeat the same thing pretty much word for word are "truthseeker" and "the unjust media", two virulently anti-semitic sites.
Now, why your own words are so close to those of David Irving's..... my mind can only wonder.

I now feel no need to respond to the rest of your post since one thing the internet has taught me is not to bother debating with folks who believe crap like this.But whatever, I'm a slow learner.

As for those other companies, just because they are "publicly owned" means nothing. Shareholders do not get to make decisions about the political stance an organisation will take. As long as the profits keep flowing in they are happy bunnies.

You need to learn something about public corporations. They do answer to their shareholders. Profits depend on this. If you don't believe me, go read an economics book. The least you can do is admit that you were wrong about these companies being owned by Jews.

Is it anti-semitic to point out that huge swathes of the media are owned by Jew's and thus put forward a pro-Israel stance?

It is anti-semitic if it's not true.

Now.. this huge rise in anti-semitism in the UK.. who am I to say anything? I only live 10 miles from the biggest Jewish centre in the UK so what do I know!

So, because you live 10 miles (that ain't so close, my friend!!) from a Jewish community centre, you feel that you know of the plight of anti-semitism in the UK better than an EU commission's detailed study. P'shaw! :D

Now.. the reason you are not seeing "exhibits displaying the beauty of Chechen suicide bombers? Iraqi suicide bombers? 9/11 suicide bombers?" etc is because they are TERRORISTS not civilized governments.

You've confused yourself here. This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that Palestinian suicide bombers killing children at cafes and night clubs and restaurants are not terrorists, like Chechen suicide bombers or Iraqi suicide bombers that are trying to drive out the US occupation forces?

The fact is that in Europe we have a far more balanced view of the middle east situation compared to the USA, and because we are not fanatically pro-Israel...

How sinple life must be to know that you are so even-minded and balanced whereas those other people are so blinded by money and media influence. Now, pray tell, how do you know that it's not YOU who is blinded by the BBC and The Guardian (owned by a massively rich and far Left Scott Trust, which owns The Observer among a couple dozen other major newspapers & magazines) who are biased in their own right? With so many more Muslims that Jews in the UK and the rest of Europe, how do you know that you're not getting pro-Palestinian info because that's who the media plays to?

Jeez, how easy it must be to know that you are of such a free mind while everyone else is biased and blinded.

leftism

01-25-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You know... I thought that this was very interesting since it's the first time I'd heard that he was Jewish. I decided to look it up and I have to say that the only websites where I found this mentioned was on alternative history websites or severely anti-semitic (yes, anti-semitic) sites. Coincidently, the same little blurb about "according to the Talmud and present laws of Israel" was also used on each of these sites. These sites all spoke of Murdoch being Jewish in the context of a vast Jewish conspiracy in which Murdoch as well as many other Jews knew of 9/11 weeks before it happened, implying that Jews were the purpetrators.

Example:
direct quote from convicted holocaust denier David Irving's site: "And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Murdoch2.html

Other sites that repeat the same thing pretty much word for word are "truthseeker" and "the unjust media", two virulently anti-semitic sites.
Now, why your own words are so close to those of David Irving's..... my mind can only wonder. [/b]

Interesting. You havent denied Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Believe it or not but I do not copy and paste crap from Anti-semitic nutcases.

Lets leave your paranoiac fantasies to one side for a moment and focus on the facts.

Fact: Rupert Murdochs father married into a Jewish family
Fact: According to Jewish tradition this makes him a Jew.

Does this mean the Jews are out to rule the world? No.
Does this mean they knew about 9/11? No.
Does it mean that Rupert Murdoch may be motivated to present a pro-Israeli viewpoint through his media outlets? Yes.
Can you provide an alternative reason as to why so many media stations are vehemently pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian? No.

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You need to learn something about public corporations. They do answer to their shareholders. Profits depend on this. If you don't believe me, go read an economics book.[/b]

It's quite clear that profit margins are not adversely affected by portraying a pro-Israel stance. Day to day running of these corporations is not handled by shareholders. My point stands.

Originally posted by putty
So, because you live 10 miles (that ain't so close, my friend!!) from a Jewish community centre, you feel that you know of the plight of anti-semitism in the UK better than an EU commission's detailed study. P'shaw

This would be the same EU study that wasnt published because of anti-semitism in the EU? I wonder... is there anything you cant explain away with anti-semitism? Apparently not.

Maybe the authorities are involved in an anti-semitic conspiracy in my local area to make sure that news of all these anti-semitic attacks aren't shown on the local news?

<!--QuoteBegin-putty@
How sinple life must be to know that you are so even-minded and balanced whereas those other people are so blinded by money and media influence. Now, pray tell, how do you know that it's not YOU who is blinded by the BBC and The Guardian (owned by a massively rich and far Left Scott Trust, which owns The Observer among a couple dozen other major newspapers & magazines)
who are biased in their own right?
[/quote]

What do they have to gain from being anti-semitic or anti-Israel? What motivation do they have for feeding us all these lies? Are the owners mulsims? Are they Palestinians?

Of course thats ignoring the fact that these media outlets do not apportion blame to one side exclusively and that they also show the terrible suffering endured by BOTH sides in this conflict.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
With so many more Muslims that Jews in the UK and the rest of Europe, how do you know that you're not getting pro-Palestinian info because that's who the media plays to?[/quote]

lol... the entire non-white population of the UK is around 5-6%. Se lets be excessively generous and say 3% of the UK population are muslims. Your now arguing that the media in the UK is giving a pro-Palestinian viewpoint (which they are not) to secure the sales of newspapers to 3% of the population whilst ignoring what the other 97% may think of this?

You've come to this conclusion based on the fact that the UK media in general is not 100% supportive of Israel and doesnt blame the Palestinians exclusively for the problems in the middle east?

Thats the true measure of how biased the US media has become. Anything other than total unconditional support for Israel is construed as rampant anti-semitism.

Thats what this is all about, and now the political pressure is being applied to the EU because of the crime of disagreeing with Israels policies. If that means labelling the population of Europe as Nazis... so be it. What if you're a European and you have a problem with the people who are pushing this argument like crazy in the US? Got it one! Your anti-semitic!

putty

01-25-2004, 07:45 PM

Interesting. You havent denied Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Believe it or not but I do not copy and paste crap from Anti-semitic nutcases.

Please provide proof of his Jewish mother. Give me a link.

I find it very funny that every anti-semitic website words it in the way that "his father married a wealthy Jewish family... making him Jewish according to the Talmud... blah blah and laws of Israel", as opposed to a simple "his mother is Jewish." And I find it hysterical that this is word for word how you wrote it! :D

So, give me a link to support your statement. I don't believe you. I don't believe that he is Jewish.

It's quite clear that profit margins are not adversely affected by portraying a pro-Israel stance. Day to day running of these corporations is not handled by shareholders. My point stands.

Sigh. You said that these companies are all owned byJews. You were wrong. Be a man and admit it that your fantasies of a wealthy Jew-owned media spewing 100% pro-Israel crap on TV stations that you've never seen is dead wrong.

This would be the same EU study that wasnt published because of anti-semitism in the EU?

Um no. It's the same study that was not published because they did not want to fess up to the results showing that anti-semitic attacks were on a steep rise and related the Israel/Palestine conflict. Hence, the attacks were crossing the line from anti-Israel to anti-semitism.

This doesn't reflect kindly on their oh so even-handed Middle East policy. Neither does the fact that Europeans now view Israel as the world's greatest threat to peace. Must be all that even-handedness! "D

Rat Faced

01-27-2004, 01:25 AM

I dont know if he has a Jewish Mother and was brought up as a Jew or not, he certainly hasnt ever denied it. Although this may or may not matter, depending upon how he feels about his faith (or indeed, if he follows any faith)

I do know that he is very good friends with Mr Sharron though, and has been since the early 1980's at least. Mr Sharron, in my opinion, is a person that should be in Jail for crimes against humanity (and yes, so should a number of Islamic and christian leaders, this isnt anti-jew/israel) and to be friends with such a person does not endear him to me.

Fox is owned by News Corporation...ie Rupert Murdoch

CNN former CEO was Mr Isaacson, dont know who the new guy is..however the network is owned by TBS, which in turn is owned by Time Warner.

ABC joint CEO's I believe are Lloyd Braun (remember the piss takes on Seinfeld?)and Stu Bloomberg. The company is owned by Walt Disney, CEO Michael Eisner, known for his macro management style...

Between them Rupert Murdoch and Michael Eisener could be perceived to control most of the US media...

putty

01-29-2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by putty@25 January 2004 - 19:45

Please provide proof of his Jewish mother. Give me a link.

Tap tap tap.

leftism

01-29-2004, 11:05 AM

I hope you dont think the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is anti-semitic...

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/series4/9906.htm

Are you now going to start arguing that the Greene (her maiden name) family aren't Jewish?

putty

01-29-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by leftism@29 January 2004 - 11:05
I hope you dont think the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is anti-semitic...

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/series4/9906.htm

Are you now going to start arguing that the Greene (her maiden name) family aren't Jewish?

Are you now going to start arguing that the Greene (her maiden name) family aren't Jewish?

:)

I already knew that his mother was Greene. That wasn't the question here. You were supposed to provide a link attesting to their Jewishness.

I'd be very interested in reading about her Judaism. Please educate me.

All I could find is that in 1942 she launched a Good Friday appeal for the Melbourne Children's Hospital.

lynx

01-29-2004, 07:09 PM

You might have been interested to see a news report on UK television last week. It showed Palestinian kids (about 7 or 8 years old) throwing stones and rubbish at an Israeli tank. The tank opened fire with it's machine gun. Such a well balanced response from those nice Israeli soldiers, their ears must have been ringing from the clatter of stones.

Rat Faced

01-29-2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by putty@29 January 2004 - 17:23

I already knew that his mother was Greene. That wasn't the question here. You were supposed to provide a link attesting to their Jewishness.

Man of the Year (http://www.globes.co.il/DocsEn/did=350883.htm)

The "Man-of-the Year" award was conferred upon Murdoch for his dedication to the communications industry, the Jewish community and the State of Israel.

Robert Maxwell is a past example of how the Israeli government echelon fosters the link with Jewish tycoons. And Benjamin Netanyahu was happy to take part in the event via satellite and to embrace Murdoch verbally with Prime Ministerial warmth.

"I am proud to accept this award", said Murdoch. "The Jewish national goal has always been important to me, to my family and to my company"

The thing is...being Jewish/Islamic/Christian etc has sod all to do with running a company, nor indeed is it anyones business.

The only websites that would actually look into this type of thing are those with their own agendas. This doesnt mean that those websites are lying, just that you must bear their agenda in mind when you read them.

Although i am not going to go looking all over the net for public domain knowledge..ie Rupert Murdoch has links with Israel... here is a business site (not a political site) based in Israel.

Maybe you'll believe their own words?

Its a lot easier showing evidence that he's a lying, treacherous bastard (ir-respective of his social/religious/business beliefs).....i'll let you look up those examples yourself? ;)

Rat Faced

01-29-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by lynx@29 January 2004 - 19:09
You might have been interested to see a news report on UK television last week. It showed Palestinian kids (about 7 or 8 years old) throwing stones and rubbish at an Israeli tank. The tank opened fire with it's machine gun. Such a well balanced response from those nice Israeli soldiers, their ears must have been ringing from the clatter of stones.
THIS is why Israel is getting such a bad press in Europe.

Hardly mentioned on Sky, or in the News Corp owned media.....however the suicide bombing this morning is all over the place.

Shooting kids from a Tank mustnt be as bad.....

In my opinion, they are both nasty.

Israeli's did theirs safely from behind armour though, while the Palestinian had nothing left to lose maybe?

Alex H

01-30-2004, 02:49 AM

The World: Hey Israel, you shouldn't beat up the Palestinians.

Israel: ANTI-SEMITES! NAZIS! YOU HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE JEWS!

I think we all know that Jews do NOT have a secret plan control the world, AND that people don't hate Israel for their religion - only their appaling record on human rights.

If anyone from the Israeli government is reading this: Sort your problems with the Palestinians out in a civilized way and the world will stop criticizing you. Take the $3 billion you get from the US every year and buy back some land from the "settlers". Then just give it to the Palestinians. $3 billion a year on weapons hasn't worked so far, why not try $3 billion on buying them out?

putty

01-30-2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 January 2004 - 20:42

Man of the Year (http://www.globes.co.il/DocsEn/did=350883.htm)

The "Man-of-the Year" award was conferred upon Murdoch for his dedication to the communications industry, the Jewish community and the State of Israel.

Robert Maxwell is a past example of how the Israeli government echelon fosters the link with Jewish tycoons. And Benjamin Netanyahu was happy to take part in the event via satellite and to embrace Murdoch verbally with Prime Ministerial warmth.

"I am proud to accept this award", said Murdoch. "The Jewish national goal has always been important to me, to my family and to my company"

The thing is...being Jewish/Islamic/Christian etc has sod all to do with running a company, nor indeed is it anyones business.

The only websites that would actually look into this type of thing are those with their own agendas. This doesnt mean that those websites are lying, just that you must bear their agenda in mind when you read them.

Although i am not going to go looking all over the net for public domain knowledge..ie Rupert Murdoch has links with Israel... here is a business site (not a political site) based in Israel.

Maybe you'll believe their own words?

Its a lot easier showing evidence that he's a lying, treacherous bastard (ir-respective of his social/religious/business beliefs).....i'll let you look up those examples yourself? ;)
To be truthful, that link does not assert that Murdoch himself is Jewish. He has ties to Israel, yes. He has ties to Jews, yes. He is a Zionist, yes. He is right-wing, yes. He even strongly supports the Likud version of things, yes. Doesn't mean he's Jewish.

How's this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/...6185080569.html (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/11/1026185080569.html)

The Age, Melbourne's largest newspaper had this review of an Australian Broadcasting Corp TV speaial, called "The Murdochs".

When asked what makes Murdoch tick, Tim Clark the series producer & director said: "``The conservative, dour, hardworking Presbyterian with a dash of flamboyant gambler thrown in."

And this:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/archive...txt/sep6dc3.htm (http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/archives/1999Sep/168sep6,vol.10,no.168txt/sep6dc3.htm)

Although Murdoch was raised as a Presbyterian, his wife and children are Catholic and the couple was recently awarded a papal award for philanthropy.

And this, in Yahoo!'s 2002 Year in Review:

http://yir.yahoo.com/2002/fi/news_commentary_ft2.html

"I believe in the spirituality of human beings," he says. "I believe in a god. I am not a strictly religious. I was brought up as a Protestant for Wendi] which gave me a great insight into the real strength of the Catholic church."

He says he is considering converting to the Catholic church. Born into a Presbyterian family and educated at an Anglican school, Mr Murdoch says he now regularly attends a Catholic church on Sundays when he is in New York. He and Wendi have agreed that their child Grace will be baptised a Catholic.

Here's something I found on some racist website that would LOVE to hear that a big media company is Jewish-owned:

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6257
Zionist WarMonger Seizes Control Of Britain's Sky Network
James Murdoch, Son Of Rupert Murdoch, Appointed CEO

London, England -- James Murdoch, son of philo-Semite and Jewish wanna-be Rupert Murdoch, has seized control of Britain Sky Television after his father purchased a 38% ownership of the business.

There's also this Australian Broadcasting Copr (ABC) site that says that Rupert is a "Knight of St Gregory the Great, thanks to the Catholic Church"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/features/tax/page4.htm

And this:

http://www.totallyjewish.com/community/new...sp_story=FWaqVu (http://www.totallyjewish.com/community/news/?disp_type=0&disp_story=FWaqVu)

Bucking the current trend in the British Press, The Times has recently been accused of pro-Israeli bias. Former Middle East correspondent Sam Kiley alleged the paper’s policy was dictated by owner Rupert Murdoch and his friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

And this from a self-proclaimed anti-Jew website:

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/movie68.htm

Rupert Murdoch is not a Jew. Some of the literate Anti-Racist Agitators put down their spleefs and start typing that very statement anytime that Jewish control of the media is brought up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, please. Enough. Go tell your racist buddies who pass this along the real truth.

The original poster tried to show that Jews own most of the US major media networks. He was proven wrong.

He said that there is no rise in anti-semitism in the UK. He was proven wrong.

You both tried to show that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. Leftism quoted his 'proof' directly from anti-semitic websites. Still, proven wrong.

Anything else?

Rat Faced

01-30-2004, 10:06 PM

I did not claim he was Jewish.

In fact i stated i had no idea if he was, but that he had a close friendship with Sharon, and showed evidence that he was very Pro-Israel, to the extent of a former Israeli Prime Minister called him a "Jewish Tycoon"...which is why i posted this. Thought it might show one way or the other, obviously not..not that it matters :P

I also stated he was a bastard and that was very easy to look up. This is what matters

As to the rise in Anti-Semiticism in the UK, i havent commented upon it.

I live about 3 miles away from the Jewish Community in Gateshead, and work there quite often, I have not perceived any rise in anti-jewish sentiment...however I am not in the police or any other organisation that may know better.

In the last 3 years however in Newcastle/Gateshead; 2 Mosques have been attacked and burnt to the ground, and a couple of churches have been vandalised, no synagogues have that im aware of. There are racially motivated attacks in the area..invariably either against Asians by the White thugs or against Whites by the Asian thugs.

Notice i say thugs for both sides...in general both the White community and Asian community get on with life, as do the Jewish

However what trouble there is almost always between White/Asian youths, not White/Jewish or even Asian/Jewish.

I have persistantly said i do not believe in any "Jewish Conspiracy".

I have also said that I can see how it is perceived that the Jewish Community control the media. That "Murdoch is a Jew" propaganda is all over the place, as i said...I also stated that it must be read in the context of the site..ie predominantly anti-Israel or anti-Murdoch (socialist) Websites. It does not therefore surprise me in the slightest that people believe generally that Murdoch is Jewish.

I also said i dont care if hes Jewish, it has nothing to do with how good he is at his job...which is supposedly letting people know what is happening in the world in a balanced and unbiased manner.

He fails in that totally, as does every News Corp owned media it has been my misfortune to see....by the Journalists own words when they leave: The editors censor the Middle East News so that it is all Pro-Israel in these organisations, out of fear of Murdoch...as i said, he is a backstabbing bastard and they are right to fear him.

I believe a few months ago there was a thread asking if the US press was biased. I said then that Journalists often are not, however editors toe the line for the owners if they wanted to stay. This is exactly how News Corp operate.

The other News Organisations mentioned before in the Thread were:

AOL Time Warner: CEO is a well liked Black American with a penchant for history. I cannot find a bad word said about him apart from our own dislike for the company due to its affiliations.

Walt Disney: with its Jewish CEO. I have no idea of his political affiliations, his social beliefs or whether he is a practising Jew. Quite frankly i dont care, it has nothing to do with how he does his Job. As im not American i have no idea as to the slant of the News companies that Walt Disney own.

However, between them News Corp and Disney own and control most US News Media, i can see how it is perceived to be run by the "Jewish Conspiracy", which does not exist.

Untill you educate the rednecks that "Jew" does not mean they are trying to take over the world, this conspiracy theory will continue to crop up.

However it does mean that, at least from the News Corps Companies (as i said i do not know the political slant of the Disney Companies or even if the guy gets involved like Murdoch does), you get a very biased news service in the USA.

putty

01-30-2004, 11:03 PM

By posting the link to the site on Murdoch, I asumed that you were submitting this as evidence of his Jewishness. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

The other stuff I mentioned were directed toward Leftism. He's the one who began it all anyways. Now, really please tell me something. You seem intelligent and possibly well-read. If not due anti-semitism, why in the world do so many people eat up crap like Jews ownng the media and as part of this proof the idea that Rupert Murdoch tries to hide his Jewishness. All it takes is a simple Google search to find out the truth... it really didn't take me long.

They are so willing to believe that it is the US that is blatantly biased while Lefty/Socialist/anti-globallization/whatever websites are the only ones who can see through the bias. How does it not smack them in the head to research the info themselves? Once they find that these alternative websites LIE for their cause, how do they continue to believe the other crap?

Friggin lazy ass brains. The Left these days is tired of doing their own thinking. Anything that goes against the US or big corp is good regardless of the truth. They trully make me sick.

And you know why? Because I sway much farther to the Left than the Right on 95% of issues and I hate getting lumped together with this assholes. I'm even toward the Left when it comes to Israel. But these people don't get it. Unless you say that Israel is apartheid South Africa and Sharon is Hitler, then you're a right-wing zealot in their view.

I don't watch/read News Corp. I despise Fox News. They're tiresome and very biased. But I think it's time to come clean and admit that the Left is really just as biased and racist. Just diametric opposites.

I doubt we'll hear from Leftism again in this thread.

1234

01-30-2004, 11:30 PM

Unless you say that Israel is apartheid South Africa

It is, 93% of the land is barred to non Jews. When a court challenged this, the govt brought forward new legistlation to further entrench it. You have not disproved this, as you cannot. It is a matter of public record.

Shall I bring up other instances of Isreali apartheid? It is apparent in all forms of daily life.

Sharon is Hitler

Sharon isn't in the same league as Hitler, but that doesn't mean he isn't a racist xenophobe who was found guilty (by Isreal) of complicity in the deaths of 1000's of civilians.

On the topic of Jewish control of the media in the US, it is easy to make a case for but impossible to prove. The real problem is in allowing money to dictate political influence - whether that is the christian right or zionists.

hobbes

01-31-2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by putty@31 January 2004 - 00:03
By posting the link to the site on Murdoch, I asumed that you were submitting this as evidence of his Jewishness. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

The other stuff I mentioned were directed toward Leftism. He's the one who began it all anyways. Now, really please tell me something. You seem intelligent and possibly well-read. If not due anti-semitism, why in the world do so many people eat up crap like Jews ownng the media and as part of this proof the idea that Rupert Murdoch tries to hide his Jewishness. All it takes is a simple Google search to find out the truth... it really didn't take me long.

They are so willing to believe that it is the US that is blatantly biased while Lefty/Socialist/anti-globallization/whatever websites are the only ones who can see through the bias. How does it not smack them in the head to research the info themselves? Once they find that these alternative websites LIE for their cause, how do they continue to believe the other crap?

Friggin lazy ass brains. The Left these days is tired of doing their own thinking. Anything that goes against the US or big corp is good regardless of the truth. They trully make me sick.

And you know why? Because I sway much farther to the Left than the Right on 95% of issues and I hate getting lumped together with this assholes. I'm even toward the Left when it comes to Israel. But these people don't get it. Unless you say that Israel is apartheid South Africa and Sharon is Hitler, then you're a right-wing zealot in their view.

I don't watch/read News Corp. I despise Fox News. They're tiresome and very biased. But I think it's time to come clean and admit that the Left is really just as biased and racist. Just diametric opposites.

I doubt we'll hear from Leftism again in this thread.

Wow, nicely put. Echoes my frustrations to a tee.

How come everyone else gets all the real news and I am a brainwashed puppet?

putty

01-31-2004, 12:24 AM

You have not disproved this, as you cannot. It is a matter of public record.

What you're referring to is the bill proposal to allow communities in certain locations to decide if they want to be Jewish only. The bill was brought up in response to past decisions that allowed Druse and Bedouin Arabs to restrict their communities to their own kind.

The bill within cabinet passed the first time but was overturned by a new vote with the same cabinet after a furor erupted within Israel. Israel's own Attorney General refused to go along with it. It was not close to law. If passed by cabinet, it needed to go to Knesset and pass there 3 times to become law. The cabinet changed their vote on July 15 2002. You now have enough facts to do the research on your own and possibly learn something.

Israeli High Court Ruling on the Katzir case (that liars use to associate Israel with apartheid).

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0gty0

A. "We hold that the State of Israel was not permitted, by law, to allocate State land to the Jewish Agency for the purpose of establishing the communal settlement of Katzir on the basis of discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.

On the topic of Jewish control of the media in the US, it is easy to make a case for

So why can't you do it?

3RA1N1AC

01-31-2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by ButWay@21 January 2004 - 04:06

Mazel was asked to leave Stockholm's Museum of Antiquities Friday after he interfered with an exhibit by Israeli artist Dror Feiler, who has lived in Sweden for 30 years. Entitled Snow White and the Madness of Truth, the exhibit features a photo of 29-year-old Hanadi Jaradat, who killed herself and 19 Israelis at a beachfront restaurant in October.

Full Story (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/stories/quickhits190104)

Any toughs about this?

Personally I think that you could interpreted art in manny different ways, but a picture of a suicide bomber floating in blood well lets just say that I wouldn't see that as a tribute to terrorism.
and even if that was the case It would fall under the freedom of speech act/law and still be legal if not inappropriate.

At a Monday meeting with the Swedish foreign ministry, Mazel was unrepentant and said the work was a "call to genocide." He did not apologize and told The Associated Press that he "acted on behalf of my feelings and couldn't have reacted in any other way.  It was my duty to censor that exhibit, since I am a Jew and I therefore have a responsibility to control the media."

:o

putty

01-31-2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@31 January 2004 - 19:11

At a Monday meeting with the Swedish foreign ministry, Mazel was unrepentant and said the work was a "call to genocide." He did not apologize and told The Associated Press that he "acted on behalf of my feelings and couldn't have reacted in any other way. It was my duty to censor that exhibit, since I am a Jew and I therefore have a responsibility to control the media."

:o

At a Monday meeting with the Swedish foreign ministry, Mazel was unrepentant and said the work was a "call to genocide." He did not apologize and told The Associated Press that he "acted on behalf of my feelings and couldn't have reacted in any other way.  It was my duty to censor that exhibit, since I am a Jew and I therefore have a responsibility to control the media."

How cute.

A quick google on this wording turned up one single hit, a Canadian CBC snippet that went like this:

At a Monday meeting with the Swedish foreign ministry, Mazel was unrepentant and said the work was a "call to genocide." He did not apologize and told The Associated Press that he "acted on behalf of my feelings and couldn't have reacted in any other way."

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/stories/quickhits190104.print

You'll notice that last addition about him being a Jew blah blah controlling the media blah blah was not there. It was added either by our Brainiac or by whatever website he took this from and did not provide a link to.

:o

Not surprised.

:frusty:

3RA1N1AC

01-31-2004, 09:11 PM

lighten up. :lol:

putty

01-31-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@31 January 2004 - 21:11
lighten up. :lol:
Sorry. Look around the board. Look around other forums. Look around the internet.

A post like yours if meant seriously does not surprise me in the least. There are lots of people who will read it and believe that this is what was said.

What can I say...

3RA1N1AC

01-31-2004, 09:33 PM

i should hope nobody believes that's a real quote. ;)

here's another one:

"As you know, I am a Jew, so I am going back to my vault where I control the media." -- Jon Lovitz at the 1995 MTV Movie Awards
that quote is real. though somehow i doubt the media is actually controlled by the guy who played The Master Thespian.

1234

01-31-2004, 09:58 PM

What you're referring to is the bill proposal to allow communities in certain locations to decide if they want to be Jewish only.

Yep, in contravention of several international laws and a basis for apartheid. See the Group Areas Act in South Africa. The restriction on 93% of Isreali land still stands to this day.

The bill was brought up in response to past decisions that allowed Druse and Bedouin Arabs to restrict their communities to their own kind.

What a laughable statement. It was brought in to keep the restriction of 93% of the land to Jews. Palestinians are barred from this land solely due to ethnicity.

The cabinet tabled the proposal July 15, when the Labor Party threatened to torpedo it, but not the principle behind it. "We don't in any way discard the idea that Jewish settlement in Israel is a critical component in the realization of the Zionist vision," Sharon spokesperson Raanan Gissin said. Added Communication Minister Reuven Rivlin, "This is the state for the Jewish People, not the state for all its citizens."

Yes, that really fits in with your attempted spin.

Israel has no laws to prevent discrimination in issues of land ownership, leasing, and residency issues as those would get in the way of the plan. The Isreali's use several methods to achieve this apartheid, n East Jerusalem 66% of the land is inaccessable to palestinians because of Israeli zoning, planning and building restrictions (eg 40% is zoned 'Green area'). In the West Bank and Gaza, 79% of the land has been designated jews only. That land is not even Isreali to start with.

Show me where these Druse and Bedouin have access to land barred to Isreali's. One thing though, this land had better have decent water supplies and not be a ghetto or an empty patch of the Sinai desert.

Along with this land apartheid, Isreal also enforces aparthid of services - most especially water and health. There are also the issues of freedom of movement and expression. The Isreali govt even tried to ban palestinians from standing in elections, but backed down due to international pressure.

In Gaza where the Arab population outnumbers the approximately 5,000 Jewish settlers by more than 170 to 1, the Israeli government appropriates 10-25% of Gaza water for Jews. When Israel conquered the Golan Heights, they captured the headwaters of the Jordan and secured the greatest part of the flow of the Jordan River. Israel captured the final portion of the Jordan River flow in their 1982 invasion of Lebanon when they included as part of their self-declared "security zone" the Hasbani and Wazzani Rivers which arise in Lebanon and flow into the Jordan. West Bank water makes up 30% of the water in Tel Aviv households. Israel has permitted no new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use. The Israelis charge the Palestinians fees that are three times higher than they charge Israelis for water for domestic use (with even higher relative charges in Gaza). In terms of relative GNP per capita, Palestinians pay a minimum of fifteen times more than Israeli consumers.

I told you there was something more valuable than oil. This pattern is mirrored throughtout the occupied territories and in Isreal itself and is a form of apartheid.

If you continue in your defence of the indefensible, I will move on to healthcare and human shields. After that, there is the right of free movement. After that, well lets just say it's a long list.

Israeli High Court Ruling on the Katzir case (that liars use to associate Israel with apartheid).

I already quoted the case, and Katzir's refusal to implement the decision. No pressure was brought on them to comply and the Isreali cabinet endorsed their position. Using a decision showing apartheid to defend your case that there is no apartheid would be humourous if the stakes were not so high for real people.

So why can't you do it? 

People in the this thread have already made a prima facie case (Eisner et al). I just said it would be difficult to prove. My own interpretation is not so dramatic as that though. It is just a case of rich individuals pushing their own agenda. That applies to jews, christians, multinationals, whoever. The Jewish lobby in the US is extremely well funded and organised, and lobbies both broadcasters and politicians. No different from the Christian one.

Once again, money buys influence and power and tramples on human rights.

leftism

02-01-2004, 03:00 AM

Are you now going to start arguing that the Greene family aren't Jewish?

Originally posted by putty
You were supposed to provide a link attesting to their Jewishness

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed ;)

You have not proved anything, you have simply denied everything. The starting point of this discussion was whether the media is pro-Israel. You've admitted that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist, so I'm glad to see that we can at least agree on the fundamental point here.

putty

02-01-2004, 08:02 AM

1234, your cut & paste efforts are truly laughable.

You even had the nerve to plagiarize from this site ( http://www.networkideas.org/themes/privati...18_Ramallah.htm (http://www.networkideas.org/themes/privatisation/apr2002/pr18_Ramallah.htm) ) and change some words to make it worse.

Your words:

Israel has permitted no new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use.

The website whose words you plagiarized:

Israel has rarely permitted any new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use.

1234, you're a loser who deserves no further response. You have been shown to make up your own facts and arguing with someone like you will serve no purpose.

Even though your post above contains a sprinkiling of facts, everything is taken way out of context and the rest of your post is completely fabricated.

We all now see why you never post links. :lol:

putty

02-01-2004, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by leftism+1 February 2004 - 03:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 1 February 2004 - 03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Are you now going to start arguing that the Greene family aren't Jewish?

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
You were supposed to provide a link attesting to their Jewishness

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed ;)

You have not proved anything, you have simply denied everything. The starting point of this discussion was whether the media is pro-Israel. You've admitted that Rupert Murdoch is a Zionist, so I'm glad to see that we can at least agree on the fundamental point here. [/b][/quote]
Lefty buddy, I'd like to ask where you heard that Murdoch was Jewish? Why did you believe it? Why did you not research it yourself to find the truth? Why so eager to believe the worst about Jews?

Now that you see that the places you get your info from lie to you, will you question the rest of what they tell you as well?

FatBastard

02-01-2004, 11:11 AM

@ Putty, maybe you should do some checking before you accuse people of changing things.

Israel has permitted no new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use. Moreover, the Israelis charge the Palestinians fees that are three times higher than they charge Israelis for water for domestic use (with even higher relative charges in Gaza).

Source. (http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html)

You could have checked this yourself, although l don't think that would have fitted in with your agenda. l can see we are going to have to check and double check everything you post from now on.

putty

02-01-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by FatBastard@1 February 2004 - 11:11
@ Putty, maybe you should do some checking before you accuse people of changing things.

Israel has permitted no new drilling of agricultural wells for water for the Palestinians in the territories and has permitted fewer than a dozen for domestic use. Moreover, the Israelis charge the Palestinians fees that are three times higher than they charge Israelis for water for domestic use (with even higher relative charges in Gaza).

Source. (http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html)

You could have checked this yourself, although l don't think that would have fitted in with your agenda. l can see we are going to have to check and double check everything you post from now on.
As you can see, I actually did check. So, if 1234 did not plagiarize and change the wording of the first source, then he simply plagiarized the 2nd source which plagiarized and changed the wording of the first one! :lol:

As I said before, the anti-Israel Left crowd is full of lazy asses who simply buy hook line & sinker whatever is fed to them. And now, we see that they even make stuff up as they go along.

leftism

02-01-2004, 07:10 PM

You should do your checking more carefully putty.

The version which you say is plagiarized is actually the original version on the authors own website. So "No new drilling" it is.

This is pretty much a non-issue though, if you go past that first sentence both articles say exactly the same thing. Again your focusing on trivia in an attempt to divert attention away from the main point.

I like the way in which you've gone off the point though. You claimed that in Europe, we are "brainwashed", so you were shown that most of the US media is pro-Israel. In response you get all worked up about anti-semitism and start spouting melodrama such as...

Originally posted by putty
Why so eager to believe the worst about Jews?

Sorry, but they already made Schindlers list, you'll have to wait for another chance to play the role of poor down-trodden Jew. Keep practising though, your getting there. :lol:

So why do I believe Murdoch is Jewish? Quite simply...

1 His mother is a Jew.
2 He is a renowned Zionist.
3 His media outlets are extremely pro-Israel.
4 He is very close to Ariel Sharon

Gee... do you think that means anything?

This has been a rather interesting thread. Accuse the Europeans of anti-semitism and you get one type of response. Accuse the US media of being pro-Israel and my my.... just look at how upset and angry people get.

One final point.. what more do you guys want?

1. You have special laws in Europe to protect you i.e. you can be arrested for denying the holocaust. You can deny Stalin killed 12 million and you can deny what Pol Pot did in Cambodia but the holocaust is different.

2. You were given an entire country.

3. The US gives you 3 billion a year so you can protect this country by killing stone throwing children.

4. Most of the media is vehemently pro-Israel.

5. You are exempt from obeying UN resolutions.

You have all this, yet just because the Europeans dont agree with Israeli foreign policy, a torrent of accusations of anti-semitism are unleashed by the all-poweful Jewish lobby groups in the US.

Oh dear... how my heart bleeds in sympathy...

putty

02-01-2004, 07:57 PM

Sigh.

So "No new drilling" it is.

And what's the writer's source? You'll notice that he didn't provide one. Perhaps he got it from a "Rupert Murdoch is Jewish" website. :D

if you go past that first sentence both articles say exactly the same thing

It's because it's the same article! :lol: MyGod, you're amusing.

You claimed that in Europe, we are "brainwashed",

Actually, I said that with Euros being convince that the US is brainwahed, how do you know that it's not the other way around. Afterall, something you've all read has made youbelieve that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Above Iran. Above Syria. Above North Korea. Above Afghanistan. Above Iraq. Above the US! ;)

1 His mother is a Jew.

After all these posts, you still have not shown this. I have shown that he was a Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism and that his mother started a Good Friday drive at a hospital. But whatever you say...

Gee... do you think that means anything?

Yes, it means that you believe whatever you read from alternative websites about Jews and their "ownership of the media". That is how this began.

1) whatever. lobby your govt.

2) So was half the world. So were the Palestinians. Go do a little search on which countries were created by the UN. Go research Poland's borders. :lol:

3) And they give 2.1 billion to Egypt. If you think that it's only kids throwing stones, how have so many Israelis died?

You see, here's the crux. If Israel is so bad, why does the anti-Israel crowd need to either exagerate or make things up?

Israel takes the money just to kill kids? Sure, sounds good. Rupert Murdoch is Jewish? Aha! Sounds good. Print it! Print it!

4) Whatever. Go reread the thread.

5) Really? Do you know which resolutions are binding and which aren't? Do you know what they say? Or is this something you read on some site?

By the way, you haven't answered my question:

Now that you see that you've beenlied to about Murdoch, a) will you make sure to tell everyone you know the truth? b ) will you still trust what you read/plagiarize of those website?

leftism

02-01-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's because it's the same article!  MyGod, you're amusing[/b]

Obviously not as amusing as you...

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So, if 1234 did not plagiarize and change the wording of the first source, then he simply plagiarized the 2nd source which plagiarized and changed the wording of the first one![/b]

since you clearly do not understand what the word plagiarism means.:lol: :lol: Heres a helpful hint. If they're both the same article attributed to the same author, neither of them were plagiarised.

The point was that instead of discussing the topic the article talks about, you pick out the difference of one word in one phrase and go apeshit about it.
The fact that this one word doesnt make any difference to the content, as you have just admitted, only makes your energetic protestations look more foolish than they actually are :)

Originally posted by putty
Actually, I said that with Euros being convince that the US is brainwahed, how do you know that it's not the other way around

Originally posted by putty
In fact, there was a poll just a few months ago where Europeans named Israel as the planet's greatest threat to world peace. WTF? Can you say brainwashed?

..... <_<

I think you'll find it was me who asked you how you know the "brainwashing issue" doesnt work the other way round. Let me know if you need to be reminded of your own words again.

You can claim that this...

1 His mother is a Jew.
2 He is a renowned Zionist.
3 His media outlets are extremely pro-Israel.
4 He is very close to Ariel Sharon

means nothing, but its not a very convincing argument now is it?

Now lets move on to the special treatment you people get.

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism@

1. You have special laws in Europe to protect you i.e. you can be arrested for denying the holocaust. You can deny Stalin killed 12 million and you can deny what Pol Pot did in Cambodia but the holocaust is different.

2. You were given an entire country.

3. The US gives you 3 billion a year so you can protect this country by killing stone throwing children.

4. Most of the media is vehemently pro-Israel.

5. You are exempt from obeying UN resolutions.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty

1. Whatever. Lobby your government.

2) So was half the world. So were the Palestinians. Go do a little search on which countries were created by the UN. Go research Poland's borders. 

3) And they give 2.1 billion to Egypt. If you think that it's only kids throwing stones, how have so many Israelis died?

You see, here's the crux. If Israel is so bad, why does the anti-Israel crowd need to either exagerate or make things up?

Israel takes the money just to kill kids? Sure, sounds good. Rupert Murdoch is Jewish? Aha! Sounds good. Print it! Print it!

4) Whatever. Go reread the thread.

5) Really? Do you know which resolutions are binding and which aren't? Do you know what they say? Or is this something you read on some site?
[/quote][/quote]

1. Whatever?? haha, a nice argument. I didnt think you'd like this section where I showed you the special treatment the Jews get in Europe. It doesnt fit in with your "the poor downtrodden Jews living among violent anti-semites in Europe" argument does it?

2. What a load of utter shit. Your desperation is showing here. Comparing Poland to Israel? pfft.

3.2.1 Billion in military aid to Egypt? You've clearly taken leave of your senses.... Do you have any proof?

4. Whatever? again? lolol, you need to reread the thread, particularly the section where you conceded that Murdoch is a Zionist.

5. Yes I know precisely which resolutions I'm referring to here. You can check it on the UN website if you wish. Or let me guess..... the UN is anti-semitic as well?

Face it. Your kin in Europe get special treatment compared to other minorities and they are not besieged by anti-semitism no matter how much you'd love everyone to believe it.

You have the media and the US Gvt supporting everything that Israel does, whether that be stealing water or killing children. You've become so used to this state of affairs that you simply cant handle the concept of anyone straying from this violent expansionist Zionist strategy. So, when Europe begs to differ all hell breaks loose.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but this "Israel forever, long live Israel!, Oh how we Jews are so badly mistreated!" Zionist bullshit will never get the support in Europe that it gets in the US.

Deal with it and quit whining about anti-semitism.

putty

02-01-2004, 09:40 PM

Now lets move on to the special treatment you people get.

I never said I was Jewish. Why does this keep coming up? Why do you keep assuming that all who disagree with you are Jewish? On what website did you read about my Jewish mother? :lol:

I wish I could respond to the rest right now but I do have a Super Bowl party to attend to. Don't worry, I won't forget you.

In the meantime, please quote which UN resolutions you're refering to. I know what they say but I doubt you do..... :P

leftism

02-01-2004, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I never said I was Jewish.[/b]

But you obviously are.

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why does this keep coming up?[/b]

I believe its your pathological obsession with anti-semitism.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty@
Why do you keep assuming that all who disagree with you are Jewish?[/quote]

I dont. Why do you assume everyone who disagrees with you is anti-semitic?

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
On what website did you read about my Jewish mother?[/quote]

Fake website address removed by RF......Keep it civilised. No flamebaiting please.

In the meantime, please quote which UN resolutions you're refering to. I know what they say but I doubt you do.....

Sure, so you can argue that a misplaced comma in a UN resolution means its null and void? Judging from your previous performances we won't be talking about the content of the UN resolutions that's for sure.

Its a good job that there are plenty of Zionists in the US Gvt and that the US has a veto in the UN. Otherwise Israel would have twice the number of UN resolutions against it and, oh vey, how anti-semitic would that be?!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rat Faced

02-01-2004, 11:04 PM

UN Resolutions Against Israel

1955-1992:

* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

Not all are still outstanding.

The 4th Geneva Convention was re-affirmed via Conference convened on 5th December 2001; 114 High Contracting Parties attended together with 8 Observers, with only 3 Parties refusing to attend: United States, Israel and Australia.

hobbes

02-01-2004, 11:54 PM

* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".

How could such a thing be possible? :lol: :lol:

Rat Faced

02-02-2004, 12:04 AM

This was in 1981.

Iraq had a Nuclear Research facility that was regulated by the IAEA and was also a signatory of the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The resolution also noted that Israel was not being regulated by the IAEA and calls upon the country to sign the relevant treaties in addition to censoring it for the attack.

;)

hobbes

02-02-2004, 12:26 AM

Yes, I know you knucklehead. :lol: :lol:

1234

02-02-2004, 04:41 AM

1234, your cut & paste efforts are truly laughable.

You even had the nerve to plagiarize from this site ( http://www.networkideas.org/themes/privati...18_Ramallah.htm ) and change some words to make it worse.

Haha, never been to that site mate. That site has plagarised and changed the words of the site I took the info from. That latter site takes it's info from UN docs, international papers, govt papers, you name it. I am quite happy to say that some of my post is directly from the latter site, you will notice it is all factual data though and backed up by relavant source papers if you ever get round to actually debating the issues. Saves retyping the same thing, as it's not worth the effort. If you agree to post a bibliography at the end of each of your posts, I am happy to do the same. Or is this a case of shoot the messanger and ignore his message? :)

Why don't you debate the facts?

1234, you're a loser who deserves no further response. You have been shown to make up your own facts and arguing with someone like you will serve no purpose.

I make up facts? Such as? You are just realising that you are attempting to defend the indefensible and are looking to take the same way out a certain other member of this board took. Random insults and ignoring the facts. Go you.

Even though your post above contains a sprinkiling of facts, everything is taken way out of context and the rest of your post is completely fabricated.

Such as? What is fabricated? What is out of context? Just saying it doesn't make it true. Your lack of evidence is apparent to everyone.

We all now see why you never post links.

If anyone ever challenged me on the facts, I'd be quite happy to. Just all you can do is mount personal attacks irrelavent to the debate.

So, in summary.

I present a series of facts on land rights, water rights and other issues. You say I'm a loser and don't answer any of the points. Hmm, if debates had losers (they don't as hopefully everyone can learn something) then I think you were just out for a duck :P

As you can see, I actually did check. So, if 1234 did not plagiarize and change the wording of the first source, then he simply plagiarized the 2nd source which plagiarized and changed the wording of the first one!

Ah, like fish in a barrel. Like I said, the author is probably neither of those pages. I actually know the name of the original authors (who used several primary sources), do you? Without firing up Google again I bet you have no idea.

As I said before, the anti-Israel Left crowd is full of lazy asses who simply buy hook line & sinker whatever is fed to them.

If I cut and pasted a dictionary definition of a word, or an encyclopedia entry, would those be untrue because it is cut and pasted? Nope, just saves time rewriting the same facts. We are not in school here, we don't get marks for rewording text. Argue against the content, prove the statistics are wrong and that the law is not how it was shown.

And now, we see that they even make stuff up as they go along. 

What stuff? You keep saying this without ever proving it.

And what's the writer's source? You'll notice that he didn't provide one. Perhaps he got it from a "Rupert Murdoch is Jewish" website

Nope guess again.

It's because it's the same article!

They present the same facts, why are you not discussing those?

MyGod, you're amusing.

A world full of people with your disregard of human rights is anything but amusing.

Afterall, something you've all read has made youbelieve that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Above Iran. Above Syria. Above North Korea. Above Afghanistan. Above Iraq. Above the US!

Because it is. It is an unstable (shown by it's illegal occupations in violation of UN resolutions, and it's appalling human rights) and has nuclear weapons. It has also said it is prepared to use them to destroy the whole region. It's policies have led to terrorism in the region and beyond, 9/11 for example. The IDF has Made in USA stamped on it. Europeans now see our own countries being drawn into the US agenda when what we want is Isreal to comply with UN resolutions and stop oppressing the palestinians.

So were the Palestinians. Go do a little search on which countries were created by the UN.

Isreal siezed the land that was meant to be the palestinian state in the original UN 2 state solution. The palestinians would love to have been given their own country.

  If Israel is so bad, why does the anti-Israel crowd need to either exagerate or make things up?

There you go again. Please prove what we made up.

Really? Do you know which resolutions are binding and which aren't? Do you know what they say? Or is this something you read on some site?

Yes, yes, and yes. The site being the official UN one.

By the way, you haven't answered my question

From you, thats rich. You haven't answered a single point.

venom_il

02-02-2004, 01:42 PM

@ putty when I saw this thread and the ridiculous lies perpetrated here (as suggested by my nick, I live in Israel) I thought I'd put in some words.. but damn you could take me to school at this.. and you say you're not from Israel? (you mentioned super bowl) damn.. :ph34r:

@1234 - Dude, You make up so many things, It's just hard for putty to keep up

for example
"It has also said it is prepared to use them to destroy the whole region"
This statement alone should serve to disregard your entire post, or any other post you'd ever make in the subject - it's obvious you are willing to blatantly lie in order to try and brainwash whoever's reading this thread. I mean, this really has me on the floor. I see there's a whole discussion about links going on here.. I'd love to see a link for that one :lol:

Israel willing to use nuclear weapons to destroy the whole region.. ROTFL i just can't get that out of my mind.. i mean go ahead and lie.. but make the lie so blatant? why? are you TRYING to discredit yourself ?

it's funny how you think Israel is dangerous whereas it has NEVER started a war while 5 wars were started against it, all in the purpose of destroying Israel, mind you

and here's another gem
"It's policies have led to terrorism in the region and beyond, 9/11 for example
so now Israel is to blame for the 9/11 ? and not the terrorists who actually did that, I mean it's justifiable in light of Israel's policy right? :lol: and why stop there? join your arab conspirator friends and claim the Mossad was behind it all.. after all, with all respect to bin laden, only the israelis couldve pulled that one off now could they? ;)

regarding the UN (comprised moslty of non-democracies) whose resolutions you endorse so happily, this little paragraph about sums it up

The United Nations has an extreme anti-Israel bias. This anti-Israel stance of the UN is a natural consequence of its membership structure. 21 members of the UN are Arab countries, and 52 members represent Islamic countries. Since the Arab Israeli conflict is represented as a religious conflict, Israel as the only Jewish state has no chance for a fair hearing in the UN. The majority of Islamic countries do not have democratic regimes. Frequently the UN serves as an arena for tyrannical regimes' international ploys under the guise of global interests.

even though the facts are obviously right (regarding the number of Arab, Muslim countries - which means out of the 191 votes possible, every anti-Israeli decision automatically gets 73, add that some abstained and you almost got an instant majority) you're welcome to google it.. you might find this "biased" wall street journal article on your way http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conf...-2002-04-18.asp (http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Rubin-2002-04-18.asp)

and of course, the killer line

Isreal siezed the land that was meant to be the palestinian state in the original UN 2 state solution. The palestinians would love to have been given their own country
what a nice use of wording and taking out of conext. you somehow neglected the fact that the territory was always "seized" due to a war brought upon Israel. for example, the day israel was declared when the combined forces of the arab nations attacked it even before it had an army in the purpose of completely destroying it. I believe such occupation renders the land ours (if only to create some sort of a minimal land stripe for our protection) and we still gave much to the palestinians, and will soon give much more when the defence wall is complete (at which time they'd have their own little terrorist country like they've always wanted.. let's see how they fare without us supporting them adn yes that's exactly what we're doing right now as opposed to what some "honest" people may portray.. medication, supplies, water)

leftism - you of all amuse me with your accusations of Israel for killing civilians.. well first of all civilians are never targeted and only die in error as a result of fighting terrorists (who hide among civilians for them to serve as human shield).. as a matter of fact an astronomical number of operations are cancelled because assessments say civilians might die. also, our soldiers are put in incredible risks in order not to hurt civilians... for example in the Jenine "slaughter" (another example of the UN's objectivity) many of our soldiers died because we weren't willing to simply bomb the terrorist infrastructure. but I'm afraid i can't say that about your country who deliberately bombed German civilians in WW2 and would undoubtedly do it again had a similar situation arisen. and the funny thing is, i don't even blame (let alone criticize) you and i think you did the right thing. when your civilians are bombed you should retaliate for the sole purpose of stopping the killing in your side - if the enemy knows he'll pay in lives when he takes your lives, he wouldn't do it.. everybody wins. but i digress. the point is, having done much worse and never regretting it (not that i think you should) it's hilarious you criticize us

leftism

02-02-2004, 05:09 PM

venom.

First of all your argument that Israel does not target civilians on purpose is just plain wrong. We regularly see live pictures of Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks who then retaliate with machine guns.

Rocks vs machine guns? This doesnt count as targeting civilians? Or is a 12 year old child throwing a rock defined as a terrorist these days? Perhaps Israeli (sorry I mean US) tanks are made of paper and the rocks might kill the soldiers?

Are you saying this doesnt happen? Are these live pictures part of a global anti-Israel conspiracy? Or perhaps your just telling bare faced lies?

Lets not even mention the Israeli strategy of dropping massive bombs in highly crowded residential areas. Israel doesnt target civilians? Sure.

The next thing is that your comparing Palestine to Nazi Germany, how desperate an argument is that? I dont think the Palestinians are going to launch a Blitzkreig across Europe anytime soon.In fact when WW2 began the British were less well armed than the Germans, so if we absolutely must delve into your fantasyland of inappropriate analogies the Palestinians are the British and the Israelis are the Germans.However I'd rather not delve into your crazy world where 21st century Palestinians = 1940's Nazis.

Third, in case it escaped your attention, the US has a veto in the UN. This means that it doesnt matter if there is a majority against Israel because the US Vetos just about everything thats targeted at Israel. Yet sometimes, even your greatest ally doesnt veto these resolutions. Come on, doesn't that tell you anything?

I'll bet you were one of the people who supported the war against Iraq because you believed that the UN resolutions justified it.Where were your protestations about how the UN is so anti-semitic then?

Why dont you talk about the issues 1234 raised? Because you havent got a leg to stand on, thats why. So you used the tried and trusted method of insulting those who disagree with you and accusing them of being anti-semitic.

That may have worked well for you guys over in the US, but the same stratgey wont get you far with the rest of the world, as Israel is currently finding out much to it's displeasure.

PS

You think theres no connection between 9/11 and US support for Israel? right...

hobbes

02-02-2004, 06:13 PM

I always thought that a discussion was about presenting your point of view in a way to educate or enlighten the neutral observer to bring them to your point-of-view.

This usually requires the posting of a balanced discussion:

"Although I understand that suicide bombers are a threat to civilian life in Israel, I feel that the security wall, due to it's placement, is, in reality, a covert attempt to drive Palestineans out. The wall serves to separate them from their land and income and encumber their daily lives. Essentially, it is there to make them miserable and then hopefully, they will go away."

This can lead to a rebuttal that is based on ones view of the issue, not a defensive response to an attack.

Any author that has a valid point should be able to make it without distortion, embellishment or overt mistruths.

When any of these 3 are identified, all valid points are discredited because it means that the author is willing to bend reality to support his conclusion.

This leads to the "Oh you have got to be kidding me" defensive response, not a considered rebuttal.

In the end, this tactic rubs people the wrong way and despite the fact that you might have some valid points, you will tend to drive people from your point of view, rather than toward it.

So why use a tactic that repels people from your point, it makes no sense to use a discussion board to alienate people from your side.

putty

02-02-2004, 06:54 PM

Because you havent got a leg to stand on, thats why. So you used the tried and trusted method of insulting those who disagree with you

I am busy with real life but I will be back a bit at a time.

I just had to laugh at this comment after your "kosher-crack-whore" comment. Yes, I did catch that. If I were to post that, or "Hijab-crack-wrore" or "jesus-crack-whore", I'd expect to be ignored for the rest of the discussion.

And now that we see who you really are, that's exactly what will happen.

Lefty, you'll now have to use a different moniker.

j2k4

02-02-2004, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@2 February 2004 - 14:13
I always thought that a discussion was about presenting your point of view in a way to educate or enlighten the neutral observer to bring them to your point-of-view.

This usually requires the posting of a balanced discussion:

"Although I understand that suicide bombers are a threat to civilian life in Israel, I feel that the security wall, due to it's placement, is, in reality, a covert attempt to drive Palestineans out.  The wall serves to separate them from their land and income and encumber their daily lives.  Essentially, it is there to make them miserable and then hopefully, they will go away."

This can lead to a rebuttal that is based on ones view of the issue, not a defensive response to an attack.

Any author that has a valid point should be able to make it without distortion, embellishment or overt mistruths.

When any of these 3 are identified, all valid points are discredited because it means that the author is willing to bend reality to support his conclusion. 

This leads to the "Oh you have got to be kidding me" defensive response, not a considered rebuttal.

In the end, this tactic rubs people the wrong way and despite the fact that you might have some valid points, you will tend to drive people from your point of view, rather than toward it.

So why use a tactic that repels people from your point, it makes no sense to use a discussion board to alienate people from your side.
Well stated, sir.

(From your fan club)

;)

Rat Faced

02-02-2004, 07:24 PM

For Information Purposes in this argument:

Additional UN Resolutions against Israel Vetoed:

Vetoes: 1972-2003

US Vetoes at UN @ Israel (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html)

You will please note that a number of countries being labelled in this argument as anti-semetic (inc UK, Germany & France) often abstain, despite a large majority in favour...although they will not vote to condone the Israeli actions by always voting against.

Can you also note that Libya (not noted for a 'Pro-Israel' stance, quite the opposite in fact...) has also abstained on occasion.

leftism

02-02-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I am busy with real life but I will be back a bit at a time.[/b]

I can hardly wait.

Originally posted by putty+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I just had to laugh at this comment after your "kosher-crack-whore" comment. Yes, I did catch that. [/b]

Oh I see, your tired of 'battle' and want to play nice now? Stop trying to be a martyr and go back and read some of your own less than civilized posts.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty@
If I were to post that, or "Hijab-crack-wrore" or "jesus-crack-whore", I'd expect to be ignored for the rest of the discussion.

And now that we see who you really are, that's exactly what will happen.[/quote]

So basically you'll continue along the same lines of ignoring every point someone makes and diverting attention away from the main issues by arguing about trivia, such as 1 changed word in an article that doesnt alter the meaning. Be sure not to forget the childish insults because they're just so compelling.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
Lefty, you'll now have to use a different moniker.[/quote]

Perhaps we have different ideas about what the political left stand for but last time I checked it does not mean doing everything Israel demands whilst cowering in fear in case some 14 year old JDL wannabe accuses you of being anti-semitic.

If you genuinely wish to "play nice" then there are plenty of unresolved issues that have been brought up in this thread. Pro-Israel bias in the US media, Israel stealing water, Israel targeting civilians, Isreal having multiple UN resolutions against it.. the list goes on.

If you wish to continue ignoring all this and simply play "shoot the messenger" then dont bother crying about the treatment you receive in return.

1234

02-02-2004, 09:34 PM

This statement alone should serve to disregard your entire post, or any other post you'd ever make in the subject - it's obvious you are willing to blatantly lie in order to try and brainwash whoever's reading this thread. I mean, this really has me on the floor.

Do your own research. Here is the background for you. In the 73 war Moshe Dayan gave orders to mobilise the Isreali nuclear weapons. Launchers were armed at Hirbat Zachariah while F-4s based at Tel Nof near Rehovot were also armed. Meier used these actions to leverage the US into providing air lifts of equipment and other supplies. But what if the US had refused? Gurion had already stated that Isreal would destroy the region before being invaded by arab states, as looked very likely in those early days of the 73 war. There are reports from the CIA that Isreal even threatened the SR7 sent to keep an eye on the deployment.

Israel willing to use nuclear weapons to destroy the whole region.. ROTFL i just can't get that out of my mind.. i mean go ahead and lie.. but make the lie so blatant? why? are you TRYING to discredit yourself ?

You really shouldn't parade your ignorance so loudly you know. Try actually researching the subject first.

it's funny how you think Israel is dangerous whereas it has NEVER started a war while 5 wars were started against it, all in the purpose of destroying Israel, mind you

Isreal started the 67 war, the invasions of Lebanon and the occupation of palestinian land. It is an oppressive regime that has shown itself willing to countenance nuclear first strike.

so now Israel is to blame for the 9/11 ?

I didn't say Isreal was to blame for 9/11, Al Qaida is obviously. I said that Isreali foreign policy is responsible for creating terrorism. Al Qaida's raison d'etre is to stop the occupation of palestinian land (as well as removing US troops from Saudi Arabia which they succeeded in doing). If Isreal retreated from the land it illegally occupies, that removes a huge recruiting impetus from Al Qaida, Hamas etc. The US was attacked, as I said, because the IDF has Made in USA on it. If you cannot see the link between an illegal invading army and a conflation of terrorism/resistance then no amount of debate will help you.

The United Nations has an extreme anti-Israel bias

Heh yep, the organisation that created Isreal really hates jews and Isreal. Damn you are stupid. Even ignoring that fact, you will notice there are no Arab permanent members of the SC, while there are several pro-Isreali states with permanent status. The US (who pay for the IDF and Isreali nukes) and France (who sold them their nuclear reactors) for example.

From your link -

On Monday, France, Belgium and four other European Union members endorsed a U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condoning "all available means, including armed struggle" to establish a Palestinian state

I agree, armed struggle is allowable to establish the state that was stolen by Isreal. Same as the French Resistance fighting Nazi occupation. People have a right of self defence. Of course, we would all prefer they would just target settlers and the army and not civilians but we understand their desperation. Where is your condemnation of the IDF targetting civilians? I am happy to condemn the killing of civilians by both sides, you give the IDF some form of moral exemption.

That Palestinian terror predates occupation,

Say what? Are you sure you don't mean Isreali terrorism predates occupation? You are aware of Gurions activities aren't you? Ever since '48 the Isreali's have occupied palestinian land, whereas before '48 the jews killed countless civilians in terrorist attacks.

the day israel was declared when the combined forces of the arab nations attacked it even before it had an army in the purpose of completely destroying it

This has what exactly to do with the palestinians? You will notice that the UN (or anyone else) has no problem with a defensive war.

I believe such occupation renders the land ours

You are entitled to that opinion. Do you also believe Saddam was entitled to keep Kuwait as a buffer against US or Saudi Arabian agression? How about Hitler being able to keep Poland as a buffer against Russia? You see, you opinions appear to be held by the best company. There is no legality behind the illegal occupation of the land, as recognised by numerous UN resolutions - both specifically against Isreal and others regarding seizing land in war.

we still gave much to the palestinians

You give them nothing but death, restricted human rights and endless oppression.

and will soon give much more when the defence wall is complete 

Defence wall? Apartheid wall that is attempting to grab even more land for Isreal. It seperates people from their own land and farms, enabling Isreal to grab more fertile land and aquifers.

at which time they'd have their own little terrorist country like they've always wanted

I refer you again to the birth of your country and that terrorist Ben Gurion.

let's see how they fare without us supporting them adn yes that's exactly what we're doing right now as opposed to what some "honest" people may portray.. medication, supplies, water

I provided figures showing that Isreal steals palestinian water and then charges them 3x+ the price for the remainder. Debate the numbers please rather than just stating what you dearly want to believe. You treat the palestinians as 2nd class citizens and restrict their access to healthcare, land, water, you name it.

you of all amuse me with your accusations of Israel for killing civilians.. well first of all civilians are never targeted and only die in error as a result of fighting terrorists

You have managed to kill over 1200 CHILDREN in the last few years, over 1/4 of the total palestinian dead. Are you saying they were all terrorists? That they were all accidents? How about the 95 year old woman shot in the face while sitting in a car at a checkpoint? Was she a terrorist? What about the IDF soldiers finally coming out and openly stating what the armies ROE are? Your comments are utterly in the face of established facts, and testimonies of IDF soldiers themselves.

One thing you might be able to clear up though since you are so sure. Why, after blowing up a car containing no terrorists, do the IDF return 20 minutes later and drop 2 more missiles on the ambulance crews and civilians attempting to help injured people? Why did they use tank fire on ambulance/fire crews trying to rescue people from civilian buildings blown up by IDF missiles?

You are so removed from reality it's not funny.

who hide among civilians for them to serve as human shield

The prime user of human shields is the IDF, in one of it's most flagrant abuses of human rights. I am sure you criticised Saddam for using them, just as you attempt to criticise the palestinians, but will you condemn the IDF using them in the greatest numbers of any state past or present?

The UK had terrorism from NI and Eire for decades, did we bomb Dublin or Belfast? Nope, because we realise that such acts are inhuman acts of slaughter worthy of nasty ethnic cleansing regimes such as 90's Serbia and Isreal.

as a matter of fact an astronomical number of operations are cancelled because assessments say civilians might die

Over 4500 have died in the last few years, so pardon us if we think you are talking shit.

our soldiers are put in incredible risks in order not to hurt civilians

Oh yes, very risky standing behind a palestinian civilian while you use his shoulder as a firing position. Must be very risky forcing palestinians to open doors to random houses while the IDF hides behind him or her.

for example in the Jenine "slaughter" (another example of the UN's objectivity) many of our soldiers died because we weren't willing to simply bomb the terrorist infrastructure.

We have no idea if it was a slaughter as the IDF refused to allow anyone entry untill they had cleaned the place up. We do know that a lot of civilians died including the old and disabled who had their houses demolished while they were inside. I do like your definition of many though, for the IDF that means roughly 10 soldiers but for palestinians losses to count as "many" we obviously have to get higher than the current 4500+. Frankly I have as much sympathy for IDF losses defending occupied land as I have for Nazi losses defending France or Poland. Shame for the individual, but necessary to remove the occupying force as politics has failed so far.

  I'm afraid i can't say that about your country who deliberately bombed German civilians in WW2 and would undoubtedly do it again had a similar situation arisen. and the funny thing is, i don't even blame (let alone criticize) you and i think you did the right thing

Well you should condemn it, the Allies use of indiscrimate fire bombing of German cities was akin to a war crime and has been the subject of much soul searching in the UK. Since then the UK has never done anything similar. At least we now know where you stand on the indiscrimate killing of civilians, not that there was much doubt anyway.

  when your civilians are bombed you should retaliate for the sole purpose of stopping the killing in your side - if the enemy knows he'll pay in lives when he takes your lives, he wouldn't do it.. everybody wins

Get out of the occupied land and the killing will end. Until then you will face a resistance movement that has worldwide support. The current status quo of Isreali oppression in Isreal itself and the occupied lands will not stand, and cannot be allowed to stand as a reward for violent agression.

the point is, having done much worse and never regretting it (not that i think you should) it's hilarious you criticize us

We do criticise the WW2 bombing (Harris is vilified regularly here) and would regard it as a war crime if done now. The proof? We didn't bomb Dublin or Belfast, and didn't firebomb the Serbs. Your attempts to explain away mass murder mean nothing.

hobbes

02-03-2004, 02:31 AM

Hate has no boundaries and even less credibility.

venom_il

02-03-2004, 05:16 AM

@ leftism - "We regularly see live pictures of Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks who then retaliate with machine guns"

and I regularly see pictures of UK soldiers murdering little boys

see? playing the game of spewing out unfounded lies is fun ! :D

This is the biggest crap Ive ever heard. If we wanted to kill Palestinians, there would be millions dead by now you dolt. the amount of special confirmations you need to get just to open fire even with rubber bullets is ridiculous. not only a tank would never open fire against a target throwing rocks at it (when visibility is good and it can determine there is no threat ), there have been cases of terrorists standing in front of a tank with ANTI TANK missiles and the tank couldn't open fire before it was fired at

i mean, this is just absurd. the only reason a tank is there in the first place is because it's the only way to have our soldiers there, protected, WITHOUT the need to hurt civilians. if we wanted to hurt them, we'd just send in regular soldiers and retaliate at everything claiming we didn't have a choice.. and then you'd tell us to send tanks in :lol:

the so called pictures you are referring to only work to convince people of your intelligence, you see a picture of a tank near a boy throwing rocks at it, and you assume the tank immediately shot him after that.. or something, i don't even know how your mind works

dropping massive bombs in highly populated areas? that only happened once when an arch-terrorist was on the verge of committing/planning/authorizing a mega-terrorist hit, he was a ticking bomb hiding amogst civilians for his protection and we were left with no choice

and your ignorance in the matter is just astounding. US tanks ? tanks ?? have you ever even heard of the merkava, the undisputed best tank in the world invented, planned and built solely in Israel ?

i actually think the US gets as much technology from as as we do from them, if not more.. not that it changes the fact the we are highly dependable on them and owe them a LOT by any means but get your facts straight

yes, it's actually very easy to compare the Nazi's to the Palestinians. the only difference between them is that they don't have the means to destroy every Jewish person in the world. but they are easily as cruel as the Nazis, very easily. have you ever seen pictures of the ramalla lynch? have you ever heard of the tortures undergone by our captives when they were kidnapped, as opposed to the sanitary, regular prisons their captives are held at here? do you have any idea what happens to you if you miss a turn and get into Palestinian land ? or does your unbiased BBC only show anti-Israeli pictures? but let's forget that for a second. you seem to try and justify you bombardment of innocent civilians in the fact they were supposedly Nazis. so, you are saying all Germans were Nazis? even the civilians you bombed ? interesting, I'm sure Germans who read this thread will have something to say about that. also, please tell me how bombing civilians had anything to do with military consideration you so willingly bring up ? those bombings, if anything, only hurt your military efforts because instead of bombing proper targets, you were bombing civilians. and let me remind you that the Nazi's had an army with clear uniforms and they fought by the rules of the game, evil as they were. so if civilians were killed you know they were targeted by you because there was a clear distinction made by the Nazi's between the army and civilians. the Palestinian terrorists however don't have uniforms and pose as civilians, they launch missiles from populated buildings, open fire from within crowds, sacrifice their own people for their own cause (like killing their own people in cold blood to increase body count in their side and make Israel look bad) and more. in that regard the Nazi's were actually better than the Palestinians

RE the US and the veto well of course they wouldn't veto each and every single resolution.. would that make any sense to you? :frusty:

If I supported the war in Iraq, the last reason id have for doing so would be the UN

and here's the punch line

and accusing them of being anti-semitic
have i REMOTELY accused ANYONE of being anti-Semitic? let's review my post.. oh, just like i thought, NO. If anything, I only accused you of having double standards and being dumb, but I now add SHAMELESS LIAR to that list

@Rat Faced - whoever talked UK, Germany or France ?!? fact is, 73 (OK, 72 labia sometimes abstains, probably trying to please the US or something) are automatically against us.. some democracy

@1234 - you baffle me. let me ask you something, does your country have nuclear weapons? do you know what nuclear weapons are used for? that's right, pure intimidation. it's obvious to any dimwit we're not going to use them because even if we wanted to, which no one here does, we'd be banned by the entire world and wouldn't stand a week. but perhaps, when your country is on the brink of total annihilation and destruction you use them as a last resort. so you think that Israel is the most dangerous country in the world because you fear a scenario where Arab countries attack Israel, nearly destroy completely and as a last result a nuclear attack might be launched ? let's forget the fact that you're comparing '73 to today which is beyond absurd (no wiseasses this is not a contradiction to the Nazi analogy because the former was about principal and the current one is about the current situation in which Arab countries don't really have a chance to defeat Israel, albeit they could severely hurt it)- why go that far at such a non existing scenario and not look at north Korea, for example, who might use those weapons not for self defense ? or how about Pakistan which is prone to use them against India?

Israel started the 67 war, the invasions of Lebanon and the occupation of Palestinian land. It is an oppressive regime that has shown itself willing to countenance nuclear first strike.

god, i shouldve known you'd be so ignorant as to mention that war. i just can't take it any more, how f**ing brainwashed can you be ?!?!?! :frusty:

During the spring of 1967, the anti-Israel tirades increased in rallies and radio addresses throughout the Middle East. No leader was more inflamed in his rhetoric than Nasser. His threats turned to actions on May 15 when he ordered the United Nations peacekeeping troops out of the Sinai Peninsula. It was becoming evident what was about to take place.

Soon after the UN departure, Nasser ordered a blockade of the Strait of Tiran with these ominous words, "The Strait of Tiran is part of our territorial waters. No Israeli ship will ever navigate it again." This blockade cut off Israel’s southern access to the Red Sea and beyond.

It was, by any possible definition, an "act of war." We wonder how the United States would respond if Canada suddenly blockaded the Saint Lawrence Seaway to all United States shipping!

Nasser and other Arab leaders continued their drum-beating. Consider the following quotation, an example of many that could be cited. "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy, which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map" (President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967).

By May 31, Egypt had moved 100,000 troops, 1,000 tanks, and 500 heavy guns into the Sinai. By June 4, Israel was outnumbered by Arab forces three to one on its borders. In light of these pressures, who would be surprised if Israel finally decided to defend itself?

we started the war. right. offensive regime and all :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:
and tell me something.. even if we did start that war, which we didn't, ther'e still the small matter of 4 other wars launched against us (one of which the day our country was created, when we didn't even have an army), that's 4 to 1 on the aggressiveness balance, I'd say.. I wonder how even before you knew the 67 war wasn't started by us (which you now do) you'd come to the conclusion our regime is aggressive. "first strike nuke" is just too big of a joke to even be addressed.

forgive me if i ignore the rest of your post, but like i said, the sheer amount of blatant lies makes it a little hard. i trust this little example i gave here of your credibility would be sufficient. as a general response to most of your ridiculous claims, consider the fact that over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed as a result of terrorism in addition to countless soldiers. if we were "playing it safe" like you're so sure we are, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be dead, and very few Israelis. your logic is failing badly.

only one last thing - regarding "mass murder of civilians" - i see your reading comprehension is lacking as well. I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side.. not that it's fun and good to do but it might be the only way to stop the murder of your civilians under some circumstances.. you want to take the moral highground, great, but just don't try to confront facts and make stupid comparisons like comparing the nazi's or palestinians to the IRA. also, i see your friend lefty disagrees with you on that subject.. interesting, perhaps that action wasn't as condemned as you try to make it appear.. but we'll let the two of you sort it out :angel1:
P.S. it doesn't really matter what i think about bombing civilians, what matters is reality, in which Israel has never done so

okay i can't help myself, I was browsing your assortment of lies, I'm sorry, post, and my eyes fell upon this

Get out of the occupied land and the killing will end
no, actually, we get out of the "occupied" (It's actually liberated, the land is historically ours to begin with) and the killing will start. the defence wall might stop terrorists, but not tanks. do you have any idea how vulnerable Israel is without some of the liberated territories? do you know what would happen if we didn't have those territories in 73? we'd be destroyed, that's what. we're not willing to take that risk again and therefore we build the wall on a "security route", every inch for the sole purpose of Israel's defense and nothing else

And lastly the bit about "Jewish" terrorism is possibly the most absurd of all, before 48 Arab pilgrims of Jewess were a thing of the norm, the latter were barely defending themselves against the pilgrims, let alone terrorize the Arabs :helpsmile:

btw lynx i call BULLSHIT on your "tv report". did it even fire *at* the alleged harmless kid? did you actually see the kid hurt ? did you have perfect visibility to know there weren't any palestinians firing at the tank behind that kid or possibly AT the kid? (which is exactly what happened in the case of the dead boy a few years ago -the entire world flamed Israel until he turned out to have died from terrorist fire)

j2k4

02-03-2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@2 February 2004 - 22:31
Hate has no boundaries and even less credibility.
Hate also has problems with the quote function, elementary as it is.

Billy_Dean

02-03-2004, 07:57 AM

The more l listen to this shit, the less l want to comment. <_<

@ Hobbes and j2, how have you been? Long time no see. ;)

j2k4

02-03-2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@3 February 2004 - 03:57
The more l listen to this shit, the less l want to comment.  <_<

@ Hobbes and j2, how have you been?  Long time no see.  ;)
I feel the same.

The rhetoric has taken a turn for the even worse.

Kinda hit and miss, here, Billy.

How's you?

:)

putty

02-03-2004, 10:39 AM

I'm sorry in advance for cutting this short and you will believe what you want to believe about so WTF... I know that others on the board feel that you ain't doing too hot here.

1) Your water info source. You seem to take great pride in this article but some folks might take a closer look at both the article and who wrote it.

You're using this info you took from a website that is run by a single person who (from a simple scan of his columns) bases his writings on

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates,
- www.palestinehistory.com,
- Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not quite what it sounds like - it's an Arab-backed magazine),
- Noam Chomsky,
- www.geocities.com/roundtable_texts/zionistplan.html,
- and a book entitled Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.

Not exactly sources for unbiased material, huh?

The water article that you posted does not quote UN documents as you state, but rather quotes:

Palestinian Sharif Elmusa,
- MEI (Middle East Institute) which is a site that hosts columns written by Palestinians and Israelis, meaning that simply quoting MEI, 10 September 93 [No. 458] p. 18.) does not make it fact.
- a book entitled "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel", - The Journal of Palestine Studies.

Simply because you can cut & paste columns from websites that use pro Palestinian/Arab sources, it does not make it fact. If I were to post columns written by settlers, I'd expect it to be met similar disdain.

2) As I've actually shown you, the supposed land restriction argument is not valid. The Israeli govt owns roughly 79% of the country's land, available to both Arabs & Jews for long term lease. Another ~14% is owned by the JNF, an agency that with a few exceptions indeed leases only to Jews. The rest of the land is open for sale to anyone.

So, Arabs are legally entitled to ~84% of the land. If you want to read more on it, I won't bother plagiarizing (passing off the writing of someone else as your own. exactly what you did, btw), but just post this link. You'll notice that this author has legitimate sources, not www.settlersaregreat.com or www.palestiniansarebad.com.

http://www.meforum.org/article/370

The High Court case decision that I linked you to specified that the Israeli govt cannot exchange land with the JNF as it knows that land given to the JNF will be primarily leased to Jews only. Blocking your ears and saying that it's not true will not make it so.

3) Next time you mention apartheid, I'd like a link that shows that Blacks had full voting rights in South Africa, as Arabs do in Israel. I'd like a link that shows how Blacks made up ~10% of the SA parliament, as Arabs do in Israeli parliament.

A link to either fact will be accepted.

4)
Show me where these Druse and Bedouin have access to land barred to Isreali's.

You've mispoken here, since Druze, Bedouins and other Arabs in Israel are Israelis.

- http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/israel/da...t_al_karmil.htm (http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/israel/daliyat_al_karmil/19990115-daliyat_al_karmil.htm)

- Ein el-Asad (village built by the govt for Druze)

One thing though, this land had better have decent water supplies and not be a ghetto or an empty patch of the Sinai desert.

Druze are known to live in the north, many in the Golan on hilltops. I've visited them. Perhaps you should too.

Druze are Arabs who serve in the Israeli draft and although Bedouins are not drafted, many volunteer for the Iisraeli army.

5)
Isreal siezed the land that was meant to be the palestinian state in the original UN 2 state solution. The palestinians would love to have been given their own country.

Not even you believe this. The Palestinians along with the rest of the Arab nations rejected the same 2 state solution that they now say they will accept. The same one that was also rejected at the Khartoum Conference in 1967 just a couple months after Israel won the WB, Golan, Gaza.

The Arab states' response to Israeli immediate offerings of land for peace:

No Peace. No Recognition. No Negotiations. How sweet.

Here's a nice link where you can read all about it:

http://www.google.com/search?q=khartoum%20conference

6)
The US was attacked, as I said, because the IDF has Made in USA on it

My oh my. So you believe that Israel brought on 9/11. This in contrast to Al Qaeda themselves who for years drew complaints that they don't pay enough attention to the Palestinian cause. This in contrast to bin Laden himself saying that his goal was to drive the US "occupation" forces out of holy Muslim Saudi land.

Tsk tsk. You. Will. Believe. Anything.

7)
Are you sure you don't mean Isreali terrorism predates occupation

Are you aware of the Hebron riots? Safed riots? Arab massacres date back to 1920. In a few days in 1929 over 130 Jewish civilians were killed.

8) 1967 war. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. Look it up. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli cargo. They then demanded that the UN Emergency Force in Sinai leave. After they did leave without any argument, Israel acted. If that's offensive in your world so be it.

You may want to look up who opened the Israel-Jordan front in that war. If you do look it up, you won't use it in an argument.

9) Palestinian children

http://www.operationsick.com/articles/2000...urkidsalone.asp (http://www.operationsick.com/articles/20001208_letourkidsalone.asp)

Let our kids alone, Arafat!

By Matthew Kalman, USA TODAY, Friday, Dec 8, 2000

In a rare letter of protest sent this week to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian women's group demanded that the Palestinian Authority stop using children as cannon fodder.
"Our children are being sent into the streets to face heavily armed Israeli soldiers," said the letter from the Tulkarm Women's Union -- a local branch of the Palestinian Women's Union, a trade-union group that promotes the status of women in the Palestinian Authority.

"The Palestinian Authority must put an end to this phenomenon. We urge you to issue instructions to your police force to stop sending innocent children to their death."

The letter adds weight to complaints from parents who are beginning to speak out despite what they say has been two months of intimidation by armed gunmen loyal to Arafat.

"We don't want to send our sons to the front line, but they are being taken by the Palestinian Authority," says Aisheh, 43, a mother of six in the West Bank city of Tulkarm. She says she decided to speak out after her 17-year-old son was hit in the head by a rubber bullet last week. He suffered a concussion.

Like other protesting parents, Aisheh declines to allow her full name to be published for fear of reprisals. A nurse from Gaza who spoke out on Palestinian TV against sending children to the flash points was condemned in the Palestinian media as a traitor. Other individuals who refuse to allow their names to be published say they have been threatened by armed Fatah officials for discouraging their children from participating in the clashes.

Israel has faced international criticism for the deaths of at least 38 children under the age of 17 in more than two months of conflict in which nearly 300 people have died. Nearly 1,000 children have been injured. The Palestinians consider anyone under the age of 17 a child. But children just entering their teens -- and some even younger -- have been injured in the region's worst violence in nearly a decade.

Despite their parents' objections, many Palestinian children appear eager to fight the Israelis and even become martyrs for the Palestinian cause: an independent state.

An Israeli human rights group this week charged that Israeli soldiers routinely open fire on unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. But the group, B'Tselem -- created in 1989, according to its Web site, to "change Israeli policy" to protect Palestinians -- also said the Palestinian leadership was making little effort to keep children and gunmen away from potentially violent confrontations.

Bassam Abu Sharif, a special adviser to Arafat, has accused Israeli troops of "cold-blooded killing." He denies Israeli accusations that the Palestinian Authority has placed children at the front of demonstrations to act as human shields for armed gunmen.

"We don't send children -- nobody can send children -- and we don't hide behind children," Abu Sharif says. "The kids in the demonstrations were there because they were out of school. We love our children the same way other human beings love their children."

Israeli army chiefs point out that not all the children killed in the recent clashes have been innocent bystanders. They say their snipers have orders to shoot anyone shooting or throwing Molotov cocktails at them, but some of the attackers have been as young as 12.

The most famous casualty of the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict was Mohammed Al-Dourra, a 12-year-old boy shot dead on the second day of fighting as he took cover in his father's arms during a gun battle in the Gaza Strip. His last moments were caught on camera by a French TV crew and broadcast around the world.

Abu Sharif says Palestinian police are trying to dissuade children from taking part in clashes with Israeli soldiers. He adds: "These kids are on the streets. For them, banners and demonstrations are a festival."

But Aisheh says the militia of Arafat's Fatah movement and the Palestinian security forces provide transportation and encouragement to children eager to answer the call to combat Israel's continued presence on Arab land.

"When school finishes, Palestinian Authority security cars go around collecting children from the streets and sending them to the killing fields," she says. "This is very serious because they are children and they are unarmed."

Palestinian Authority TV broadcasts constant images of children carrying weapons and staging mock attacks on Israelis.

Over the summer, children as young as 12 were trained in the use of Kalshnikov rifles and other weapons at special camps by Fatah officials.

Ramahan Sahadi Abed Rabbah, 13, was asked by the official Palestinian Authority newspaper why he participated in clashes with soldiers. "My purpose is not to be wounded, but something more sublime -- martyrdom," he replied.

"As the number of those killed rises, the Palestinian media extol and exalt not only those killed, but also their willingness to die as martyrs for Allah, emphasizing that dying a martyr's death was the realization of their hopes," says Itamar Marcus, director of the Palestinian Media Watch monitoring group.

Palestinian Authority TV and newspapers also have come under fire, accused of encouraging children to throw stones and Molotov cocktails at armed Israeli troops.

Aisheh's husband, Abdelghani, says intimidation has kept parents from speaking out.

"No one here dares to say publicly that he is against sending his own children to the front line," he says. "Some parents who have tried to protest have been condemned as fifth columnists (traitors) and threatened."

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=17707 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17707)

As captured on an Israeli video documentary produced in 1998, a "Sesame Street"-like children's program called the "Children's Club" -- complete with puppet shows, songs, Mickey Mouse and other characters -- focused on inculcating intense hatred of Jews and a passion for engaging in and celebrating violence against them in a perpetual "jihad" until the day the Israeli flags come down from above "Palestinian land" and the Palestinian flag is raised.

During the show, which features children aged 4-10, one young boy sings, "When I wander into Jerusalem, I will become a suicide bomber." Afterward, other children stand to call for "Jihad! Holy war to the end against the Zionist enemy."

This is what Palestinian children learn about Jews in dayschool:

http://www.edume.org/reports/1/report.htm

Jews and Israelis are:
Cunning
Deceitful
Treacherous
Disloyal
Wild animals
Jewish aggressors
Robbers
Locust
Thief
Enemy
Thieving conquerors
Thieving enemy
Enemy of prophets and believers

Israel and Israeli characteristics include:

A provocation to the Arab world
A racist Jewish administration
Zionist enemy
Oppressors
Occupied Palestine
Israeli danger
Zionist entity
Zionist greed
Zionist occupation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) UN Resolutions.

Until the Arab states comply with 242, it's a moot point. It calls for peace & recognition of all countries in the region and for Israel to withdraw "from territories". I'm pretty sre that you know why this wording was selected after a very very long debate. It was purposely meant not to state "all the territories". It does not state what is to come first but just that negotiations should offer a final settlement. If you don't want to believe it, here's a good site to look it up at: www.google.com.

Good night.

venom_il

02-03-2004, 01:12 PM

btw 1234 it's funny how you neglected to mention the soviet plane that landed in Alexandria, Egypt, carrying nuclear weapons in the same war, you f***ing demagogue. and that was well after it was clear Israel wasn't going to use nukes and no existential danger was present for the Egyptians (there would be never such danger from Israel who never was and never will be on the offensive) so if Egypt has access to nukes as well.. and Israel is the dangerous one.. you must reckon Egypt is a more peaceful country than Israel :helpsmile:

and here's a little question for you - the UK has nukes, right ? if you were invaded simultaneously by all neighbor countries that didn't have nukes and face total annihilation, would you *consider* using nukes as a last resort - ultimate contingency?

thought so

and let me just repeat the fact that that was 30 years ago and any comparison to the military balance and firearms to be used today is a joke at best

1234

02-03-2004, 02:55 PM

1234 - you baffle me. let me ask you something, does your country have nuclear weapons? do you know what nuclear weapons are used for? that's right, pure intimidation

My country has nukes, but has never threatened first strike. It has also never armed it's delivery systems and blackmailed the world to help it.

  it's obvious to any dimwit we're not going to use them because even if we wanted to, which no one here does, we'd be banned by the entire world and wouldn't stand a week.

Dayan wanted to use them, but was only overruled by Meier who preferred blackmail. Others have also stated they would use a pre emptive first strike if needed.

why go that far at such a non existing scenario and not look at north Korea, for example, who might use those weapons not for self defense ? or how about Pakistan which is prone to use them against India?

Both of those countries are signatories to the NPT, so there is at least some monitoring of the threat. Isreal refuses to sign up to monitoring, aided by US silence, while the US is extremely vocal about other countries non disclosure.

we started the war. right.

Yep, right.

ther'e still the small matter of 4 other wars launched against us

None were launched by the palestinians. The palestinians have had people fighting over their land for centuries but no one ever really consults them.

4 to 1 on the aggressiveness balance

You've forgotton a few, Lebanon for example. A few times actually.

I wonder how even before you knew the 67 war wasn't started by us (which you now do) you'd come to the conclusion our regime is aggressive

Isreal launched the first strikes. Understand? No matter how much you deny it, Isreal attacked first. An attack on most of the arab airfields to be precise. The occupation, Lebanon, and Isreali treatment of palestinians is more than enough proof of an agressive regime. The latest land grab is just another symptom.

consider the fact that over 1000 Israeli civilians were killed as a result of terrorism in addition to countless soldiers.

4500 Palestinians have died, while 480 Isreali's died in the same period. That includes Isreali soldiers.

I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side

So you are saying the UK should have bombed Dublin and Belfast? Lets be clear about this. You are saying we should bomb heavily populated civilain areas in an attempt to kill a handul of terrorists?

not that it's fun and good to do but it might be the only way to stop the murder of your civilians under some circumstances

Ok so we see that you do agree with killing any number of innocent civilians in an attempt to kill one man. The real way to stop the killing is to withdraw to 67 boundaries and comply with UN resolutions - both sides.

like comparing the nazi's or palestinians to the IRA

I didn't compare the Nazi's to the palestinians. I compared human rights abuses, freedom movements, and related terrorism. The palestinians are akin to the French Resistance and the IDF to the Germans.

  i see your friend lefty disagrees with you on that subject  interesting, perhaps that action wasn't as condemned as you try to make it appear.. but we'll let the two of you sort it out

Where does Leftism support Harris? Can't say I can see that anywhere in his posts. Also he is not my "friend" and he is welcome to disagree with me on any matter he has a difference of opinion with me. At least he might steer clear of the random insults of the Zionists. He does live down the road from me though, lot of geordies on here it seems :)

it doesn't really matter what i think about bombing civilians, what matters is reality, in which Israel has never done so

The entire weight of filmed evidence available at any news outlet (except perhaps censored Isreali ones) proves you wrong.

It's actually liberated, the land is historically ours to begin with

Historically yours? How? Most of the Jewish citizens of Isreal are immigrants to the area. The palestinians have been there for centuries, along with Jews, christians, orthodox, you name it. Oh wait, you mean your imaginary friend said you could have it don't you? Keep the fantasies to yourself, they have no place affecting the lives of people who don't believe them.

the defence wall might stop terrorists, but not tanks

You do realise that Sharon has presided over the greatest loss of Isreali life in recent memory? The more you oppress the palestinians, the greater their greivances and the more they volounteer to join the terrorists. Btw, where are the palestinians hiding these tanks? Don't you think they would be using modern weapons if they had them rather than blowing themselves to bits for the chance to take a few of you with them?

do you have any idea how vulnerable Israel is without some of the liberated territories?

Eh? How does this square with your previous statement -

the current situation in which Arab countries don't really have a chance to defeat Israel

Isreal has WMD's, it's not in danger from anyone but itself.

And lastly the bit about "Jewish" terrorism is possibly the most absurd of all, before 48 Arab pilgrims of Jewess were a thing of the norm, the latter were barely defending themselves against the pilgrims, let alone terrorize the Arabs 

You've never heard of Stern, Lehi or Irgun then? How about the King David Hotel? Lord Moyne maybe? Please read up on those groups and their actions before you expose your ignorance further.

You're using this info you took from a website that is run by a single person who (from a simple scan of his columns) bases his writings on

Bzzt wrong. Try again.

Not exactly sources for unbiased material, huh?

No idea, never been to any of those sites.

The water article that you posted does not quote UN documents as you state

I said the site I took it from quoted UN documents, govt papers, etc. Where did I say this was a UN document? The site has a large library of information from all kinds of sources. Keep looking, you might find it someday.

Oh and you still haven't worked out who the original authors are yet, and it's not Elmusa. He is referencing earlier works.

Simply because you can cut & paste columns from websites that use pro Palestinian/Arab sources, it does not make it fact

You haven't contradicted any of those facts.

As I've actually shown you, the supposed land restriction argument is not valid

No you haven't. You just keep saying it and hoping we will all believe you. I showed court case and cabinet results, with relavent quotes. You have shown nothing.

passing off the writing of someone else as your own. exactly what you did, btw

Can you see a little © at the bottom of my posts? Nope, neither do I. Plagarism is claiming something to be your own work, where did I claim that? You are looking like a fool disregarding content in favour of irrelavent and childish behaviour. I repeat, we are not in school here. There are no extra marks for rewording text. My posts are a mixture of original text and sections from other sites that say what I want to say without me having to bother typing it.

The High Court case decision that I linked you to specified that the Israeli govt cannot exchange land with the JNF as it knows that land given to the JNF will be primarily leased to Jews only

No, it stated that non jews could not live in Katzir. Here (http://www.adalah.org/eng/intladvocacy/CESCR-land.pdf) is a link for you. My interpretation fits in much better with facts on the ground and statements in the public domain from Isreali cabinet members than yours.

Next time you mention apartheid, I'd like a link that shows that Blacks had full voting rights in South Africa, as Arabs do in Israel. 

Apartheid is not soley exclusion from the vote. Blacks in the south of the US technically had the vote before the civil rights movement, but lived in an apartheid country.

I'd like a link that shows how Blacks made up ~10% of the SA parliament, as Arabs do in Israeli parliament.

Shame arabs are 20% of the population though isn't it?

Again, apartheid is not soley based on possession of the vote. This (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm) is the actual definition. You will note that Isreal breaches many of those Articles.

You've mispoken here, since Druze, Bedouins and other Arabs in Israel are Israelis.

I know some arabs are Isreali's, 20% to be exact. I said show me land they have that Isreali's of all creeds cannot live on. Not a refusal of a grant, but outright bar to entry.

The link I provided earlier also adresses the Bedouin and Negev inhabitants and Isreal's plans for them. Same plan as for all the palestinians - squeeze them into a smaller and smaller area while cutting off their water access arable land.

Not even you believe this. The Palestinians along with the rest of the Arab nations rejected the same 2 state solution that they now say they will accept

No one ever asked the palestinians, somehow they keep getting lumped into Nasser's and others plans. Egypt is not the palestinians. Neither is Syria or any other country.

The Arab states' response to Israeli immediate offerings of land for peace:

No Peace. No Recognition. No Negotiations. How sweet

Isreal did not offer all the occupied land back and crucially refused to allow palestinians thrown off their own land to return. That is, and indeed should be, unacceptable and the palestinians have UN resolutions supporting their case.

Since then Isreal has never offered a full return of the land or the right of return. The arab states however have all recognised Isreals right to exist. The PLO is even trying to pursuade it's followers to drop the right of return too, a bitter price to pay as I am sure any Jew would agree. I mean, zionists believe Isreal is all about the right of return yes?

So you believe that Israel brought on 9/11. This in contrast to Al Qaeda themselves who for years drew complaints that they don't pay enough attention to the Palestinian cause. This in contrast to bin Laden himself saying that his goal was to drive the US "occupation" forces out of holy Muslim Saudi land

I mentioned the Saudi holy lands, and also pointed out that Al Qaida succeeded in it's aims. Bin Laden is a terrorist and will latch on to any Muslim grievance as cover for his jihad. Isreal's illegal occupation and WMD's (the resolutions against Isreal are almost exactly the same as the arguments used by the US to attack Iraq), while supported by the US, were the natural next step. So yes, US and Isreali foreign policy brought on 9/11. You do know who trained Bin Laden etc don't you? And who is connected to the Bush family via construction contracts and numerous joint funds? None of this is a surprise really from the family than made it's first mound of cash from IG Farben. As a jew I am sure you know who they were.

Are you aware of the Hebron riots? Safed riots? Arab massacres date back to 1920. In a few days in 1929 over 130 Jewish civilians were killed.

From the inquirey into the Hebron riots -

racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."

The Arabs feared economic domination by a group who appeared to the Arabs to have unlimited funding from abroad.

The Commission acknowledged the ambiguity of former British statements to both Arabs and Jews.

The arabs it seems saw the start of the path they are on now. Thrown off their own land by a group with unlimited funding from abroad. It does sound familiar doesn't it?

Of course I don't defend the killings, religion was as usual used to fan the flames of a difficult situation. In fact, just to make sure, I will explicitly condemn the killings just as I have all civilians that have died in the region. You don't seem to feel the need to condemn any amount of IDF slaughter though.

Speaking of terrorists again, no comment on Irgun and the rest then? Those were not random mobs killing for one day, they were terrorists who killed repeatedly for many years.

1967 war. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. Look it up. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli cargo. They then demanded that the UN Emergency Force in Sinai leave. After they did leave without any argument, Israel acted. If that's offensive in your world so be it.

The UN didn't have the troops in Sinai to fight at that time. The UN relies on member nations to provide troops, it has no standing army. The UN then passed resolutions demanding free movement at sea to all nations and that Isreal return the land taken from various countries along with the land of the never-realised palestinian state. Isreal launched the first strike rather than wait for negotiations.

long cut and paste about children fighting

17 - 18 year olds serve in the IDF, and that's the occupying army never mind the resistance to said occupation. If I was 17 and a palestinian damn right I'd be there too. These people have grown up with nothing but Isreali oppression in every facet of their lives and are happy to fight against the occupier, the articles even states as such. Children under that age should not fight, but even in the french resistance (and many others) children younger than 10 were used as spies and had weapon training. Fighting for your lives against a nation with a vastly superior military (the palestinians hardly even merit the description "military" at all) that is apparently immune from international censure brings desperation. Hamas etc are indeed terrorists, but don't forget that the PLO is the democratically elected representatives of the palestinians. I agree with B'Tselem that the PLO should be more active in stopping stonings by children and other activities, but that does not excuse the IDF firing tank shells at people armed with sticks and stones.

Perhaps if the IDF did not destroy every attempt at a PLO security infrastructure they might be able to police their own areas effectively. Isreal always uses the excuse of the PLO's inability to control crowds etc to run in all guns blazing, but never mentions the fact that the IDF keeps blowing up police stations, communications centres and other important systems of an embryonic state. A state that Sharon and his ilk want to prevent at all costs.

Thing is though, most of the children killed were doing things like walking to school (a 6 year old girl), playing in schoolyards (8 year old boy), attending his brothers funeral (8 year old again iirc), the list goes on. There is never any evidence of the weapons the IDF always claims they have, and it takes the death of a foreigner to show how far the IDF will go in lying to protect it's soldiers when they kill civilians

Israel and Israeli characteristics include: ...

Shall I list what Kach and others print about the arabs? Extremists on both sides demonise each other with racial stereotypes. Add religion into the mix and you've got the mess we have now.

Until the Arab states comply with 242, it's a moot point. It calls for peace & recognition of all countries in the region and for Israel to withdraw "from territories".

Newsflash - arab states recognised Isreal's right to exist years ago. Still no sign of the IDF leaving though. The arabs have done their part, the world now waits for Isreal to leave the occupied areas and for the development of a palestinian state.

For years palestinians (and other arab nations) have said that a UN peacekeeping force could patrol the border areas of the newly created state and enforce order (and if you think the US wouldn't invade everyone in sight to help Isreal if they had that resolution in their favour you are clearly insane). Isreal has always refused the offer, just as it refuses to allow UN monitoring of it's occupation.

1234 it's funny how you neglected to mention the soviet plane that landed in Alexandria, Egypt, carrying nuclear weapons in the same war, you f***ing demagogue. and that was well after it was clear Israel wasn't going to use nukes and no existential danger was present for the Egyptians

It was a russian ship, not a plane. It was dispatched after Russia learned of Isreal's preparations for launch and stayed in port till November, unloaded. There are also strong doubts on whether the ship ever had a nuke on it at all, as the only evidence is on a level with Powells UN speech about Iraq's WMD and we know how that has turned out ...

there would be never such danger from Israel who never was and never will be on the offensive

Tell that to Lebanon (several times) and to the palestinians. The IDF launches aggressive wars regularly.

so if Egypt has access to nukes as well.. and Israel is the dangerous one.. you must reckon Egypt is a more peaceful country than Israel 

Egpyt never had access to nukes. Even if that ship did have a nuke on it, it was firmly in USSR control not Egyptian.

the UK has nukes, right ? if you were invaded simultaneously by all neighbor countries that didn't have nukes and face total annihilation, would you *consider* using nukes as a last resort - ultimate contingency?

Nope.

thought so

Heh, expecting me to say yes or something?

But of course Isreal has never faced total annihilation, if it had lost the war in 73 it would have had to return to 67 borders and the US would ensure it lost no more than that. The US would not allow it's client state to fall completely. Kissinger, with his usual brutal honesty, said that the US wanted Isreal to get a bloody nose but not to lose.

and let me just repeat the fact that that was 30 years ago and any comparison to the military balance and firearms to be used today is a joke at best 

You keep saying this, where did I say there was some form of balance? I was pointing out that Isreal has a history of having first use as part of its tactical doctrine, and has actually prepared to launch.

It seems both of you have stopped debating the contents of the earlier posts. Water rights, land rights, human shields, torture, oppression, apartheid - all these things still stand and you only make vague attempts at addressing them if you bother at all.

I guess just calling the gentiles stupid is more your style.

putty

02-03-2004, 02:56 PM

I'm sooo enjoying this exercise in futility. :rolleyes:

No matter how many actual facts taken from legitimate sources posted, these two will block their ears and repeat themselves, using sources that quote websites like www.palestinehistory.com and the The Association of Arab-American University Graduates as fact.

You will believe what you want to believe, that much is obvious.

The bottom line is that both the Israelis and Palestinians are there and neither is going anywhere. Israel will withdraw from just about all the territories. Polls have consistently shown that this is what the Israeli majority wants. The whole debate is how to do it.

Israel cannot and will not leave a vacuum of power in its place, ready for Hamas and the other terrorists to try and claim power. We all know that Arafat would not stand in their way, for fear of being killed himself.

Israel has tried since Oslo to take steps back but each time they have, terror attacks have originated from those areas bringing the IDF back in. Until Arafat learns that his Israeli-armed forces must take charge then nothing will happen.

After what happened in the past 3.5 years, it'll be a long while to get back to Taba. But it will happen and peace will come. Both sides might hate eachother for a generation or two but if there is a real peace then they'll forget why.

If England and France can have true peace and England and the US can have real peace then it'll happen there too. One day.

putty

02-03-2004, 03:05 PM

There is so much BS in that post it's laughable.

I don't know why I bother to try and educate you. You ignore what you don't like, post from sites with biased sources, ignore that fact and say that you've never heard of them (hint: if you read something, look up the sources!), you state that all Arab states have recognized Israel (boy I'd love a link to that), blah blah.

Go compare how many blacks in parliament vs. the general population.. Go compare how many Asians in parliament vs. the general population. Hint: It is IMPOSSIBLE for a minority to be equally represented by their general polpulation %. I guess the US and UK and the rest of the world are apartheid too. BTW, Arabs make up 17% but what's 3% among friends?

Palestinian kids sent to the front line are 17-18? Funny, that not what the Mothers of Tulkarm say. But if true, why call them children?

Please post a link to say that 4500 dead. I'd like to see that.

Insulting gentiles? You'll notice that it's your side that has insulted religions. kosher crack whore.

Whatever dude, you're boring me.

leftism

02-03-2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@ leftism - "We regularly see live pictures of Palestinian children throwing rocks at tanks who then retaliate with machine guns"
<!--QuoteBegin-putty
and I regularly see pictures of UK soldiers murdering little boys

see? playing the game of spewing out unfounded lies is fun !
[/b][/quote]

Indeed, you seem to get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

You remind me of the policeman in South Park.. "Nothing to see here! Move along now, nothing to see here!".

You will deny the images that millions of people see every day and then assert that everyone asides from yourself is brainwashed.

The thing that is particularly sad here is that you want, nay, you need to believe this shit so badly you'll argue that the sky is green and the grass is blue. Asides from grabbing your face, rubbing it in the grass and shouting "Its green! Its green!" there really isnt much room for debate with your policy of denying the obvious.

However in order to keep things nice and friendly I think I'll leave with you with a little 'joke'.

What do you get in Israel if you kill a 10 year old Palestinian boy by snapping his spinal cord with a blow to the head from a pistol butt? 6 months community service!!! :lol: :lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1129829.stm

My isnt that funny....<_<

Have a nice day venom/putty, I sincerely hope you get what you deserve.

Rat Faced

02-03-2004, 06:21 PM

Of course the demolitions (http://www.icahd.org/eng/) are fair...

extract:

On Wednesday, December 10, having already demolished two houses in Beit Hanina, the Ministry of Interior sent its bulldozers and jackhammers to demolish another four houses in Jabal Mukaber, Silwan and Ras el-Amud. Getting word from Palestinian residents that the bulldozers were on the way, ICAHD members Jeff Halper and Meir Margalit rushed to the scene, where they attempted to stop the demolitions by sitting in front of the bulldozers. At the same time they contacted senior officials in the Ministry, because the director the Ministry's demolition activities, Zvi Schneider, has a reputation of demolishing houses with unofficial or partial orders, thereby denying the residents the right to appeal to the court. (ICAHD is a party in a court case currently being brought against Schneider.) Sure enough, the family's lawyer had obtained a court order that morning forbidding the demolition. Despite orders from his superiors, Schneider refused to show us the demolition order, or to stop the demolition. Only when the entire house was almost totally destroyed did Schneider finally accede to Ministry orders to stop the demolition. The home of Adnan Shahin, his wife and their six children, home for the past four years, is almost a complete loss. The families now live in a tent in the Jerusalem winter. Halper and Margalit were arrested; charges are still pending.

Schneider and the Ministry's crews then went on to demolish another four homes.

Billy_Dean

02-04-2004, 07:05 AM

l think people like venom\putty are to be pitied. They have obviously been brainwashed by their government and other zionist organisations. Just leave them alone. They are not the answer, they are the cause. We should choose to ignore them.

<_<

venom_il

02-04-2004, 12:35 PM

yes, we have been severely brainwashed by google, CNN and other credible sources..

a little tip: no one would love to harm Israel more than the Israeli media and that's a fact. one of the most anti Israeli media is Israel's. there are heavy anti government bodies in the media who always try and discredit the government, it's actions etc. if there were PROOF of the bullshit spread in this thread, the Israeli media was the first place you'd find it, so I doubt even someone who only listened to the Israeli media would be brainwashed. censored Israeli media ROFL :lol: and hearing that from a BBC viewer, that's a killer :lol:

but of course, the Arab propaganda you have been listening to is the proper source

1234 - addressing your entire post, that has reached a level of ridiculousness beyond the scope i can handle, is moot. let my just correct your most blatant logical errors that i saw at a first glance - I said that at the current state, Arab armies are going to have a problem defeating Israel.. if we gave up our territories (we were the ones who always had a settlement here and the Arabs were the nomads you tool, Arab immigrates only came here after the Zionists started developing the country in the late 19th century) the situation would change and regardless of win or lose, a war would take a bigger toll on Israel .. FFS such simple logic escapes you

and enough with the first strike nuke bullshit and your conspiracy theories.. Israel was facing total destruction so it "deployed" the weapons to intimidate the Arabs and buy some time.. Israel didn't need to blackmail the US because they were already helping, i mean your lies don't even make any sense, what's up with that? and Israel has never even admitted to having nukes, much less state they'd use it as first strike :frusty: ans it's funny how you know what Dayan wanted to do, really.. you must be a great telepath. BTW even if Israel used the nukes at that time.. it was only after the Egyptians and Syrians were well in the midst of their combined attack (that went pretty well and was close to success, success meaning destroying Israel).. so how would that be pre-emptive, genius?

your country has never armed the weapons, well no shit sherlock. when your country is invaded in multiple fronts and you face total annihilation, we'll chat again. lol i just noticed you said you'd never consider using nukes even at the face of total destruction. why do you have them then? shouldn't you first amend he horrors of your country (by your point of view) that is disarm the UK of nukes (I mean you'd NEVER use them right? ) before you go off about others? and allow me to laugh in your face and state the fact that your government and therefore the vast majority of the UK population does consider using nukes, otherwise you wouldn't have them. and regarding "the UN would never let Israel lose etc" that's the biggest joke Ive ever heard, we've seen the UN and it's troops (who allowed the kidnapping of 3 of our soldiers in front of their eyes and then withheld information from us). now the US is a completely different story, but the day you are willing to put your existence in the hands of another country, friendly as it is (and there is no bigger friend to Israel than the US, like I said we owe them the world), like i said we'll chat again

regarding bombing of Dublin, well obviously no. you haven't been listening to what Ive been saying and just repeating yourself. maybe if you read again, you'd understand

what are these other mysterious wars you mention? there were 5 wars, all started by the Arabs, please educate me otherwise if I'm wrong (with links preferably). so we have tried to destroy Lebanon several times? that's lies, i mean news to me.. just keep in mind that Israel has NEVER been on the offensive initially and always retaliated for it's own safety. anything beyond that is complete bull

and how would the Palestinians launch a war? :frusty: god you're impossible. perhaps if you understood THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THE PALESTINIAN ENTITY, they never had a country and they have always been refugees and immigrants from different of Arab states, you'd understand why they could not have launched a war. what they have done, however, is run from the land after being promised by their Arab friends to get the land after the war was over and Israel destroyed. and so far Israel has been treating them the best, far better than Lebanon and and Egypt who butchered them by the tens of thousands. a nice little tidbit about the PLO - the only purpose of it's existence, as written in it's official decleration, is to add another front (political) to the war upon israel in the ultimate purpose of all arab states to destroy it. a little quote:
The late Faisal Husseini, Arafat's Jerusalem representative, a man who was cultured, sophisticated and considered the most moderate of all the Palestinians, shortly before his death on May 31, 2001, expressed his true feelings in an interview with the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav. Husseini said: "We must distinguish the strategies and long-term goals from the political-phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international pressures." But the "ultimate goal is the liberation of all of historical Palestine." Explicitly he said: "Oslo has to be viewed as a Trojan Horse."

He even added and clarified that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as "temporary" steps, as "gradual" goals, because in this way, "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them." He also differentiated between "strategic," long-term, "higher" goals, and "political" short-term goals dependent on "the current international establishment, balance of power" etc.

All of historical Palestine! Does not this include all of Israel and all of Jordan?

again, feel free to google it, the facts remains true

Israel never offered the Palestinians a country? besides what putty said, what about camp David where Barak offered 98% of the so called "territories" to Arafat and he declined ?

and regarding the "occupation" - like putty said, Israel has immediately offered the entire liberated land to Egypt (Gaza strip) and to Jordan (Judea and Samaria) after the occupation who both declined (they didn't want the Palestinians, they knew just how great the Palestinians were) so please shut up about that

Palestinian tanks ?!?! what are you talking about ?? can your logic be that bad or was that some sort of joke? :(

I'm talking about Syrian and Egyptian tanks that'd go through the "Palestinian" land without any resistance. and prey tell, what would you have us do if the nice little Palestinian country were to start arming itself with tanks, airplanes and missiles ? it's obvious a Palestinian country would be a terror country, possibly owned by Syria like Lebanon, do we want them to have the strategical advantage
as well ? well obviously you do, forget it

FACT - Israeli soldiers are 18 and above

I have actually addressed the so called human shield civilian bombing etc issues , and your failure to accept facts stands still. putty addressed the legal issues, again, reality -1, you - 0

"Insulting gentiles"? oh, i insult gentiles and non-gentiles alike :lol: trust me, if you knew Hebrew I'd point you to an Israeli political board where I insult Jews far, far worse over the same subjects :lol:

first lefty says I accuse him of being anti-semitic which is a complete fabrication, and now you say i disagree with you and supposedly insult you because you are a "gentile" by your wording. well, like putty said, the only side that has brought up religion and ethnicity is yours.. I prefer sticking to the facts

lastly, i noticed you brought up king david as a terrorist act.. well i could write a whole different post about that but the short story was that A) only the northern section which was a MILITARY section was targeted, like all targets of the israeli liberation groups, and even so they were prosecuted by the jews themselves who gave them up to the british TO BE EXECUTED B ) jews worked at that building as well so it's stupid to say they wanted to kill civilians C) they both sent a letter and called a few times to tell them to evacuate the building and there was a bomb but the arrogant soldiers disregarded them

I only pray I can resist the urge and ignore your next posts, your true nature is only becoming more and more apparent

@Rat faced - and we demolish houses for... fun? shits and giggles? specific houses are demolished so they would not serve as terrorist outposts. have you heard of the case where a Palestinian approached the IDF and asked them to demolish his house because it was frequently used by terrorists?

Billy_Dean

02-04-2004, 02:28 PM

And so the bullshit continues ..... on and on and on and on ....

Most of the world disagrees with you. Most of this forum disagrees with you. Common sense and history disagree with you. But you carry on, people like you do the Palestinian cause a huge favour. Your bullshit is so transparent it really needs no rebuttal. You'll lose, evil always loses in the end. And they don't come much more evil than Israel!

<_<

j2k4

02-04-2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 February 2004 - 10:28
And so the bullshit continues  .....  on and on and on and on ....

That much, at least, is true.

I feel it more prudent to merely forego further pronouncements on the question, although I think stating that one opinion or allegiance holds sway as majority would be a bit difficult to prove, and in any case irrelevant; we all celebrate the freedom to hold our own opinions, yes?

I have no doubt of where you, Billy, or leftism, 1234, venom or putty stand on the issue.

I have made my views known in other threads.

I think the one certainty is that we shall never agree; the view may, in some cases, widen, but the bottom line doesn't change a whit, does it? ;)

venom_il

02-04-2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 February 2004 - 15:28
You'll lose, evil always loses in the end. And they don't come much more evil than Israel!

<_<
:lol:

Israel evil eh? and what goodly country might you be hailing from ? :lol:

Rat Faced

02-04-2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by venom_il@4 February 2004 - 12:35

@Rat faced - and we demolish houses for... fun? shits and giggles? specific houses are demolished so they would not serve as terrorist outposts. have you heard of the case where a Palestinian approached the IDF and asked them to demolish his house because it was frequently used by terrorists?
You obviously never read the article.

In this case it was to build houses for the Jewish Community, and the demolition was continued despite a court order that it should not go ahead.

The guys that tried to stop the demolition were arrested, not the guys going against the court order....

Also, after you "anti-semetic violence" tirade against the UK/Europe.

Have you police started arresting the thugs that attack Christians in Israel yet?

Have the ultra-orthodox jews stopped attacking women that dress "immodestly"?

Jews can leave and return to Israel anytime they want, however a Muslim that doesnt apply for specific permission to return, loses his citizenship...fair?

Just a few things i read in the US State Department site re: Israel (not the Occupied Territories, which Internationally are not recognised as Israel however much you wish they were (even by the USA))

Oh yeh....how can anyone living in a country where you can be arrested for speaking in support "Banned" organisation (a decision taken unilaterally by certain heads of Department, not the legislature as a whole) claim to have a "Free Press"? They are free to criticise, however i believe they have a whole department devoted to censoring anything that touches on "National Security"...something decided by the censors themselves.

Of course they can appeal these decisons (and the good thing is that the censors cant appeal the things that go against them..its not all bad)....however by that time it isnt "News", is it?

Dont get me wrong, this is a general criticism of the media throughout the world..including our own, which are sometimes muzzled for the stupidest reasons; however a declaration of a "Free and unbiased Press" anywhere has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

You want your world rankings for "Press Freedom"?

44th Concerning Israel

146th Concerning the Occupied Territories

Source (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247)

We better all get some Finnish Newspapers......anyone got a Finnish Translator? :blink:

venom_il

02-05-2004, 07:53 AM

true, I haven't read the article because I know the phenomenon
I don't know the details of this specific case but i do know your source is some leftist / Arab extremist site and i wouldn't believe a word in it

and even though generally, demolitions sprout from security reasons, they are still heavily criticized here, just to let you know

thugs that attack Christians? is that some sort of joke? what the hell are you talking about ?? are you insinuating there's some form of Christian segregation? how ridiculous is that :blink: let alone the fact that the police barely arrests thugs that attack anyone, there's no such thing as Christian segregation here. i mean with Muslims/Arabs there's obviously tension and in some cases you could claim segregation but with Christians it's just a sad joke, it's unthinkable. I want to see the source

ultra-orthodox - everybody hates them, what's you point ? do you like ultra Muslims who preach for violence or ultra Christians that claim everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is a sinner and will go to hell ?

RE the site u gave, even assuming it's credible and objective which i somehow doubt, I'd say 44 isn't that bad, especially for a country in our condition. who the hell was talking about press in the territories? I was talking about Israeli media. the UK is also part of the Iraqi occupation and they're not doing too hot there.. all US's fault ? in any case, of course there's censorship when matters of national security are concerned, what's so surprising about that...

RE citizenship - I hope I don't need to remind you under which circumstances this country was established, why it's called "the land of the Jews" and why it's important to preserve a Jewish majority resulting inevitably in unfair rules in that regard. however, I'm not familiar with the specific law you mentioned, and I'd like a link to the exact phrasing if you know of one

all and all it's very easy to criticize Israel, but the important question would be what others would be doing in our stead. would you give up territories without which your country would be extremely vulnerable to a devastating attack? (one that has been commenced 5 times before) would you be more compassionate than us to the Palestinians, who given the slightest break or trust use it to execute terrorist attacks? did you know the vast majority of Palestinians support terrorism and go out to the streets dancing after every terrorist attack (including the 9/11) ?

RE Israeli Muslim Arabs - did you know that EVERY SINGLE terrorist attack was due to the help of an Israeli Muslim Arab ?

It's a tough situation and with all due respect, we have all seen how the UK behaved when they were here .. executed whoever the hell they wanted without trial (whereas Israel puts the most evil murderers in jail), killed Muslim oppressors and then wrapped pork around their bodies to spite them and generally did whatever suited them, without any regard for any native, either Muslim or Jew. not to mention abuse of the mandate that was given to them just until Israel would be ready to stand on it's own, which it obviously was

now don't get me wrong - I fully understand the way the UK behaved when they were here and you would never hear me criticize them - I'm just saying any other country in our position would have acted far worse, and you need only look at the US in Afghanistan and the combined forces in Iraq for proof

perhaps the most blatant example would be
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386695.stm
(BBC :D )

again, fully support them and I wouldn't dream of criticizing them, but I do find it odd for them to criticize us

BTW - why the massive interest in Israel? the Russians are doing far worse with the Chechen's (somehow i think the Russians don't really need that territory) and so are the Chinese in Tibet. there are other countless examples in the world. we are without a doubt the most humane of all .. and yet, I haven't seen a single thread in this board (or any other one Ive been to for that matter) discussing other feuds.. why is that ? because criticizing Israel is the easiest, that's why

Billy_Dean

02-05-2004, 08:12 AM

Another post without verified facts or sources. Typical! You also comment on a website you haven't visited because you already "know" what it contains.

would you give up territories without which your country would be extremely vulnerable to a devastating attack?

You mean like WW1 and WW2 ?

did you know the vast majority of Palestinians support terrorism and go out to the streets dancing after every terrorist attack (including the 9/11) ?

You asked them did you?

RE Israeli Muslim Arabs - did you know that EVERY SINGLE terrorist attack was due to the help of an Israeli Muslim Arab ?

Every single one? l wonder how idiotic you could be if you really tried.

l don't see anyone leaping to your defence here, and l'm not surprised.

<_<

venom_il

02-05-2004, 08:30 AM

well since it's basically a European board I'm not too surprised either
I have been to US boards and the situation is quite different

of course ppl are going to leap at me now claiming i called all Europeans anti-semitic, but anyone who thinks that, please read again and consider i only deal with facts and the general opinion in Europe is no secret according to many surveys, one of them the one claiming Israel is the most dangerous country in the world the

"You mean like WW1 and WW2 ?"

:lol:

besides the fact england has about 9 times both territory and population Israel has, it's surrounded by allies/neutrals with which it has defence arrangements. Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab countries in the midst of an Arab/Muslim sea. and what about the fact that england is far easier to defend than Israel, being an island ?

"You asked them did you?"
yes, we asked them and since they always do what we ask them to, for example stop terrorist attacks, they did it :lol:

"Every single one? l wonder how idiotic you could be if you really tried."
yes, every single one. more than that, there were many Israeli Arabs who actually planned to commit terror attacks within Israel, much like their Palestinian brethren

look for yourself
http://www.google.co.il/search?num=100&hl=...bs+terror&meta= (http://www.google.co.il/search?num=100&hl=iw&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Israeli+arabs+terror&meta=)

and you haven't answered the question - what country are you from ? am i to understand from your reply it's the UK ?

Billy_Dean

02-05-2004, 09:53 AM

What was that link all about? You show me a Google page as "proof" of your ramblings?

And what difference does it make what country l'm from?

l worked in a Kibbutz whan l was younger, l couldn't get out of there quick enough. l know something of the attitude of Israelis, especially settlers. l've also lived among Muslims, they want only what's theirs. And l'm talking about radical Muslims too. If Israel wants peace, withdraw to 1967 borders, as the UN demands. And don't give me semantics about the wording, read the preamble.

<_<

leftism

02-05-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by venom+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (venom)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>true, I haven't read the article because I know the phenomenon
I don't know the details of this specific case but i do know your source is some leftist / Arab extremist site and i wouldn't believe a word in it
[/b]

hmm, I cant quite decide between this...

http://www.turnonthenews.com/monkeytrio.jpg

or this....

http://www.uul.com.au/images/ostrich.gif

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Originally posted by leftist/arab-extremist-site+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftist/arab-extremist-site)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
What is ICAHD

ICAHD is a non-violent, direct-action group originally established to oppose and resist Israeli demolition of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories.

As our activists gained direct knowledge of the brutalities of the Occupation, we expanded our resistance activities to other areas - land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of "closure" and "separation," the wholesale uprooting of fruit and olive trees and more. The fierce repression of Palestinian efforts to "shake off" the Occupation following the latest Intifada has only added urgency to our efforts.

As a direct-action group, ICAHD is comprised of members of many Israeli peace and human rights organizations. All of our work in the Occupied Territories is closely co-ordinated with local Palestinian organizations.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-venom@
of course ppl are going to leap at me now claiming i called all Europeans anti-semitic, but anyone who thinks that, please read again and consider i only deal with facts and the general opinion in Europe is no secret according to many surveys, one of them the one claiming Israel is the most dangerous country in the world[/quote]

Translation: "Now I'm not saying all Europeans are anti-semitic, but imho all Europeans are anti-semitic".

You keep on telling yourself that venom. Ignore the many laws we have to protect Jewish people, (its illegal to deny the holocaust in Europe) and just keep on repeating this mantra.

"everyone who disagrees with me is anti-semitic, everyone who disagrees with me is anti-semitic".

<!--QuoteBegin-venom
executed whoever the hell they wanted without trial (whereas Israel puts the most evil murderers in jail), killed Muslim oppressors and then wrapped pork around their bodies to spite them and generally did whatever suited them, without any regard for any native, either Muslim or Jew. not to mention abuse of the mandate that was given to them just until Israel would be ready to stand on it's own, which it obviously was

now don't get me wrong - I fully understand the way the UK behaved when they were here and you would never hear me criticize them[/quote]

Venom.. you're either extremely young, extremely stupid or extremely mad.

Let me put it another way. You wont find anyone of sound mind who would "fully understand" wrapping pork around dead muslims and not criticise it.

Rabid dogs and disease ridden pigs have a stronger moral position than you.

<_<

Rat Faced

02-05-2004, 04:21 PM

The comments regarding the attacks on Christians and women were in the US State Department reports on Human Rights Abuses in 1999.

Heres the 2000 Report. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/794.htm)

Apparently at that time things were going downhill slightly in most categories...

Remember this report is from the US Government, who will be trying to make it as good as possible for Israel....not a country that will be bending over the opposite way (yes, i know they exist)

Israel's legal court system is apparently trying to stop things...but is being ignored by the Government. Good for the courts...now try giving them the power they should have and you'll be on your way.

I like how you state regarding the Press Rankings that its a biased site... biased is whose favour?

The Arab states come of worse than israel, so its obviously not biased in their favour.....

Your ranked 44 on Issues that dont concern the Occupied Territories...any news concerning the territories is much worse.

44 isnt bad(?), however your behind countries such as Equador, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua etc etc.....none of which are noted for their "Free Press" which you brag about....however you have to look at the weightings with the Rank, that says how much...in your case its 8, twice that of the UK (and like i said, ours is muzzled for some stupid reasons).

We trail behind Uruaguay and Costa Rica...im not boasting :P

On news concerning the Occupied Territories your ranked at 146..... thats BEHIND The Pallestinian Authority (Ranked 130)...but nevermind, as with weightings of nearly 40, we wont believe them either.... and i did say this was about Government Interference.

The ranking does not say how Biased any news story is either, thats an editorial matter....it just shows how much interference Governments have on the Press.....and it doesnt matter what political bias Israeli Press put either way, if the basic news from the area is interfered with 1st...as in the case of the Occupied Territories.

Im not proud of a lot of things that the UK did, including attemptig to Gas the Kurds in Persia (1930s), but what you just mentiond re: pork around bodies is just sick, if true...Ive never heard that one :(

putty

02-05-2004, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@5 February 2004 - 09:53
  l've also lived among Muslims, they want only what's theirs. And l'm talking about radical Muslims too. If Israel wants peace, withdraw to 1967 borders, as the UN demands.

1) The PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years before stepped foot inside the West Bank/Gaza. Guess who the PLO charter describes as "Occupiers"... is it the Jordanians (who were ocupying the WB), was it the Egyptians (who were occupying Gaza)? No, it was the Israelis. Before they took over the territories.

2) Oct 2003 poll

44.6% of Palestinians say the goal of the intifadah is to get Israel out of the occupied tettitries.

43% say that the goal is to "liberate all of historic Palestine"

61.8% support "suicibe bombings against Israeli civilians".

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2003/no49.pdf

3) The stated goal of Hamas is to continue until Israel is no more

4) As already stated, Israel offered return of the territories in 1967 and was flat out rejected. Again, see Khartoum Conference.

"No peace. No recognition. No negotiations."

Spare me the "return to 1967 borders and there will be peace". I do happen to agree that Israel should return the territories but I'm not fooling myself into believing that it'll bring peace.

And don't give me semantics about the wording, read the preamble.

The resolution took over 5 months of negotiations to pass. Please don't ignore the intentions of the authors of the resolution because you don't like it.

Lord Carandon, UK ambassador to the UN and an author of Resolution 242:

"We didn't say there should be withdrawal to the ‘67 line; we did not put ‘the' in, we did not say ‘all the territories' deliberately. We knew that the boundaries of ‘67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier. We did not say that the ‘67 boundaries must be forever."

Eugene Rostow, US Undersecretary of State, and also an author of Resolution 242:

"[It is] perfectly clear about what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from ‘all' the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile' and ‘vulnerable' Armistice Demarcation Lines [1949] but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized' boundaries, agreed to by the parties"

Contrary to what someone else posted here, recognition of Israel has come only from Egypt and Jordan. Full recognition of every state in the region and territory withdrawal are both required under 242. It does not state which is to come first.

putty

02-05-2004, 06:59 PM

You wont find anyone of sound mind who would "fully understand" wrapping pork around dead muslims and not criticise it. 

How about calling someone's mother a "kosher crack whore" in a thread screaming about how not anti-semitic you are?

http://www.alertus.com/images/graphics/thumbs_up.jpg

leftism

02-05-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by venom/putty
How about calling someone's mother a "kosher crack whore" in a thread screaming about how not anti-semitic you are?

Nope, thats still nowhere near as bad as killing muslims and then wrapping their bodies in pork you lunatic.

As for my "anti-semitic" comment, if your happy to live by the sword then you should be equally as happy to die by it.

So if, at some point in the future, I suggest that people should kill your mother then wrap her body in pork then you might just have a point.

putty

02-05-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by leftism+5 February 2004 - 19:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 5 February 2004 - 19:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-venom/putty
How about calling someone's mother a "kosher crack whore" in a thread screaming about how not anti-semitic you are?

Nope, thats still nowhere near as bad as killing muslims and then wrapping their bodies in pork you lunatic.

As for my "anti-semitic" comment, if your happy to live by the sword then you should be equally as happy to die by it.

So if, at some point in the future, I suggest that people should kill your mother then wrap her body in pork then you might just have a point. [/b][/quote]
:frusty: Dude, WTF are you talking about?

My mother's a kosher crack whore and now i'm a lunatic.

From you? Yay!

http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/icons/smoothfag.gif

leftism

02-05-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by putty/venom
My mother's a kosher crack whore and now i'm a lunatic.

Ah.. the little man is so easily confused... :)

Your a lunatic because you support killing muslims and wrapping their bodies in pork, venom/putty.

I'm very sorry to hear that your mother's a crack whore as I'm sure this factor played a significant role in your descent into lunacy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

putty

02-05-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by leftism+5 February 2004 - 20:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 5 February 2004 - 20:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-putty/venom
My mother's a kosher crack whore and now i'm a lunatic.

Ah.. the little man is so easily confused... :)

Your a lunatic because you support killing muslims and wrapping their bodies in pork, venom/putty.

I'm very sorry to hear that your mother's a crack whore as I'm sure this factor played a significant role in your descent into lunacy. :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Lefty buddy, get help.

I almost think that you're a Likud member trolling as a caricature of the anti-Israel crowd.

Trust me, you're doing your cause no good.

leftism

02-05-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by putty/venom+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty/venom)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Trust me, you're doing your cause no good. [/b]

You think?

I've just got you to admit that you think killing muslims and wrapping their bodies in pork is a good thing.

I think I'm making excellent progress in unearthing the real you, putty/venom :)

btw I couldnt help but notice yet another innaccuracy in your lunacy.

Originally posted by putty/venom@
executed whoever the hell they wanted without trial (whereas Israel puts the most evil murderers in jail), killed Muslim oppressors and then wrapped pork around their bodies to spite them and generally did whatever suited them, without any regard for any native, either Muslim or Jew. not to mention abuse of the mandate that was given to them just until Israel would be ready to stand on it's own, which it obviously was

now don't get me wrong - I fully understand the way the UK behaved when they were here and you would never hear me criticize them

They only put the murderers in jail if the victim is Jewish, putty/venom. You get community service for killing Palestinian children.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1129829.stm

Dont delay! Go out and bag yourself a couple of them before the Judge changes his mind!

Then you can wrap their bodies in pork and put them on the mantelpiece or whatever it is sickos like you do for kicks, buddy :)

PS

I'm just reading through your post where you defended the King David hotel bombing because the bombers gave warnings. In fact, you said that wasnt terrorism.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty/venom
i noticed you brought up king david as a terrorist act[/quote]

One rule for the gentiles and another for the chosen people, eh?

I'll be quite happy to make mincemeat out of you on this point as well if you like :)

putty

02-05-2004, 08:50 PM

Keep going, you're doing GREAT!

:lol:

hobbes

02-05-2004, 08:52 PM

Putty,

I tried to warn you, this thread is a rerun.

EBP referring to Hobbes:

Yet.. I am biased?? I am deceptive?? What an insane state of affairs... Anyone who supports these actions yet claims to be anything other than a psychopath is deceptive in the extreme.

This is what EBP told me before his departure and name change to Leftism or 1234 or both. Speculation on my part, but certainly the same song and dance routine.

Hobbes:

I have never tried to justify that Israel is "right" and Palestine "wrong", I have just suggested that it a two way street and that there are extremists on both sides keeping the civilian population hostage. It is time that both sides got control of their extremists and stopped dying for their insanity.
I have also tried to explain why American policy is pro-Israel, rather than justify it.
I would say that I am far closer to being in the pro-people party than EBP. Honestly, I think both sides are just a bunch of lunatics, killing each other to defend their belief in a loving God. The irony is so bitterly rich.

From this thread: http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=527901 (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=66129&view=findpost&p=527901) ,but the topic was spread out over several different ones.

My point in the whole thread was above, each time answered with the same, "you support indiscrimate slaughter.....".

I finally learned to jump off the train. If you continue on your journey, remember you and your fellow passengers will enjoy a turbulent ride and end up nowhere.

putty

02-05-2004, 09:05 PM

Thanks hobbes.

There does come a point when you realize that you're debating a 14 year old and then you start to feel bad about doing it.

Judging Lefty's posts, that's pretty much where I am.

:(

leftism

02-05-2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by hobbes
My point in the whole thread was above, each time answered with the same, "you support indiscrimate slaughter.....".

Ahh, so thats what all this EBP weirdness you keep on mentioning is related to.

One quick point hobbes.

Where in this thread have I said the phrase "you support indiscriminate slaughter"?

Putty/Venom revealed that he thought killing muslims and wrapping their bodies in pork was a good idea.

Note carefully

I didnt accuse him of that, he admitted it of his own free will with no accusations from me. I've merely used this admission to throw doubt upon putty/venoms position. I think this is quite acceptable.

@putty

Thats a shame. I would have liked to see you explain why the King David hotel bombing wasnt a terrorist act.

hobbes

02-06-2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by leftism+5 February 2004 - 22:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 5 February 2004 - 22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
My point in the whole thread was above, each time answered with the same, "you support indiscrimate slaughter.....".

Ahh, so thats what all this EBP weirdness you keep on mentioning is related to.

One quick point hobbes.

Where in this thread have I said the phrase "you support indiscriminate slaughter"?
[/b][/quote]

You didn't, EBP did. I was making reference to my experiences in the prior thread, not this one. Sorry, if that was unclear.

http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=527382 (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=66129&view=findpost&p=527382)

Your words may be different, but the M.O. very similar.

I've learned from prior personal failures that if I keep my emotions in check and keep my keel steady in tough waters, I can actually reach people and that what keeps me here. Biggles does a great job of this.

failure edit (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=24645&view=findpost&p=163855)

J2 has kept the original post intact - gee thanks-later in that same thread-damn quote function.

Personally, I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know. I think you could refine the way you post if you wanted to. You could call peoples' attention to the fact that Israels' role in the perpetuation of the MiddleEast conflict may be significantly under-represented in American media and expand delicately from there.

Calling Americans brain-washed and under the influence of a Zionist media, really starts things off poorly.

Since I think you know this, I just don't understand what your goal is? I think you're wasting your intelligence and that is a shame.

leftism

02-06-2004, 02:42 AM

I pretty much agree with all the the points you raised, apart from this next bit.

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Calling Americans brain-washed and under the influence of a Zionist media, really starts things off poorly. [/b]

I dont recall saying that Americans are brainwashed. However putty/venom did start us off by saying all Europeans are brainwashed. In response (playing devils advocate) I said something along the lines of "how do you know its not you lot who are brainwashed", which is quite different.

I did say that many Americans are influenced by the largely pro-Israel media but I dont think thats offensive and it doesnt constitute brainwashing. There is a reason why companies spend millions on advertising and thats because it works. I dont think its a mark of shame on a nation to say they are affected by this.

What I take issue with is whether proof or logic is offered to show that the media organisations in question really do have this bias. e.g. putty/venom has consistently argued that most Europeans are anti-semitic and that the allegedley pro-arab European media organisations are to blame for this. He's never offered any logical reasoning or proof to tell us why these media organisations are selling pro-Arab propaganda to a predominantly Judeo-Christian continent.

On the other hand, I and other people in this thread have shown that individuals such as Rupert Murdoch are extremely pro-Israel and even call themselves Zionists. We've pointed out that Europe has specific laws aimed at protecting Jews, all to no avail. We are a continent of anti-semites and thats why we disagree with Israel's policies. If putty/venom wants to label (and insult) an entire continent as anti-semitic, he should at least be polite enough to offer some proof or reasoning.

Instead we are offered a tautology. Why do they disagree with Israel? Because they're anti-semitic. How do you know they're anti-semitic? Because they disagree with Israel.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Since I think you know this, I just don't understand what your goal is? I think you're wasting your intelligence and that is a shame.[/quote]

Once it became clear that putty/venom was impervious to any form of rationality I abandoned all attempts to engage in a logical debate. Particularly when he said he "understood" the killing of muslims and the wrapping of their bodies in pork.

People like that can't be reached, they are just too far gone.

PS

I've read a few news reports recently that indicate American public opinion is starting to move away from Israel, albeit quite slowly. Perhaps in a few years time you'll have the honour of trying to convince putty/venom that your nation isnt composed of jew-haters? If it ever does come to that, I'm pretty sure you'll understand my hostility :)

putty

02-06-2004, 04:39 AM

Don't stop now, you're almost there!

:)

leftism

02-06-2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once it became clear that putty/venom was impervious to any form of rationality....[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-putty/venom
Don't stop now, you're almost there![/quote]

I rest my case...

1234

02-06-2004, 04:48 PM

The bottom line is that both the Israelis and Palestinians are there and neither is going anywhere. Israel will withdraw from just about all the territories. Polls have consistently shown that this is what the Israeli majority wants. The whole debate is how to do it.

It is one of the peculiar aspects of Isreali politics that the people always say they want peace and are prepared to sacrifice land for it, but they then elect the leaders least likely to do it. When a leader with a chance to further that policy is finally elected, jewish extremists assasinate him.

Israel cannot and will not leave a vacuum of power in its place, ready for Hamas and the other terrorists to try and claim power. We all know that Arafat would not stand in their way, for fear of being killed himself.

As already mentioned, stop destroying any attempt by the PLO to build an infrastructure both in terms of law and law enforcement. Bombing and killing their policemen doesn't allow them to perform even basic functions.

Israel has tried since Oslo to take steps back but each time they have, terror attacks have originated from those areas bringing the IDF back in

Because you are still not pulling back far or fast enough. Stop looking for a face saving way out and just leave all the occupied territories.

Until Arafat learns that his Israeli-armed forces must take charge then nothing will happen.

Oh dear you really are out of touch aren't you. The IDF even destroyed all the infrastructure built by the EU to help govern the PLO admin areas. You certainly don't supply them with any help of any note, or do you mean "Isreali armed" as in the ammunition you keep sending their way free of charge?

If England and France can have true peace and England and the US can have real peace then it'll happen there too. One day. 

Amen, now instead of attempting to defend the indefensible why don't you help with a solution? If you have the vote, don't vote for people complicit in mass murder (like Sharon) and instead vote for people willing to work for peace.

I don't know why I bother to try and educate you.

Educate me? You'd have difficulty educating a kindergarten class, no offence.

post from sites with biased sources, ignore that fact and say that you've never heard of them (hint: if you read something, look up the sources!)

I do know my sources, you have yet to find them. You have yet to post a link to the authors, or even mention the name. Not sure why you are pushing this angle when you are so manifestly wrong :)

you state that all Arab states have recognized Israel (boy I'd love a link to that)

Ok this (http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm) is the communique released by the Arab League, and just for comfirmation for you, here (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0326arblg.htm) is a supporting link for you. Check out the url of that one, going to call that page biased against Isreal too?

I guess the US and UK and the rest of the world are apartheid too

Hmm conclusive proof you don't even read other people's posts. Did you miss the part where I showed the definition of apartheid? It is not based solely on voting rights or a % representation in parliament

Palestinian kids sent to the front line are 17-18? Funny, that not what the Mothers of Tulkarm say. But if true, why call them children?

And again, you didn't bother to actually read my post. I said 17-18 is fine for fighting on the front line, as the IDF are the same age. I then said under that is not a good thing, but it is a recognised fact of life in resistance movements the world over including the French, Polish and others in WW2. I'd prefer it didn't happen, but in desperate times resistance movements do desperate things. You see that is the difference between you and the palestinians, they are the agreived party and no amount of reference to the Holocaust will hide your guilt.

Please post a link to say that 4500 dead. I'd like to see that.

Btselem.org keeps an up to date list. Note that Btselem is an Isreali group.

Insulting gentiles? You'll notice that it's your side that has insulted religions. kosher crack whore

I don't recall calling you that, yet you insult me.

we have been severely brainwashed by google, CNN and other credible sources

Google is not a credible source. It is a gateway to a virtual library that contains everything from absolute truth to absolute lies.

no one would love to harm Israel more than the Israeli media and that's a fact

Yep, that media hates you more than the people who's homes you demolish and children you kill.

one of the most anti Israeli media is Israel's

Get a grip, I think Libya's media is probably more anti Isreali than yours is. Along with a whole lot of other media sources.

censored Israeli media ROFL  and hearing that from a BBC viewer, that's a killer 

You don't seem to be seeing all the children being killed, so I can only assume it is censored from your tv's like it is in the US. Btw, Channel 4 News viewer, not BBC :)

if we gave up our territories  the situation would change and regardless of win or lose, a war would take a bigger toll on Israel .. FFS such simple logic escapes you

I see, so your nukes are hand thrown then are they? Along with all your other missiles? They must be if a small series of hills suddenly renders them useless.

we were the ones who always had a settlement here and the Arabs were the nomads you tool, Arab immigrates only came here after the Zionists started developing the country in the late 19th century

Nomads? You are borderline racist. There were civilisations in that area with important cities for millenia. It has been one of the most contested chunks of several empires for centuries. Please do some research on where you appear to live. I suggest starting with Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.

  Israel didn't need to blackmail the US because they were already helping, i mean your lies don't even make any sense, what's up with that? and Israel has never even admitted to having nukes, much less state they'd use it as first strike  ans it's funny how you know what Dayan wanted to do, really.. you must be a great telepath

I'm not a telepath, it's just that the documents are in the open. Here (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm) is a link covering this story from that bastion of anti semitism - the USAF.

even if Israel used the nukes at that time.. it was only after the Egyptians and Syrians were well in the midst of their combined attack (that went pretty well and was close to success, success meaning destroying Israel).. so how would that be pre-emptive, genius

Pre-emptive as in first use of nuclear weapons. No other nation has said they would use nukes first, with the recent exception of the US. MAD was all about not using yours because the enemy would use his. No one apart from Isreal and the current US admin is stupid enough to want to use nukes in a conventional war.

your government and therefore the vast majority of the UK population does consider using nukes

Wrong on two counts. First, a govt is not usually of the same opinion as the majority of the population. Look at both the US and the UK for examples of that. Secondly, most of the the UK population does not want nukes in our country and neither does most of Blairs party. A high % of the Labour party were/are members of CND.

otherwise you wouldn't have them

We have them a) because in the 50's it was a matter of misguided national pride B) no prime minister have ever wanted to get rid of them. Note that's the PM, not the population (or even the cabinet).

we've seen the UN and it's troops (who allowed the kidnapping of 3 of our soldiers in front of their eyes and then withheld information from us). 

And the IDF has slaughtered 1000's of people in front of international observers and the UN (when they are allowed access at all). Hmm, 3 vs 1000's. Looks like the UN must favour you by a factor of several 1000 to 1 if we use your logic.

regarding bombing of Dublin, well obviously no. you haven't been listening to what Ive been saying 

I understand exactly, you are avoiding the point. You drop missiles into heavily populated areas to kill one or two terrorists, but you are saying the UK would have been wrong to do the same to Dublin? Hypocrisy.

what are these other mysterious wars you mention?

Are you even aware of the country of Lebanon? You have invaded it several times, most notably in the early 80's when Sharon was sacked as Defence Minister for complicity in the deaths of 1000's of civilians in two refugee camps. Why am I having to tell you your own history?

just keep in mind that Israel has NEVER been on the offensive initially and always retaliated for it's own safety. anything beyond that is complete bull 

I repeat, should the UK have invaded Eire because a few rockets were fired into NI? Please don't avoid the question yet again.

if you understood THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THE PALESTINIAN ENTITY, they never had a country and they have always been refugees and immigrants from different of Arab states,

Palestine (or Filastin as it was known) has been around since 638AD when the Muslim faith took control of the area. Before that it was known to the Byzantines, Greeks, Persians and Egyptians. Are you seriously trying to deny the whole swathe of recorded history in the area? People have lived there since recorded time began pretty much, and their descendents still live there today.

what they have done, however, is run from the land after being promised by their Arab friends to get the land after the war was over and Israel destroyed. 

Run from what land? What on earth are you talking about here? The only land they have left is that which jewish isreali's live on now.

so far Israel has been treating them the best, far better than Lebanon and and Egypt who butchered them by the tens of thousands

Lebanon and Egypt butchered them by the tens of thousands? Source please? Or are you referring to some bygone age in history? What we do know for sure though is that the IDF kills them to this day, and that your PM was found guilty by Isreal of complicity in the deaths of 1000's in Lebanon. No answer to the water rights and land rights questions then? You avoid addressing anything you find counter to your pre determined beliefs.

the only purpose of it's existence, as written in it's official decleration, is to add another front (political) to the war upon israel in the ultimate purpose of all arab states to destroy

See my link above about the Arab League recognising Isreal if Isreal also complies with 242. Arafat wanted to attend that meeting btw to add his voice to the debate, but was barred by the Isreali's from taking part. The Isreali's refuse to let him leave Ramallah and block his communications to the outside world including to govts such as the UK. Arafat, just to remind you, is the democratically elected leader of the palestinians.

Israel never offered the Palestinians a country? besides what putty said, what about camp David where Barak offered 98% of the so called "territories" to Arafat and he declined ?

Ah Barak, was waiting for that one. He offered a territory crisscrossed with Isreali settlements and secure routes held by the IDF, with the water access predominatly in the Isreali areas. He also knew he was about to be voted out of office a week later and that the agreement would never pass the Knesset or his cabinet (or indeed ever be put to the vote). A week or two later he was gone. Of course he also never addressed the right of return either, a claim subsequently dropped by the Arab League in it's communique.

and regarding the "occupation" - like putty said, Israel has immediately offered the entire liberated land to Egypt (Gaza strip) and to Jordan (Judea and Samaria) after the occupation who both declined 

Isreal did not offer all the occupied land back and crucially refused to allow palestinians thrown off their own land to return.

they didn't want the Palestinians, they knew just how great the Palestinians were

If the other arab countries accepted all the refugee's that Isreal has created it would a) overburden their economies B) legitimise the Isreali aggression. Are you saying that Hitler was quite right to deal with the Jews as he did because other countries did not accept them as refugee's?

Palestinian tanks ?!?! what are you talking about ?? can your logic be that bad or was that some sort of joke?

You mentioned the wall couldn't keep out tanks. I asked where those palestinian tanks were. I assume you were either joking or just plain ignorant.

I'm talking about Syrian and Egyptian tanks that'd go through the "Palestinian" land without any resistance

What would they resist them with? Why should they resist an army that is fighting the occupier of their land? Did the French resist the allies at Normandy?

Regardless, this is a red herring as we are dealing with the Palestinians not the Egyptians or Syrians.

and prey tell, what would you have us do if the nice little Palestinian country were to start arming itself with tanks, airplanes and missiles ?

What should the UK do if Eire starts buying more tanks? What should the US do if Mexico buys some more tanks? What a country does for it's own defence in it's own lands is it's own perogative. It's none of your damn business what a palestinian state does until it invades. Then you can obliterate it with your Made in the USA army.

it's obvious a Palestinian country would be a terror country, possibly owned by Syria like Lebanon, do we want them to have the strategical advantage
as well ? well obviously you do, forget it

It's obvious? Who's psychic now? Isreal is owned by the US, so obviously foreign ownership isn't a problem. If you doubt that statement, look into your budget.

  have actually addressed the so called human shield civilian bombing etc issues , and your failure to accept facts stands still. putty addressed the legal issues, again, reality -1, you - 0

You addressed nothing. Why is it right for you to bomb palestinian civilian areas, but it would be wrong for the UK to bomb Eire? How is using civilians as human shields by the IDF ok, but palestinians hiding among their own population as part of a popular resistance wrong?

  like putty said, the only side that has brought up religion and ethnicity is yours.

You are the ones calling us anti semitic. Such an irony that Isreal is the most anti semitic state in the world since palestinians are semites. Or do you prefer to hang onto the definition a fascist gave the word? Doesn't matter really, neither he nor you have the power to change language.

your true nature is only becoming more and more apparent

What nature is that? Someone who can pierce your lies and deceptions and render you unable to conduct a rational debate? Aww shucks :P

specific houses are demolished so they would not serve as terrorist outposts

The IDF targets the homes of relatives of suicide bombers in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions. It also demolishes homes to make room for jews, and just to harass palestinians (such as the recent crop destructions).

  I hope I don't need to remind you under which circumstances this country was established, why it's called "the land of the Jews" and why it's important to preserve a Jewish majority resulting inevitably in unfair rules in that regard.

So you admit apartheid finally. It's good to be honest. So since you got "the land of the jews", where is the "land of the palestinians" that the UN also decreed at the same time? Come to that, where is "the land of the Roma"? As a % of population, more of us were wiped out than jews yet we are still the subject of pograms. I told you the Holocaust was not a solely Jewish tragedy.

did you know the vast majority of Palestinians support terrorism 

To drive the IDF out of their land. That is called resistance.

go out to the streets dancing after every terrorist attack (including the 9/11) ?

So you know that film was taken on 9/11 do you? The one on Fox/Cnn etc. It was apparently actually from a religious festival some time earlier. Of course some palestinians did support the attacks on the US - because the army that kills them daily has Made in US stamped on it.

  Israeli Muslim Arabs - did you know that EVERY SINGLE terrorist attack was due to the help of an Israeli Muslim Arab ?

Utter rubbish. Mortar attacks need no help from anyone in Isreal as they are fired from outside Isreal. Suicide bombers get through due to faked papers, lax security, any number of things. I can only recall a few arab Isreali's being prosecuted for aiding specific terrorist attacks, so please enlighten us with a breakdown of who, what, and where for all these people.

we have all seen how the UK behaved when they were here 

So if the UK did it over 80 years ago it's ok? That mean Egypt can build some gas chambers and copy how Hitler behaved only 60 years ago?

  I fully understand the way the UK behaved when they were here and you would never hear me criticize them

Yes we know, due to your racism and fascist leanings.

why the massive interest in Israel? the Russians are doing far worse with the Chechen's (somehow i think the Russians don't really need that territory) and so are the Chinese in Tibet. there are other countless examples in the world.

Because we don't get lots of Russians and Chinese in here saying how wonderful and compassionate their countries are. Zionists refuse to acknowledge the evil that Isreal does and paint an utterly fictious picture of the region so some of us have fun correcting you and watching you squirm.

The PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years before stepped foot inside the West Bank/Gaza

But 16 years after the palestinians didn't get the state the UN granted them.

The stated goal of Hamas is to continue until Israel is no more

Know why Hamas is so popular? It funds food and education for people, something the IDF-crippled PLO cannot do. Refer to my point earlier about the linkage between occupation, resistance and terrorist movements.

As already stated, Israel offered return of the territories in 1967 and was flat out rejected. Again, see Khartoum Conference.

Arab League, cited earlier.

This is what EBP told me before his departure and name change to Leftism or 1234 or both

I have no idea who this EBP is, but I am sure they would be gratified to know that you still harp on about him/her after all this time. I am not that perosn, and your attempts to confine certain opinions to certain people is just an attempt at denial of how widespread those views are.

putty

02-06-2004, 10:51 PM

It is one of the peculiar aspects of Isreali politics that the people always say they want peace and are prepared to sacrifice land for it, but they then elect the leaders least likely to do it. When a leader with a chance to further that policy is finally elected, jewish extremists assasinate him.

The Israeli public elected Barak who offered the Palestinians enough to get a final settlement. Before you start blabbering about canotons, go read about the Taba agreement that Arafat claimed was a humiliation, only to say 18 months later say "I am prepared to accept it, absolutely".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741842,00.html

Evidently, Barak's offer was acceptable once it was no longer on the table.

In 1996, the Israeli public was set to elect the voice of the Left, Shimon Peres as he led right-wing Netanyahu by 20% just 2 months before the election. Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombed buses and restaurants non-stop for those last two months while Arafat sat on his ass and watched. Peres' support dropped with each bombing until Netanyahu pulled out a victory by less than 1%.

If only Arafat realized (cared) how much he affects Israeli elections.

When a leader with a chance to further that policy is finally elected, jewish extremists assasinate him.

Israel hardly has a patent on PM assasinations. Anwar Sadat was killed by his own troops after he made peace with Israel and got back the entire Sinai.

Oh dear you really are out of touch aren't you. The IDF even destroyed all the infrastructure built by the EU to help govern the PLO admin areas. You certainly don't supply them with any help of any note, or do you mean "Isreali armed" as in the ammunition you keep sending their way free of charge?

Read the Oslo Accord. Israel supplied the Palestnian police force with 20 000 rifles to use in order to provide order and security to the areas that Israel departed from.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/salahmusa1.html (A Palestinian activists words)

When one of the high ranking Fatah leaders was in Canada 4 years ago, he made a statement that Palestinians now have 20,000 rifles instead of 100 during the first Intifada. Wrongly implying, in case of another uprising or Israeli aggression the Palestinians were in better shape to resist due to Oslo.

Israel did not start targetting the PA police infrastructure until a full year had passed in the current intifadah. That's a hell of a lot of time from 1993. You'll also notice the Btselem stats for number dead jump in 2002 once Palestinian police became neck-deep into the attacks.

In addition...

Oslo Accord, Chapter 2, Article XIV:

4. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I.

Article XV:

1. Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other's authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders.

In fact, 1994-1996 were particularly bad years in terms of suicide bombs.

Contrast this with the Baruch Goldstein terrorist attack on Muslims. In March 1994, the Israeli cabinet immediately declared Kahane Chai and Kach "terrorist organizations" and made them illegal.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm

We're still waiting for Arafat to declare Hamas or Islamic Jihad or PLFP or any other terrorist group "illegal".

If you have the vote, don't vote for people complicit in mass murder (like Sharon) and instead vote for people willing to work for peace.

The only reason that Sharon was elected is the same reason that Netanyahu was elected. Palestinians always seem to step up the bombings when Israelis are given a choice between the Left and Right wing leader.

Barak made a great offer at Taba, one that Arafat later said that he'd be glad to accept. When it was rejected and Arafat had already started his planned war the Israeli public went hard-line. Just as any nation does when it's faced with struggle.

And if you don't believe that Arafat planned the intifadah, listen to his Communications Minister, Imad Al-Faluji, who is very open about it.

"Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US...

The PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada..."

I do know my sources, you have yet to find them. You have yet to post a link to the authors, or even mention the name. Not sure why you are pushing this angle when you are so manifestly wrong :)

Um, hello?

Your water article was written by this guy at this site:

http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html

You say that he referenced UN documents for his facts. I pointed out that he lists his sources as:

Sharif Elmusa
MEI (a site that hosts opinion articles)
The Journal of Palestine Studies
a book entitled "Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel"
Hussein Amery, a Palestinian activist

If those are your source's sources, you've got a problem.

Ok this (http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm) is the communique released by the Arab League, 

:)

This offer by the Arab League goes further than UN 242. It calls for return of "all the territories". 242 does not.

Again, your quote "The arab states however have all recognised Isreals right to exist" is not true. It has been offered as part of this agreement and has always been the basis of all negotiations. It has not occured, contrary to whatever you say.

It is not based solely on voting rights or a % representation in parliament

:)

You are the one that claimed that there is some sort of racism because the % of Arab parliamentary members is only half the % of Israeli citizenship.

Apartheid:

1) An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2) A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3) The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apartheid

When you mention apartheid, people think South Africa. It's even the most common definition in dictionaries. If you mean it in reference to #2 or #3, it's a pretty damn broad definition and I guarantee you that the US, UK, and pretty much every country in the world is guilty of apartheid.

And again, you didn't bother to actually read my post. I said 17-18 is fine for fighting on the front line

Oh yes, I did read that. The problem is that you didn't address my point. It's children that the PA bring to the front lines, while militants fire over their heeads. Not 17 & 18 year olds. Again, ask The Mothers of Tulkarm.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem:

“The younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect him”Al-Ahram Al-Arabi, Oct. 28

October 31, 2000 AP report:

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on Tuesday called for renewed resistance by young activists, "these children who throw the stones to defend Jerusalem, the Muslims and the holy places."

In a 2000 Btselem report, here's what foriegn journalists saw going on:

Suddenly a blue commercial vehicle appeared and stopped around 20 meters away from us, some 30 meters from young Palestinians who were at the front of the demonstration. Three Palestinians, 20 to 30-years-old, were inside. They called to the children, gave orders, and distributed Molotov cocktails. I asked my photographer to film it. One of the children noticed, shouted out a warning, and within 15 seconds we were surrounded. The vehicle drove ahead 20 meters and stopped. The three men inside ran to the back and snatched the camera from the photographer. One of them shouted, "Kill, kill."

In October 2000, UNICEF urged the PA to stop

BTW, Israelis enter the army at 18, not 17. Keep your facts straights.

they are the agreived party and no amount of reference to the Holocaust will hide your guilt.

Excuse me, but your the one who likened the Palestinian towns to WWII ghettos, either in this thread or the other.

Btselem.org keeps an up to date list. Note that Btselem is an Isreali
group.

Yeah, I kinda figured that you were lying about 4500 Palestinian and 480 Israelis dead. That's why I asked.

You used Btselem's figure for Israeli civilians only but their number for TOTAL Palestinians killed. The problem with Btselem's numbers are that they categorize any non-uniformed person killed as civilian. The vast majority of Palestinian combatants are not uniformed.

Anyways, Btselems latest numbers are:

Inside the territories: 2300 Palestinians (militants & civilians) and 400 Israelis (soldiers & civilians).

Inside Israel:

48 Palestinians and 450 Israelis.

I'm not a telepath, it's just that the documents are in the open. Here (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm) is a link covering this story from that bastion of anti semitism - the USAF.

Your article does not state that Dayan wanted to use nuclear arms. It says that he armed weapons and put the army on nuclear alert. Do you find it incomprehensible that a country in the midst of war against 5 other countries would arm their weapons?

Whatever. Even during the 1st Gulf war, Israel stated that the only way WMD would be used against Iraq was if Scuds contained WMD themselves.

And regarding your USAF source, this is sitting there right at the top:

The views expressed in this publication are those solely of the author and are not a statement of official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center.

I believe that he's referring to Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan killed up to 30 000 Palestinians in one month in 1970, but of course there was no covenant to destroy Jordan and no UN resolution condemning Jordan.

WRT Lebanon, you'll recall that although Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible (he should've known better), it was the Lebanese Christians who were responsible for Sabra and Shatilla.

See my link above about the Arab League recognising Isreal if Isreal also complies with 242.

Wrong. See above.

Ah Barak, was waiting for that one. He offered a territory crisscrossed with Isreali settlements and secure routes held by the IDF, with the water access predominatly in the Isreali areas.

Wrong. See Taba. See Arafat's statement 18 months later that he'd accept it then.

Taba map:

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/taba.jpg

Isreal did not offer all the occupied land back and crucially refused to allow palestinians thrown off their own land to return.

It is impossible to know how many and which ones were kicked out and which left on their own in order to allow for conquering Arab armies. Please don't tell me that you're about to deny that. Family reunification is reasonable and will happen.

Up to 800,000 Jews were kicked out of fled from Arab countries around the same time. There is no going back for them.

If the other arab countries accepted all the refugee's that Isreal has created it would a) overburden their economies B) legitimise the Isreali aggression.

Sigh.

a) the same for Israel. It would double their population.

B) Again, see the UN's Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. Egypt blocked Israeli access to oil and ordered the UN out of peacekeeping buffer zone. Egypt signed a defense agreement with Jordan. You bet Israel would strike first.

Israel, however, did not strike first against Jordan and even told Hussein that they will not open that front if Jordan sayed out. Jordan struck first and created the occupied territory problem. If Jordan had not struck first, the West Bank would be a Palestinian state.

So since you got "the land of the jews", where is the "land of the palestinians" that the UN also decreed at the same time?

It was in their hand, but 5 Arab countries decided to try and take the whole pie instead. They lost. Nothing prevented a Palestinian country being created in the West Bank from 1948-1967, though. Why wasn't it?

So you know that film was taken on 9/11 do you? The one on Fox/Cnn etc. It was apparently actually from a religious festival some time earlier.

This is turning into a theme, but wrong again.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

The person who started that rumour was a Brazilian university student who posted it on... guess where... indymedia! Of course, it spread like wildfire among those who believe any anti-Israel junk that is spewed. I'm not surprised that you believed it too.

me: The PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years before stepped foot inside the West Bank/Gaza

you: But 16 years after the palestinians didn't get the state the UN granted them.

So why name Israel as the occupying force and not Jordan, who were occupying the West Bank or Egypt, who were occupying Gaza?

You know, this is silly. Neither will convince the other. Do I believe that Israel is 100% correct? No. But put in the situation in which it finds itself, I think it's done about as expected. Israelis, contrary to what you might think are not inherently evil and neither are Palestinians.

As someone else has posted, UK troops have shot & killed a number of civilian protesters in Iraq. Blameless? No. Understandable under the circumstances? Yes. As everyone knows, US troops are guilty of the same. Now, add in dozens of suicide bombs in US cities and a highly organized terrorist infrastructure (Iraq's is pretty disorganized these days) and you'd see a hell of a lot more civiians getting killed. Already, more Iraqi civilians have been killed in the past year than Palestinians in the 3 years. So if Israel is targetting civilians, what the hell are Americans doing? Taking better aim?

You can keep going with this but I just don't have the time. When you want to discuss the real issues and perhaps find common ground, lemme know.

Sorry venom, for answering some his replies to your posts.

1234

02-07-2004, 02:55 PM

The Israeli public elected Barak who offered the Palestinians enough to get a final settlement. Before you start blabbering about canotons, go read about the Taba agreement that Arafat claimed was a humiliation, only to say 18 months later say "I am prepared to accept it, absolutely"

This contradicts what I said ... how exactly? Between the two dates Arafat has shifted on the right of return (as have the Arab League) and is prepared to compromise. Where are Isreal's compromises 'in return?

In 1996, the Israeli public was set to elect the voice of the Left, Shimon Peres as he led right-wing Netanyahu by 20% just 2 months before the election. Hamas and Islamic Jihad bombed buses and restaurants non-stop for those last two months while Arafat sat on his ass and watched. Peres' support dropped with each bombing until Netanyahu pulled out a victory by less than 1%.

The IRA used to do the same here in elections. You are going to let Hamas and other terrorists appropriate the peace process? The reason Arafat "sat on his ass" is beacause he is ringed by the IDF who refuse to let him travel and even have communications with the outside world. Any attempt at reconstruction is destroyed by the IDF. Incidently, I don't regard Arafat as some Messiah figure. He is the elected leader of the palestinians - no more no less. He is like politicians everywhere, and far from perfect.

If only Arafat realized (cared) how much he affects Israeli elections.

You mean Hamas and how much Sharon and others let them dictate events. Remember you are talking to someone from a country with long experience of terrorism.

Israel hardly has a patent on PM assasinations. Anwar Sadat was killed by his own troops after he made peace with Israel and got back the entire Sinai 

I agree, your point is? Again you bring Egypt and others into a discussion of the palestinians.

Read the Oslo Accord. Israel supplied the Palestnian police force with 20 000 rifles to use in order to provide order and security to the areas that Israel departed from.

I said help of any note. Adding 20000 guns to an unstable region is not exactly helpful. Try not demolishing police stations, shooting policemen, and the rest of the box of tricks used by the IDF to stop a palestinians infrastructure.

Israel did not start targetting the PA police infrastructure until a full year had passed in the current intifadah.

Isreal has always targetted any signs of the formation of a viable palestinian state. That includes the security forces such as police. For further evidence, see what happened to the equipment provided by the EU.

You keep saying "current intifada" btw. Why are you atetmpting to split into small parts a resistance movement that has being on since 1948? Do you have seperate names for different eras of resistance in France?

You'll also notice the Btselem stats for number dead jump in 2002 once Palestinian police became neck-deep into the attacks

The spike is due to numerous IDF raids on heavily populated towns and refugee camps.

You quote the Oslo accords and demand that the palestinians abide by them, but why don't the Isreali's? Do you criticise them for not complying either?

The Article you quote is violated by Isreal daily - Both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other, against individuals falling under the other's authority and against their property, and shall take legal measures against offenders.

There are no convictions for the mass punishments and the home demolitions never mind the murders by the IDF. Even for foreigners all you might get is a negligance charge and not even man slaughter for shooting an unarmed man holding a child in the head.

In March 1994, the Israeli cabinet immediately declared Kahane Chai and Kach "terrorist organizations" and made them illegal.

Arafat has condemned bombings by Hamas as terrorism too and he would dearly love to close it down if he could. Point is he can't when the IDF has him under house arrest without communications and bombs his police. Any politician would love to remove his political opponents, Arafat is no different. Why do you hold a whole people responsible for the terrorism of a few, when the same law could be applied to Isreal? Should we all judge Israel by Kach? If not then we should not judge all palestinians by Hamas.

We're still waiting for Arafat to declare Hamas or Islamic Jihad or PLFP or any other terrorist group "illegal".

He has called bombing terrorism many times, he just can't do anything to stop them. Apart from the reasons outlined above, due to PLO weakness Hamas has become one of the main sources of education and aid to many palestinians and has been allowed to become a de facto political party due to the IDF caused chaos in the occupied territories.

The only reason that Sharon was elected is the same reason that Netanyahu was elected. Palestinians always seem to step up the bombings when Israelis are given a choice between the Left and Right wing leader.

If you keep saying "palestinians" when you mean Hamas etc I will be forced to refer to all Isreali's as Kach supporters and ethnic cleansers who approve of mass murder. Deal?

If you can't leave your racism at the door there is no point discussing anything with you as your hate overrides any logic.

And if you don't believe that Arafat planned the intifadah, listen to his Communications Minister, Imad Al-Faluji, who is very open about it

Care to provide the rest of that quote? Thought not, so I will.

The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of the (Palestinian) rights

So they prepared to continue the struggle if the US failed to pressure Isreal. Sounds fair enough to me.

Your water article was written by this guy at this site

For the last time, no it wasn't. Here's a clue - the original data is from a human rights group.

You say that he referenced UN documents for his facts. I pointed out that he lists his sources as ....

Nope, I said the site (note, not page) I got the info from has UN docs, govt reports, independant reports etc. So please, for the sake of your dignity, stop lying about what I said when anyone can check my posts and find out the truth.

If those are your source's sources, you've got a problem.

Heh nope, you have though as you have no idea where the data comes from.

This offer by the Arab League goes further than UN 242. It calls for return of "all the territories". 242 does not.

You have already posted the manipulations that went into the wording of the UN document by the US and others under Isreali influence. Under international law, they have to return all the land as it was taken in a war of conquest. Kind of like Kuwait, Poland, France etc. They have also dropped the demand for a right of return in order to make compromises acceptable to the Isreali's.

your quote "The arab states however have all recognised Isreals right to exist" is not true. It has been offered as part of this agreement and has always been the basis of all negotiations. It has not occured, contrary to whatever you say.

If the Isreali's got out of the occupied territories, as demanded by the UN and law, then they would get recognition. The Arabs are just complying with the UN, why aren't the Isreali's? On anything? The recognition is there, pending Isreal returning to the fold of civilised nations. Until then, recognition is moot as Isreal is in the same category as many rogue nations not recognised by the world in part or whole.

The offer is there though, peace on the terms of 242, with the palestinians giving up a major legal right. Why are you not pushing for Isreali acceptance?

You are the one that claimed that there is some sort of racism because the % of Arab parliamentary members is only half the % of Israeli citizenship.

No that was you who mentioned the %, I just commented that it was half of the actual % of palestinians in the population as an aside. I have pointed out that apartheid is not a factor of suffrage or representation alone. I even gave you a link to the UN site with the specific definition. Try reading this (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/11.htm) instead of the dictionary, you will find it much more informative.

Here is Article II - For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:

(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person:

(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;

(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;

(B) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;

© Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;

(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;

(f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid

Israel violates these daily.

The problem is that you didn't address my point. It's children that the PA bring to the front lines, while militants fire over their heeads

I did address that, read my posts rather than skimming please.

Israelis enter the army at 18, not 17. Keep your facts straights

If the IDF is anything like the UK army for eg, you can join slightly before the stated min age for training purposes etc. Still, that extra day makes all the difference does it? :o

Excuse me, but your the one who likened the Palestinian towns to WWII ghettos, either in this thread or the other

You misunderstand me, I am referring to such quotes from you as "remember why Isreal was founded", the endless accusations of anti semitism, and the use of the Holocaust as a bargaining chip by Isreali politicians.

Yeah, I kinda figured that you were lying about 4500 Palestinian and 480 Israelis dead. That's why I asked

Your proof is where? The Btselem site (which is down right now so I doubt you checked the site since I posted) lists the dead as 4500 and 480. Unless of course you are using a different date arbitrarily. From what date are you counting?

You used Btselem's figure for Israeli civilians only but their number for TOTAL Palestinians killed. The problem with Btselem's numbers are that they categorize any non-uniformed person killed as civilian. The vast majority of Palestinian combatants are not uniformed.

This matters how? I said palestinian civilians, I count resistance fighters as those civilians. Whether you do or not is irrelavent to the death count. Get out of their land and those civilians wouldn't need to be fighting. Regardless, the vast majority are not connected to armed groups in any way and are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anyways, Btselems latest numbers are:

Ah "latest". From when to when? A link to the Btselem page where you got the info would be good. I think you are probably referring to the dates 2000 to 2003, where the figures are 2700 dead and 25000 injured. Why are you only starting then? People were dying before that time.

I believe that he's referring to Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan killed up to 30 000 Palestinians in one month in 1970, but of course there was no covenant to destroy Jordan and no UN resolution condemning Jordan.

You believe? You mean you have no idea if it's true or not. Even the most rabid zionist site I could find listed the number as 10000 maximun casualties total on both sides.

The 1967 war led to a dramatic increase in the number of Palestinians living in Jordan. Its Palestinian refugee population -- 700,000 in 1966 -- grew by another 300,000 from the West Bank. The period following the 1967 war saw an upsurge in the power and importance of Palestinian resistance in Jordan. The heavily armed fedayeen constituted a growing threat to the sovereignty and security of the Hashemite state, and open fighting erupted in June 1970. Isreali raids on Jordan in revenge for attacks launched from Jordanian land were also a motivation to remove the fedayeen.

Other Arab governments attempted to work out a peaceful solution, but by September, continuing fedayeen actions in Jordan -- including the destruction of three international airliners hijacked and held in the desert east of Amman -- prompted the government to take action to regain control over its territory and population. In the ensuing heavy fighting, a Syrian tank force took up positions in northern Jordan to support the fedayeen but was forced to retreat. By September 22, Arab foreign ministers meeting at Cairo had arranged a cease-fire beginning the following day. Sporadic violence continued, however, until Jordanian forces won a decisive victory over the fedayeen in July 1971, expelling them from the country.

So Isreal stirred up the region by annexing the occupied territories and expelling 300000 extra refugee's that were beyond the capacity of Jordan to cope. The resulting power struggles with palestinian terrorist/resistance elements forced Jordan to expel them. They had no duty to do nothing and watch Hamas etc take over their country. They did (and still do) however house refugees that are not part of armed groups.

WRT Lebanon, you'll recall that although Sharon was found to be indirectly responsible (he should've known better), it was the Lebanese Christians who were responsible for Sabra and Shatilla

The massacres began on September 17, 1982, following a negotiated settlement whereby the PLO agreed to withdraw from Lebanon in return for U.S. guarantees for the safety of "law abiding Palestinian non-combatants left behind in Beirut." However, after the PLO evacuation (and the withdrawal of the multinational force that supervised the evacuation), the Israeli army encircled the camps of Beirut and allowed its allied right-wing Lebanese militia forces access to Sabra and Shatila. At the end of 48 hours, they left at least 1,500 people dead. The Israeli army looked on from the camp perimeter and provided logistical support to the assailants.

Do you think Isreali would have sacked him if there wasn't good evidence of the IDF's involvement? This is the country that does not prosecute soldiers for killing children and pensioners.

Wrong. See Taba. See Arafat's statement 18 months later that he'd accept it then

Look, I know it's hard for Zionists to accept compromises in the name of peace but Arafat agreed only after he dropped the right of return issue - something he is not popular among palestinians for. He made the compromise, where are the Isreali compromises?

The map you provide just proves the point even further, with scores of settlements left in the proposed Palestinian land with each having a secure supply corridor. Meaning the IDF controlling huge part of the land. Also bear in mind that the settlements are all built on the best land with hugely better water supplies.

It is impossible to know how many and which ones were kicked out and which left on their own in order to allow for conquering Arab armies

Anyone who can prove residence at that time, or who's family can prove residence at that time. Why they left is irrelavent, they left due to wars between other nations that have nothing to do with them. Palestinians are not Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian. They are the original occupiers of the land, along with jews, chrisitians, etc.

Up to 800,000 Jews were kicked out of fled from Arab countries around the same time. There is no going back for them.

800000? Where did you get that figure from? Same place as the 30000 no doubt. Either way, they have the right of return too and they also have a country called Isreal to go to that was created specifically for jews. You seem to be under the illusion I am some fanatical supporter of every arab nation in the region. Well I'm not, and would argue for the jewish right of return as much as the palestinian one.

the same for Israel. It would double their population.

Refugees in transit are not the same as people returning to the land that is rightfully theirs. Isreal kicked them out and encouraged immigration from all over the world to fill up the areas vacated. It is for the Isreali's to deal with it's agression and it's consequences, not Jordan or anyone else. Isreali jews would probably have to accept lower standards of living, but frankly tough. Shouldn't sieze other people's land in the search for leibensraum then fill it with immigrants while you rely on the US to bolster your economy and military. Speaking of economy, that is where the palestinians have a hope. Isreal cannot afford more years of resistance by the palestinians, especially if the US cuts funding due to law and human rights violations.

Again, see the UN's Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. Egypt blocked Israeli access to oil and ordered the UN out of peacekeeping buffer zone. Egypt signed a defense agreement with Jordan. You bet Israel would strike first.

The UN passed a resolution demanding free sea access and the return of the land. The free access is there, why is the land still occupied? On a side note, are you saying that the UK should invade Eire if Eire signs a defence agreement with France?

Israel, however, did not strike first against Jordan and even told Hussein that they will not open that front if Jordan sayed out. Jordan struck first and created the occupied territory problem. If Jordan had not struck first, the West Bank would be a Palestinian state.

Don't be stupid, this war was in 1967 - 20 years after the palestinian state should have been established. If Jordan hadn't invaded and provided Isreal with a pretext, the land would most likely now be in the same position as southern Lebanon or Gaza. An IDF free fire zone and self declared "security zone". You are also incorrect on the facts of the matter. Jordan had signed a defence pact with Egypt that was activated when Isreal attacked. Same as when the UK declared war on Germany due to the UK's Polish defence pact.

It was in their hand, but 5 Arab countries decided to try and take the whole pie instead

There you go again, we are talking about palestinian rights not the rights of Egyptians, Syrians, etc. Stick to the subject please. I condemn the prevarications by those countries too.

Nothing prevented a Palestinian country being created in the West Bank from 1948-1967, though. Why wasn't it?

Political adventurism on all sides (arab and Isreali) but not from any lack of will by the palestinians themselves. Why do you repeatedly hold the palestinians responsible for the actions of others?

The person who started that rumour was a Brazilian university student who posted it on... guess where... indymedia! Of course, it spread like wildfire among those who believe any anti-Israel junk that is spewed. I'm not surprised that you believed it too

I said apparently, never said it was gospel. Your link doesn't work btw so can't comment on that. I have heard people both for and against the whether it was fake. I also said that I know some palestinians celebrated it, and told you why. It's because the US finances the army and country that oppresses them.

So why name Israel as the occupying force and not Jordan, who were occupying the West Bank or Egypt, who were occupying Gaza?

Isreal occupied land pre 67 meant for the palestinians in the original UN resolution. I would also debate the issue with any Jordanian or Egyptian who wants to comment, but it seems there is only the pro Isreal people prepared to attempt a defence. Again you make the mistake of assuming I am pro Syria/Egypt/whoever.

You know, this is silly. Neither will convince the other. Do I believe that Israel is 100% correct? No. But put in the situation in which it finds itself, I think it's done about as expected. Israelis, contrary to what you might think are not inherently evil and neither are Palestinians.

I agree, so we shouldn't let extremists on both sides dictate the agenda. The Arab League has offered an equitable peace agreement but Isreal refuses to respond. If you are Isreali, press for it's acceptance. Or maybe for the recent plan brokered in Europe.

I disagree with your defence of Isreali actions of course. There is no excuse for the oppression inflicted on the palestinians.

Already, more Iraqi civilians have been killed in the past year than Palestinians in the 3 years. So if Israel is targetting civilians, what the hell are Americans doing? Taking better aim?

Iraq is a war zone, the occupied territories are a process of attrition to occupy land over a long period. There is little comparison. If the Isreali's set up a puppet admin over a new palestinian state, it would be more comparable.

putty

02-07-2004, 07:37 PM

Is semantics your last defense?

1) So you now have stopped arguing that Arafat was not provided with a strong police force. If Israel didn't arm the Pal police you'd complain that they weren't serious about giving them the ability to fight Hamas. Now that you see that Israel did arm them, it's unhelpful to provide the Pal police firearms.

From 1993 to 2001, the Pal police was stable, armed, and had a solid infrastructure that was unimpeded to act. Arafat was free to roam and act as leader. He sat on his ass instead and watched Hamas.

Oslo called for disamament of anybody not in the police force. He ignored it for 8 years before Israel finally targeted Arafat's police infrastructure.

Deal.

If Arafat would clearly love to shut down Hamas as you say, why the fuck didn't he?? Why not call Hamas and Islamic Jihad "illegal", as Israel immediately did wrt Kahane Chai after one single terrorist act!

2)
If you keep saying "palestinians" when you mean Hamas etc I will be forced to refer to all Isreali's as Kach supporters and ethnic cleansers who approve of mass murder. Deal?

When a majority of Israelis start supporting Kahane Chai's actions, I'll be glad to link the two together. With most Palestinians supporting Hamas' suicide bombs, I'll refer to the bombings as being Palestninan. Just like how you would refer to IDF actions as Israeli. Deal?

3) WRT Imad Al-Faluji's quote. :D

So they prepared to continue the struggle if the US failed to pressure Isreal. Sounds fair enough to me.

So you'll admit that Arafat purposely started the intifadah but you need to add "only because of Israeli & American stubborness". Unreal.

Here's a clue. If you are in good faith peace negotiations, you do not plan a war to use a counter point. That is not good faith. Arafat did not like the Camp David agreement but did not even provide a counter-view. He picked up and left and started a war in which his cowardly police rounded up kids and brought them to the front lines tothrow rocks & molotov cocktails while his police stood in the back and fired.

You condone this? Unreal.

4)
Nope, I said the site (note, not page) I got the info from has UN docs, For the last time, no it wasn't. Here's a clue - the original data is from a human rights group.

With all due respect, who cares what the site has? You copied an article that uses extremely biased sources as its references.

Post a link to your water article.

Here's where your article was found.

http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html

Please point out the UN references. Thanks.

5) The territories are not annexed. Israeli law does not apply there as long as there is war. Just as UK & US troops do not treat Iraqis as citizens of their own nations. Arabs within Israel are equals and protected as such by Israeli law. As long as violence continues, everyone in the territories is in a bad situation but Israel does not practice apartheid as described here. When there is no violence, Israel withdraws and allows the PA to take over rule. Israel wants no part of rule over the Palestinians and has been trying to unload the burden for many years, in contrast to South Africa.

The fact that you need to use that as partof your argument displays its weakness. Just as you need to use phrases like "Jewish owned media".

6)
The Arabs are just complying with the UN, why aren't the Isreali's?

As pointed out, the Arab "offer" demands more from Israel than UN 242. Sorry bud.

You did state that the Arab countries have recognized Israel. Now you say that they offered recognition and are thus compliance with 242. By the same logic, Israel is also in compliance since they have returned "territories", Sinai.

Stop backing up on your words.

6) Your proof is where? The Btselem site (which is down right now so I doubt you checked the site since I posted) lists the dead as 4500 and 480. Unless of course you are using a different date arbitrarily. From what date are you counting?

Dude, google has a cached version of all websites. My stats are 2004 from Btselem. :o

7)
I count resistance fighters as those civilians.

Sad, really.

8) I love the way you explain Black September. So pleasant. If you want to put the number at 10 000 dead Palestinians, fine.

"They had no duty to do nothing and watch Hamas etc take over their country."

Sure. Condone the mass murder of 10 000 Palestinians. But Israel is supposed to stand by and watch as Hamas etc kills civilians in Israel and vows to continue until Israel is no more.

9)
Don't be stupid, this war was in 1967 - 20 years after the palestinian state should have been established. If Jordan hadn't invaded and provided Isreal with a pretext, the land would most likely now be in the same position as southern Lebanon or Gaza.

Oh? How so?

So you now admit that Jordan invaded Israel through the West Bank. At least we're getting somewhere.

10)
He made the compromise, where are the Isreali compromises?

If Taba was acceptable, he waited a bit too long to decide. 18 months?

WRT the Taba map. Those setlements are existing settlements that would be gone or part of sovereign Pal territory. Have another look.

http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/taba.jpg

11) Pals celebrating 9/11.
I said apparently, never said it was gospel. Your link doesn't work btw so can't comment on that. I have heard people both for and against the whether it was fake

Why not research it before using it in an argument?

Snopes seems to be down too but here's the cached version:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:K9fOL...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:K9fOLvDq9OwJ:www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm+snopes+palestinian+9/11&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Anyways, like I said before. This is tiring. You're now at the point where you're backtacking and changing your story. "I never said it was true, I said 'apparently'... I never said the article I copied used UN documents as sources, I said the website has some". First, it's "Arafat's police wasn't strong", then it's "too many guns supplied to Araft's police". First it's "Israel started the 1967 war", then it's "Jordan struck because blah blah".

Yes, the UN called for free passage of Israei ships. Too bad Egypt didn't give it. They blocked Israeli passage to oil, forced UN peacekeeping troops out, signed defense treaties with neighbouring Israeli enemies, and Nasser screamed about how prepared he was for war where he would "throw the Jews into the sea."

Of course, you find a way to fault Israel for a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. At least you'll now admit that jordan opened the West Bank front. At least.

Whatever. Again, if you want to find common ground, lemme know. If you want to argue semantics, find someone else. I'm gonna listen to hobbes' advice.

Billy_Dean

02-08-2004, 06:47 AM

When there is no violence, Israel withdraws and allows the PA to take over rule. Israel wants no part of rule over the Palestinians and has been trying to unload the burden for many years, in contrast to South Africa.

This is the biggest load of shit yet! When did they withdraw? <_<

putty

02-08-2004, 07:48 AM

This is the biggest load of shit yet!  When did they withdraw? 

Are you for real?

"Israel has reoccupied the West Bank since June 2002"

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/20...article21.shtml (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-10/14/article21.shtml)

"Hebron became the seventh of eight main West Bank towns and cities on Tuesday to come under the re-occupation of the Israeli military, which re-entered the Palestinian territories last week when two suicide bombings in Jerusalem killed 26 Israelis."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,745200,00.html

"For the first time since the implementation of the Oslo accords in 1994, Israeli forces reentered Palestinian territory."

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freew...anauthority.htm (http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2002/countryratings/israel-palestinianauthority.htm)

"Despite American criticism, Israel on Wednesday briefly re-entered the Gaza Strip and leveled a Palestinian police station on territory granted to Yasser Arafat 's government in peace agreements."

http://www.ain-al-yaqeen.com/issues/20010427/feat9en.htm

"Israel reoccupied a portion of the Gaza strip"

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2001041726.html (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/010417/2001041726.html)

"One month after Israel reoccupied villages and towns in the West Bank"

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-ISR (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE151212002?open&of=ENG-ISR)

"Israel re-occupied the Palestinian territories"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/worl...view/israel.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/how_the_world_has_changed/html/political_view/israel.stm)

"King demands Israel withdraw troops from reoccupied areas"

http://www.jordanembassyus.org/04012002001.htm

"Israel reoccupied the Palestinian territories"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ED8...9274D510D99.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ED8317B4-626C-498B-8AD2-F9274D510D99.htm)

Let me know if you need any more, ok?

Billy_Dean

02-08-2004, 08:47 AM

Withdrawing means getting the fuck out! Moving the settlers and returning the 46% of the West Bank you occupy. It does not mean pulling the IDF back a few K's! When will you people understand?

putty

02-08-2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@8 February 2004 - 08:47
Withdrawing means getting the fuck out! Moving the settlers and returning the 46% of the West Bank you occupy. It does not mean pulling the IDF back a few K's! When will you people understand?
Considering that the whole area is just a few km's, your scenario doesn't hold water.

As for when they will get the fuck out completely, the answer is when Arafat shows that he will take charge and not allow free reign to those who will continue with their terrorism against Israel. They withdrew completly from more than half the territories, put Arafat in charge in more than that and ended up with more suicide bombings than before. Not a good showing.

Pretty simple, actually.

Billy_Dean

02-08-2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by putty@8 February 2004 - 18:16
Pretty simple, actually.
Yeah, for a bunch of child murderers, house demolishers, and illegal settlers. What's your excuse? <_<

Rat Faced

02-08-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by putty@8 February 2004 - 09:16
They withdrew completly from more than half the territories, put Arafat in charge in more than that and ended up with more suicide bombings than before. Not a good showing.

The terrorism deminished during the slow withdrawal of the Israelis and the establishment of a Palestinian Authority (no one can stop them all, i do not think Arafat is a superman even if you do...he did condemn publicly, terrorist actions when they occurred)

The establishment of a country is not, as you seem to think, an overnight process.

The current violence flared when Sharon stopped, unilaterally, the above process...this is also when the popularity of Hamas started to rise over the PLO. Im not surprised...they were finally getting a country, and then those hopes were dashed...if id been there i would have been more than a little miffed, to say the least.

The bombings will increase at election time, as the terrorists do not want peace....Hamas is a religious fundamentalist organisation, peace in the area would deminish its recruitement and overall aim.

Arafat on the other hand requires peace..PLO is a nationalist organisation.... and he makes more money with peace than with unrest..see, I know he is no saint...he skims $100,000's from the palestinians, im sure...

The Arab population as a whole, in various countries, have their own beliefs and so do their leaders...usually the media therefore reports a trade-off in those countries. I could well believe that they do not really want peace in the area, at the same time as paying lip service to it...hence "reports" designed to push the Israeli electorate to the Right.

The fact that directing the emotions of the populations towards Israel also keeps them from looking at their own leadership is also a bonus....

Sharon is a War Criminal, pure and simple.

You may wish to see the evidence that was collected for the Belgium Trial before it was halted, and ask why a certain witness had a fatal accident a couple of days after telling the world he would testify... This is without pointing out he was also the commander of the infamous Unit 101 in the 1950's

Arafat, i have already said is a murderer...however he is needed, Sharon isnt..he just makes things worse.

He wont be the 1st terrorist to be head of State: Begin, Shamir and Sharon himself come to my lips straight away as examples...

1234

02-08-2004, 07:07 PM

So you now have stopped arguing that Arafat was not provided with a strong police force

No I haven't, the proof being that he hasn't got one. The IDF keeps bombing it.

If Israel didn't arm the Pal police you'd complain that they weren't serious about giving them the ability to fight Hamas. Now that you see that Israel did arm them, it's unhelpful to provide the Pal police firearms.

I said it would be more helpful if the IDF stopped bombing the PLO and it's police.

From 1993 to 2001, the Pal police was stable, armed, and had a solid infrastructure that was unimpeded to act. Arafat was free to roam and act as leader. He sat on his ass instead and watched Hamas

We have already established your extremely shaky grasp of history. The occupied territories were not any of those things, as shown by UN resolutions and human rights violations.

Oslo called for disamament of anybody not in the police force. He ignored it for 8 years before Israel finally targeted Arafat's police infrastructure.

The IDF hasn't stopped targetting the PLO and it's infrastructure since it was formed. The EU is still pissed at all the equipment the IDF has destroyed that they paid for.

If Arafat would clearly love to shut down Hamas as you say, why the fuck didn't he?? Why not call Hamas and Islamic Jihad "illegal", as Israel immediately did wrt Kahane Chai after one single terrorist act!

He has declared attacks by Hamas on civilians in Isreal terrorist acts, but he can't effectively ban them as YOU KEEP BOMBING HIS INFRASTRUCTURE. Hamas takes up the slack (providing food and education etc) and gets more popularity. Leave the occupied territories, set up a palestinian state and let him get on with it.

When a majority of Israelis start supporting Kahane Chai's actions, I'll be glad to link the two together

Are the palestinians brutally occupying your land while terrorising your people? Nope. Resistance to the IDF is necessary, and a majority supports it. Once you leave their land, only a minority will support continuing violence - the same as a minority of Isreali's believe in the ethnic cleansing of all palestinians by killing them if necessary.

So you'll admit that Arafat purposely started the intifadah but you need to add "only because of Israeli & American stubborness". Unreal

Arafat didn't start the intifada as such, he was preparing to fight his end of it. Hamas don't take orders from him and they started major operations again too. Lets reprint that quote since you are ignoring it -

The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of the (Palestinian) rights

Isreali stubborness - refusal to remove all the settlements and allow the right of return to people whose land was stolen.

Renunciation of Palestinian rights - not allowing the right of return and issues such as access to water and human rights.

The PLO tried for a peace that it's people would accept but Isreal wasn't moving a mm from it's position.

If you are in good faith peace negotiations

Thats the problem, the Isreali's have never acted in good faith so the PLO and others prepare for their refusal of rights and illegal demands.

You condone this?

I condone resistance to agression. I do not condone children and civilians being killed. You, however, have stated on numerous occasions that you are quite happy to see children shot in the head on the way to school, or 95 year old women to be murdered while sitting in a car. I am sure you also condone the missile attack yesterday that killed a 10 year old boy, critically injuring 3 others. None of them are terrorists.

It is your and your denial of people's rights that is unreal. Interviews with Isreali's who survived the Holocaust are filled with disbelief at what Isreal is doing in their name.

With all due respect, who cares what the site has?

You apparently. You've been harping on about it for ages.

You copied an article that uses extremely biased sources as its references.

You still have no idea what article, by who, and on what website I took it from.

Here's where your article was found.

It's found on a few places on the web. The web is like that you know.

Please point out the UN references. Thanks.

I said the site I got it from used UN docs, govt reports, human rights reports, etc. No matter how much you keep lying about it, it won't change the content of my original post. Go read it again and save yourself further embarassment. Sticking to this issue just shows your lack of any real argument on the contents of those reports. Are you denying the figures?

The territories are not annexed. Israeli law does not apply there as long as there is war

Isreali law is completely irrelavent. Victims of occupation, POW's, everyone has basic human rights recognised by various UN Conventions. Isreal does not adhere to just about any of them.

Just as UK & US troops do not treat Iraqis as citizens of their own nations.

If an Iraqi comes to the UK and gets a UK passport he is totally British. The underlying assumption in your statement is testament to your racism.

Arabs within Israel are equals and protected as such by Israeli law

I have shown that in land, water, health, human rights, etc etc that they are not. Please prove my figures wrong.

As long as violence continues, everyone in the territories is in a bad situation but Israel does not practice apartheid as described here

Any non zealot reading the definition can see that Isreal violates them. I won't attempt to convince you though as you condone mass killings and oppressive regimes.

When there is no violence, Israel withdraws and allows the PA to take over rule. Israel wants no part of rule over the Palestinians and has been trying to unload the burden for many years, in contrast to South Africa.

Isreal has never withdrawn. Please show us a time when all Isreali settlements were removed and the IDF was behind '67 borders.

The fact that you need to use that as partof your argument displays its weakness. Just as you need to use phrases like "Jewish owned media".

Weakness? Heh. Like I said, I leave it to the non zealots to make up their own minds. You have shown yourself to be beneath contempt with your views on killing civilians. I have also never said "Jewish owned media". I referenced "Isreali media". Something quite different, but obviously not enough for you to attack me for anti semitism so you have to invent a quote.

As pointed out, the Arab "offer" demands more from Israel than UN 242. Sorry bud

Both sides have to make compromises. The Arabs have (no right of return, something which made Arafat very unpopular and strengthens Hamas if Isreal offers nothing) but Isreal won't. The offer of normalised relations is there but Isreal won't take it. This of course ignores the fact that 242 was weakened under Isreali pressure on it's US allies. Why are you not arguing for Iraq to have kept some of Kuwait? Or Germany to keep some of Poland and the Czech Republic? There must be no legitimisation of wars of conquest.

Stop backing up on your words.

I'm not, except in your dreams maybe. The Arab League has recognised Isreals right to exist if Isreal will rejoin the law abiding nations of the world. As it stands now, Isreal is a rogue state comparable to many other states that the West has refused to recognise. The offer is there though, but zionists won't accept it as it interferes with the plan for a Greater Isreal.

Sad, really.

Yes it is. Tragic that ordinary people are placed in a situation where they have to fight to regain their freedom.

I love the way you explain Black September. So pleasant. If you want to put the number at 10 000 dead Palestinians, fine.

Why thank you. The 10000 dead (which is for both sides combined, not palestinians) is actually from a Zionist website as I wanted to find the largest number I could to show the total fiction of your 30000 figure.

Sure. Condone the mass murder of 10 000 Palestinians. But Israel is supposed to stand by and watch as Hamas etc kills civilians in Israel and vows to continue until Israel is no more.

Again, 10000 is dead on all sides according to the most rabid zionist site. There were mostly terrorists involved (Hamas and it's forebears) who were fighting both the Jordanians and the Isreali's. They had no right to "invade" Jordan like that and Jordan defended itself as was it's right. Other states tried to negiotiate a solution but failed.

Now was Jordan entirely wrong in what it did? Nope, but it wasn't entirely right either. I have already said I am not a cheerleader for every arab state.

So you now admit that Jordan invaded Israel through the West Bank. At least we're getting somewhere

Yes they did, due to a defence pact with Egypt. Isreal invaded Egypt so the pact was triggered. If Isreal hadn't attacked Isreal, no Jordanian attack. Same as the UK declaring war on Germany when it invaded Poland. Would you rather the UK had just left Poland (and all the jews in the east) to their fate?

If Taba was acceptable, he waited a bit too long to decide. 18 months? 

Oh do pay attention and stop repeating the same questions over and over. Just ignoring the answers won't wash with anyone as they can read all the posts.

Arafat dropped the demand for the right of return, and said he would be willing to accept the agreement. A compromise, look that word up ok? It made him very unpopular and was one of the few statemanlike acts of his recent career. Isreal thanked him by continuing the bombing and killing.

Those setlements are existing settlements that would be gone or part of sovereign Pal territory

The Palestinians don't want them part of PLO territory, though in reality it would be Isreali soil guarded by the IDF, and with the best of the road network earmarked as safe routes. This ignores the fact that the settlements are on the best land with the best water supply. You have to empty ALL of the settlements and get the hell off their land.

Why not research it before using it in an argument?

You used it as an argument, not me. I made a passing comment on it and pointed out that the fact they celebrated was completely irrelavent. The US finances the people killing them daily, you bet some people liked the fact that the US got a small taste of what that is like.

For the idiots in the back, of course I condemn the WTC attacks.

Anyways, like I said before. This is tiring. You're now at the point where you're backtacking and changing your story

Hahaha, god you are funny. You haven't addressed any of the main points and instead use your time asking the same questions again and again when people (not just me) have answered them repeatedly. Your blindness is only matched by your ignorance of the facts. You odious racism is just another unfortunate component of your "arguments".

"I never said it was true, I said 'apparently'

Look up the word apparently ok? Some of use language with a purpose, rather than just spewing out random words.

"never said the article I copied used UN documents as sources, I said the website has some"

As I did, here is the quote (top post on page 5) - That latter site takes it's info from UN docs, international papers, govt papers, you name it

Now are you going to deny what is in front of your face? I know you appear to be a master of self deception, but that will take some effort.

First, it's "Arafat's police wasn't strong", then it's "too many guns supplied to Araft's police".

I said the guns were not the most helpful thing to give them, stopping killing them and blowing things up would be a better help. Quote - I said help of any note. Adding 20000 guns to an unstable region is not exactly helpful. Try not demolishing police stations, shooting policemen, and the rest of the box of tricks used by the IDF to stop a palestinians infrastructure.

First it's "Israel started the 1967 war", then it's "Jordan struck because blah blah".

Isreal did start the war, with airstrikes. Egypt then activated it's defence pact with Jordan. Note - defence pact. No Isreali attack on Egypt, no Jordanian retaliation.

At least you'll now admit that jordan opened the West Bank front. At least.

I never denied it. It was opened due to the defenc ... ah well you know it by now :)

Whatever. Again, if you want to find common ground, lemme know. If you want to argue semantics, find someone else. I'm gonna listen to hobbes' advice.

Despite a few good things in your posts (recognizing Isreal is not always right), if you continue to condone the oppression and killing of children and other civilians then I am happy to not find common ground with you. Much as I am happy to not have common ground with Nazi's.

They withdrew completly from more than half the territories, put Arafat in charge in more than that and ended up with more suicide bombings than before. Not a good showing

Incorrect. The greatest rise in deaths by suicide bombings is under Sharon, who has never offered anything to the Palestinians - including any kind of withdrawal. That includes removing all the settlements.

Side note, you notice Sharon mentions removing the settlements just before his interview with the police on fraud charges? I guess he is doing a Barak, offer something you have no intention of following through on so you can say later - "but we offered this!". I imagine he will be out of office fairly soon thank god.

A recap then.

You refuse to address the water, land, human rights, murder of children, the settlements, jewish terrorism in the runup to 48, etc etc. The sentiment of most of the replies to this thread from others is that you are making a very poor case and ignoring the evidence. I would have to concur.

The fact that you blatently lie about quotes, while ignoring the main points of posts, means it is probably pointless discussing anything with you.

putty

02-08-2004, 11:10 PM

Oh for crying out loud...

Your quote:

That site has plagarised and changed the words of the site I took the info from. That latter site takes it's info from UN docs, international papers, govt papers, you name it. I am quite happy to say that some of my post is directly from the latter site, you will notice it is all factual data though and backed up by relavant source papers

Post a fucking link to your article that takes its info from "UN docs, international papers, govt papers, you name it".

I found the exact article written by Ronald Bleier of IGC. I feel no need to debate numbers taken from his biased opinion sources, just as I wouldn't ask you to debate sites that use extremist opinion sources saying that the UK & US are attempting to colonize Iraq.

If it isn't neither http://www.networkideas.org/themes/privati...18_Ramallah.htm (http://www.networkideas.org/themes/privatisation/apr2002/pr18_Ramallah.htm) or http://desip.igc.org/TheftOfWater.html and actually is from a site that uses your relevant sources, then post it!

Jeez.

The IDF hasn't stopped targetting the PLO and it's infrastructure since it was formed.

Palestinian police force members killed:

1993: 0
1994: 1
1995: 4
1996: 13
1997: 0
1998: 0
1999: 0
2000: 2

Btselem numbers. Kindly find someone else to lie to.

Arafat didn't start the intifada as such, he was preparing to fight his end of it.

Excuse me? :lol:

His own communications minister admitted that Arafat planned the intifadah but if you say he didn't start it, ok. We believe you.

"This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton."

"We will return to the early days of the PLO, to the sixties and seventies; ‘the Fatah Hawks’ will return" Airplane hijackings and murder of Olympic athletes, here we come. Very smart thing for Arafat's minister to threaten.

How would it sound for a Sharon minister to say "Kahane Chai will return"? No, don't tell me.

Isreal has never withdrawn

"Area A contained more than 80% of the Palestinian West Bank population" http://www.nad-plo.org/hborders.php

Yes, realize that it's a PLO link before you question it. In case you don't know what Area A is, it's the area that Israel withdrew from completely as part part of Oslo. It's the area that the PA had full control over wrt social services, and security.

So from 1993, 80% of Palestinian population was in 100% control by the PA police. but...

Israeli civilians killed within Israel:

1991: 8
1992: 6
1993: 3 Oslo signed
1994: 47
1995: 9
1996: 38
1997: 25

Why were the suicide bombers not stopped? Why was Hamas not declared illegal? Why were they not arrested as required by Oslo? Israel did arrest and illegalize Kahane Chai.

The 10000 dead [Palestinians killed by Jordan in 1 month] (which is for both sides combined, not palestinians)

1970: Black September. King Hussein of Jordan massacred tens of thousands of Palestinians
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/425/425p18b.htm

- Lefty socialist source

"Under him we lost 20,000 people in Jordan during the Black September massacres of 1970"

- Palestinian source
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-whyhero.html

the Jordanians
massacred 18,000 Palestinians in 12 days in “Black September”

www.christian-witness.org/israel/jp_nzoct02.html

10000 is dead on all sides according to the most rabid zionist site. There were mostly terrorists involved

Are you sure that 10,000 deaths combined was the highest number you could find???

Which one of these is the rabidly zionist site?

Are you sure that it was mostly terrorists that were massacred? Are you calling Palestinian civilians terrorists?

I'm surprised. No, I'm not. You'd argue anything just for the point of arguing.

I wonder where your canton argument went...

You, however, have stated on numerous occasions that you are quite happy to see children shot in the head on the way to school, or 95 year old women to be murdered while sitting in a car

Is that really the best you can do now? Is this how you convince yourself that those who disagree with you are boogiemen? Must be nice world you live in where everyone around you thinks the same as you and anyone you come across on that bad internet who doesn't agree with you is "happy to see children shot in the head". Pathetic.

Until you show me where I stated this, have fun with yourself.

When you lie about what I say, you show everyone that your argument is going nowhere and are now resorting to the desperate. I said this not once, but "on numerous occasions". Should be easy enough to show.

You are not to be reasoned with.

Rat Faced

02-08-2004, 11:37 PM

1234, you are out of order really on this one.

Putty has said that most Israeli's and most Pallestinians are decent people.

Although condoning hunting terrorists, which we all do im sure; he has not condoned shooting children and old people.

He just does not believe its as prevalent as we do...this is not the same as supporting it.

putty

02-09-2004, 12:06 AM

Seriously, why bother? From the way he has lied and manipulated the info in this thread, this doesn't exactly surprise me.

3RA1N1AC

02-09-2004, 09:27 AM

this has gone waaaaaaaay off topic. wasn't the point of this thread originally that the guy was leading by example, paving the way for all of us to express our personal views about art by going to museums/galleries and... um... censoring it?

i'm gonna rent a bus for me and anyone else who wants to come along, to drive down to the local MOMA and personally take down everything we don't agree with. who's with me? :lol:

Billy_Dean

02-09-2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by putty@9 February 2004 - 09:06
Seriously, why bother? From the way he has lied and manipulated the info in this thread, this doesn't exactly surprise me.
You must be brain dead! He's posted more links in every single post than you have in all your pathetic arguments. You've provided nothing but Israeli propaganda.

Get out of Palestine and take your settlers with you. Leave the Palestinians alone to get on with their lives. Palestinians and Israelis are equal, each entitled to their own. Leave theirs alone. Leave their land alone, and leave their water alone. Fuck off out!!

:(

1234

02-09-2004, 04:42 PM

Ratty, he has said numerous times he condones the bombing of civilian areas, and has tried to paint all of the 1000+ children killed as terrorists.

What happens when you bomb civilian areas? What happened two days ago - a 10 year old boy dies and not a single terrorist is hurt.

I acknowledged that he has stated Isreal is not always right, but if I criticised Nazi transport policy but said it's killings of civilians were ok would I be any less the fascist?

It would be nice to hear him condemn the bombing of civilians, he says the UK shouldn't have bombed Dublin yet is quite happy with his army bombing palestinian towns and cities. Until he does, he condones it.

But you are right, he won't be convinced by anything we say. Zealots never are. They are incapable of deviating from a preset position. Throw religion into the mix too and you have a recipe for disaster. I'll leave him to his lies and distortions and let you mods sleep a bit easier ;)

I'll just be brief with his last points.

I said the site not the page. Are you so stupid you do not understand the distinction? The source material is detailed on the page, and I didn't state what those sources were at all. I even gave you a clue to find it, but you've had no success so far. Think of it as a game. It amuses me at least.

Btselem numbers. Kindly find someone else to lie to.

Here (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Fatalities_Lists/PalSec_by_IsSec_eng.asp) is a link to the actual Btselem numbers.

It lists 35 for the last 3 months of 2000 alone. Stop the blatent lying, you just look like a fool.

His own communications minister admitted that Arafat planned the intifadah but if you say he didn't start it, ok. We believe you.

He planned the PLO part of it like I said. Arafat has no control over Hamas and the rest. When Isreal refused to negiotiate, the palestinians went back to fighting for their freedom. A right preserved in international law.

In case you don't know what Area A is, it's the area that Israel withdrew from completely as part part of Oslo. It's the area that the PA had full control over wrt social services, and security.

Isreal never withdrew from Area A completely. The very site and map you reference says that.

The map also shows exactly why it was an unacceptable deal to palestinians. It created the equivalent of the black South African ghetto "states" with no contiguous border, surrounded by Isreali land, and restricted access to water and other services.

So from 1993, 80% of Palestinian population was in 100% control by the PA police.

As the map/site you quote says, Isreal never withdrew completely and has constantly invaded/violated PLO territory.

From the site you provide -

The Oslo Accords represented a triumph for Israel’s long-standing strategy of taking as much Palestinian land as possible with as few Palestinians as possible. The Oslo Accords carved the Occupied West Bank into 3 areas, giving Palestinian full civil and security authority over “Area A”: 17.2% of the Occupied West Bank comprised of 13 non-contiguous reservations (Map: Israeli and Palestinian Security-Controlled Areas). However, Area A contained more than 80% of the Palestinian West Bank population (excluding East Jerusalem). The Oslo Accords therefore allowed Israel to carve away the vast majority of the Palestinian people onto reservations while maintaining effective control over 83% of Occupied West Bank territory. Israel never implemented the Oslo Accords’ obligation for further troop withdrawals.

Why were the suicide bombers not stopped? Why was Hamas not declared illegal? Why were they not arrested as required by Oslo? Israel did arrest and illegalize Kahane Chai.

For the reasons (repeated for the upteenth time) above. Isreal never withdrew and targetted PLO infrastructure.

Are you sure that it was mostly terrorists that were massacred? Are you calling Palestinian civilians terrorists?

No, I am calling Hamas and assiciated groups that kill civilians terrorists. I am sure many non Hamas members were killed too. I have repeatedly said I am no supporter of Jordan. I agree that it was an oppressive regime too. Does that excuse Isreali oppression? Why are you so desperate to prove others do evil in order to excuse your own evil acts? Most of the sane world knows there are extremists on all sides and that an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

I wonder where your canton argument went...

Never had a canton argument. You raised it and I have never even referred to you mentioning it. Stop lying. Again.

When you lie about what I say, you show everyone that your argument is going nowhere and are now resorting to the desperate

The lies have all been yours. I posted quotes to prove your lies, and you just ignore them and continue doing it.

  I said this not once, but "on numerous occasions". Should be easy enough to show.

Sure is. Here is one quote to get us started -

I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side

So you say no one can blame you for bombing palestinian civilians because a few terrorists might be near. Yet you say the UK shouldn't bomb Eire when IRA terrorists are there and launching attacks from Eire.

Why is that? Is it maybe because Eire is a mostly nice, white, non arab population? Your racism and hypocrisy is apparent.

Oh and your bombings don't stop anything, they just serve as a nice recruiting tool for Hamas and the rest while further weakening the PLO.

I guess this just about concludes our discussion.

putty

02-09-2004, 06:24 PM

Ratty, he has said numerous times he condones the bombing of civilian areas

Again, where did I say this. Show it to me and everyone else. Ratty doesn't believe you and neither does anyone else.

What happened two days ago - a 10 year old boy dies and not a single terrorist is hurt.

Why do you lie like this? Do you think it helps your cause?

Islamic Jihad militant, Palestinian child killed in Israeli missile strike

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...st_040207141525 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=1503&e=10&u=/afp/20040207/ts_afp/mideast_040207141525)

he says the UK shouldn't have bombed Dublin

For fuck's sake, WHERE GODDAMIT?????

I'll leave him to his lies and distortions and let you mods sleep a bit easier

There are 2 times that mods have had to step in here in this thread:

1) Lefty trying to insult me by calling my mother a kosher crack whore

2) You lying about what I've said

Wake the fuck up, dude.

I said the site not the page. Are you so stupid you do not understand the distinction? The source material is detailed on the page, and I didn't state what those sources were at all.

Oh why do I bother? This is truly a joke.

Here (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Fatalities_Lists/PalSec_by_IsSec_eng.asp) is a link to the actual Btselem numbers.

So you contest the numbers I posted? I gave you the fucking link to them!

Unreal. :lol:

He planned the PLO part of it like I said. Arafat has no control over Hamas and the rest.

What PLO part vs. Hamas part? The PLO was in negotiations, not Hamas. Only they knew how the negotiations were going. Hamas wasn't planning an intifadah, it never stopped the first one.

A right preserved in international law.

Suicide bombings being a right preserved in international law. Oh this I'm gonna need a link to. I can't wait.

Isreal never withdrew from Area A completely. The very site and map you reference says that.

It's the PLO site itself. :D

I showed you numerous news sources that showed that Israel DID leave Area A

Wait, oh my god this is funny. You're lying even from your own quote here.

This is what it says:

Israel never implemented the Oslo Accords’ obligation for further troop withdrawals.

It doesn't say that Israel never withdrew completely from Area A. Another lie.

Un-freaking-real.

For the reasons (repeated for the upteenth time) above. Isreal never withdrew and targetted PLO infrastructure.

How? Show me! I showed you Btselem numbers that demonstrate that the IDF DID NOT target the PA. You think it's true because you say so?

And again, "Israel never withdrew". Uh huh. Too bad the PLO's own site doesn't back you up.

Never had a canton argument. You raised it and I have never even referred to you mentioning it. Stop lying. Again.

Your quote:

It created the equivalent of the black South African ghetto "states" with no contiguous border, surrounded by Isreali land

Excuse me but this is the canton argument.

First of all, minus 10 points for the (yet another) use of "South Africa". Ever hear of a straw man argument?

Now, show me where the ghettos are on that map? Show me how there's no contiguous border. Show me where it is surrounded by Israeli land.

SHOW ME ANYTHING!

Sure is. Here is one quote to get us started -

I only said that when YOUR civilians are bombarded, IN THE SOLE PURPOSE of stopping the killing in your side, no one can blame you if you bomb the other side

Liar. Show me where I said this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post a fucking link. I dare you. Do something because you're looking very very bad.

I guess this just about concludes our discussion.

No. You don't get off that easily. I want everyone here to see how much of a liar you are.

I want the answers.

Rat Faced

02-09-2004, 10:13 PM

Putty, you should have checked the whole of that story...

1st.
It says the Israeli's have a policy of Assasination.........illegal under international law

2nd.
It says the wall is an obstruction to peace

3rd
It mentions the number of injured civilians, including 2 year olds...

4th
The Israeli Army Officer admits that the Militant they killed was only responsible for Military Deaths...not suicide bombers etc..

and a quote:

Also on Saturday, nearly 3,000 protestors, including both Palestinians and Israelis, rallied in the West Bank town of Abu Dis against the Jewish state's controversial West Bank separation barrier.

"No to apartheid," "The wall creates a prison for Palestinians, a ghetto for Israel," the demonstrators chanted, many of them waving Palestinian flags.

putty

02-09-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@9 February 2004 - 22:13
]
I did check that whole story and it changes nothing, as you know.

1234 lies.

The rest of it is opinion and I have nothing against Israeli or Palestinians protesting the wall. In fact, I never said that I myself was in favour of it. I never even said that I was in favour of targetted killings.

But none of it changes the fact that this 1234 person lies and so is not someone to reason with.

NotoriousBIC

02-10-2004, 02:08 AM

Well, perhaps an impartial view could be helpful.

I've spent the last good part of an hour reviewing this thread and I firmly believe the discussion is about all the wrong things. It mostly revolves around whodunnit first, eye for an eye, which party provoked who, etc.
I'm convinced it's futile to try to (theoretically) solve it that way. Just like a complex chain function can't be solved by using the whole fuction from step 1.
One needs to look at the current situation and work from that.

So what's the situation?
One party observes his situation as so desperate, that people are willing to blow themselves up to fight out of this situation. No sane man/woman will blow him/herself and other people up under normal circumstances. So obviously some (a lot?) Palestines feel very much oppressed to reach this point.

The other party feels that it is it's birthright to be in Israel. So much so, that they fought a war to reclaim it. And use extreme measures to hold it. Also decisions sane men do not take lightly.

So here's the situation broken down and stripped of any religious, sentimental and economical arguments: It's a territorial dispute.
A dispute between the original occupant (The Palistinians and please don't come with religious arguments claiming otherwise) and the occupiers (the Jews).

Now how were these kinds of disputes solved in the past?
Simple, the strongest side gets the whole nine yards. This immediately explains some Palistinians' extreme reaction and suicide-bombing.

And why hasn't this been done so already?
Well, here's where the thesis gets muddy.
Obviously humanist factions within the Israeli Government coupled with the foreign nations' views (none more so than the US) forced a 'stand-off' in the situation.

Here's my view:
The Palestinians' reactions are basic. Primordial fear of oppression and the will to defend what percieve as their own land. These are rather hard reasons to 'battle'.
They are even described in international rights for people.

To 'battle' that, the Israeli government has created an 'eye for an eye' situation. Basically mimicing the Palestinians' 'being attacked and defend yourself' reaction.
This created time for them to develop housing and such and installing themselves on THEIR own land. See the pattern starting to shape?

Ok, so how to get out of this mess?
Well, as strange as it may sound, neither the Israeli Gov. nor the Palistians have anything to win with a compromise. The Israeli Gov. will be forced to concede more territory and the Palestinians will never get 'all their land back'.
So it's safe to assume (and indeed has been proven over the years) that neither will try to resolve the issue fully and indeed perhaps even try to escalate it.

So, sadly a resolution has to be forced
The most obvious candidate *again* to do this would be the US as they have the 3 billion funding as bargaining chip, which could be used either way.

And the (re)solution itself?
In my opinion the most ideal one would be to make Israel and Palestine 1 country with a government representing both Israelis and Palestinians.
The reason being that territorial disputes seem harder to solve/cost more lives than ethnic/religious disputes.
I know it's going to be a Phyrric victory, but one can but dream can he not...

p.s. If people stopped calling eachother liars maybe that would ease the 'discussion'. Or as a wise man once said:
"The Truth would remain the Truth if man would view it and not describe it, as any description, however complete, could never hold the whole Truth"

j2k4

02-10-2004, 05:15 AM

Well stated, NotoriousBIC. ;)

Ex malo bonum?

Perhaps-perhaps not.

We shall see, though probably not in this lifetime.

1234

02-11-2004, 07:28 PM

Well said Bic, I agree with your points.

Going to just reply to the parts where putty calls me a liar and let your post stand.

Why do you lie like this? Do you think it helps your cause?

Islamic Jihad militant, Palestinian child killed in Israeli missile strike

At the time of the original attack, 1 person died (the child) and up to 10 injured (3 critically). The member of Islamic Jihad died after the posting of the story I read, when he was in hospital. So I stand corrected that a terrorist did indeed die. Now, please tell us why it is ok to kill a child (and seriously wound two more, plus 8 adults minimum) in a missile attack on a civilian area? It is against international law as has been pointed out, and does nothing to further peace.

So you contest the numbers I posted? I gave you the fucking link to them!

No you didn't. I gave the link to the real PalSc fatality figures. It showed 35 for the last three months of 2000 alone.

Hamas wasn't planning an intifadah, it never stopped the first one.

Hamas has had numerous cease fires during periods of negotiations. The IDF however has never stopped targetting them. It's rather surprising that they do have these ceasefires, but they do none the less. The IDF prefers to continue it's attacks as they have no interest in either a ceasefire or a negiotated settlement. By provoking a response from Hamas in those periods, it entrenches it's position.

Suicide bombings being a right preserved in international law. Oh this I'm gonna need a link to. I can't wait.

No, the right to resist an occupying army of aggresssion. That includes suicide bombers killing troops or people working with the troops. Btw, speaking of bombs, why do the IDF use public buses to transport troops in uniform? The IDF then cries foul when that bus is bombed. Well duh, get the soldiers of the occupying regime off public buses then. But that wouldn't allow Isreal to broadcast pictures of blown up buses would it? When Hamas attacks a school bus, you will generally find that the IDF has killed palestinian children recently. Does this excuse it? Nope, but it should be a warning to the IDF to behave itself.

With this latest killing of a palestinian child, expect Isreali children to pay a terrible price. Something I condemn of course, but you don't comdemn the IDF doing the same.

It's the PLO site itself. 

I showed you numerous news sources that showed that Israel DID leave Area A

You chose to use the site to support your case, not me. The page shows 1) that Area A was a ghetto ala' South Africa 2) Isreal never even withdrew fully from the area anyway. Your other links are of IDF army army attacks and make no mention of the settlers that remained or the daily harassment of the civilians by the army and settlers.

It doesn't say that Israel never withdrew completely from Area A. Another lie

Yes it does, on the map you posted and on the page itself.

I showed you Btselem numbers that demonstrate that the IDF DID NOT target the PA. You think it's true because you say so?

I showed you the real Btselem page on PalSc losses. Remember, 35 deaths in under 3 months in 2000 alone.

You also said my figure of almost 4500 dead palestinians was wrong. Lets look at Btselem - 3550 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Total_Casualties.asp) up until May 03 from an arbitrary date of 87. This does not include - people who die as a result of IDF delays on medical care, people who have disappeared into Isreali custody and never heard from again (a number in the 1000's itself. Isreal had a Guantanamo long before the US), people dying due to lack of sanitation/water/healthcare due to IDF operations. Btselem also acknowledges that it cannot tally every death as it does not have the resources. So I think somewhere around 4 or 5 thousand is a fair guess.

And again, "Israel never withdrew". Uh huh. Too bad the PLO's own site doesn't back you up.

Sigh, whatever. Your own link proves otherwise and I can't be bothered to argue whether black is white with someone of your limited faculties.

Excuse me but this is the canton argument

No it isn't. Do you know what a Canton is? Is a subdivision of the state (for the US think states or counties, in the UK think counties, in Switzerland think ... cantons!). The pseudo states set up by SA and proposed by Isreal were meant to be autonomous states, but in reality were ghetto's and dumping grounds that were designed to be a failed system that kept the population in check.

First of all, minus 10 points for the (yet another) use of "South Africa". Ever hear of a straw man argument? 

I have read the definitions involved in Apartheid, unlike you, and the UN, human rights groups, and nation states all agree that Isreal operates an apartheid.

Now, show me where the ghettos are on that map? Show me how there's no contiguous border. Show me where it is surrounded by Israeli land.

Try looking at the map you provided. It even states on the map/page that the borders are non-contiguous just in case you are too blind to notice yourself.

SHOW ME ANYTHING!

I've shown you many things, but you just don't care to listen.

Liar. Show me where I said this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post a fucking link. I dare you. Do something because you're looking very very bad.

That quote is from Venom not you and I accept that. You took over my replies to him and I forgot he ever posted. You both push the same line and I conflated the two of you into one poster. My mistake.

However, will you take this oppertunity to condemn the IDF bombing that killed and injured children this week? If you don't, my point stands and you condone it. So far, despite many chances to condemn the killings, you haven't. Do you condemn the shooting of palestinians (pensioners, children, etc) and call for IDF soldiers to face murder charges? Again, if you don't you condone it.

I am giving you the chance to make an unequivocal statement, don't pass it up or my point still stands.

No. You don't get off that easily. I want everyone here to see how much of a liar you are.

The liar here is you, as well as the fascist who will not condemn the targetted killings of civilians. Dropping a missile into a heavily populated area to kill one man is targetting civilians.

Even when I did make a mistake (confusing you with Venom), my point still stands as you refuse to condemn killings and gloat over the death of one terrorist while 3 children lie dead or maimed along with up to 10 others seriously injured.

I never even said that I was in favour of targetted killings

You have never condemned them. Why not? Also they are not "targetted killings", unless you admit they targetted the small child. Otherwise they are not targetted at all and are just large amounts of explosives dropped into a civilian area. In all it's illegal assasinations, the Isreali Air Force has killed more innocent people than terrorists.

But none of it changes the fact that this 1234 person lies and so is not someone to reason with.

Yawn, whatever. At no point in this debate have you addressed the original points. Water, land, electoral, and human rights. Isreal's use of human shields, the everyday brutality. The legality of the occupation, or anything else. Your posts have been full of irrelavent drivel, while you desperatly try to defend the indefensible.

You are a fine example of why Isreal is doomed unless it's people open their eyes to what is being done in their name. I would rather ascribe a quote to the wrong person by mistake than have your repugnant views. By quite a large margin :)

Anyway, we are done. Every post of any note is telling you that you are wrong. I will leave it to them to continue to point out your lack of arguments.

To show the lack of historical knowledge and racism you embody, I leave you with this quote -

We were the ones who always had a settlement here and the Arabs were the nomads you tool, Arab immigrates only came here after the Zionists started developing the country in the late 19th century

Do you agree with this quote?

putty

02-12-2004, 06:26 AM

If this weren't so sad it would be funny.

I'll once again try and keep this short. I'm not going on to new points until these are settled.

So you contest the numbers I posted? I gave you the fucking link to them!

No you didn't. I gave the link to the real PalSc fatality figures.

You're right, I didn't post the link because the site was down. Now that it's back up, are you disputing the numbers I posted? Which of the ones I posted from Btselem are not "real"? They point out that the PA police was not targeted at all.

Again, here is the Btselem number for PA poicemen killed:

1993: 0
1994: 1
1995: 4
1996: 13
1997: 0
1998: 0
1999: 0
2000: 2

Now's your time to block your ears and just repeat that the IDF did target them.

No, the right to resist an occupying army of aggresssion. That includes suicide bombers killing troops or people working with the troops. Btw, speaking of bombs, why do the IDF use public buses to transport troops in uniform? The IDF then cries foul when that bus is bombed. Well duh, get the soldiers of the occupying regime off public buses then. But that wouldn't allow Isreal to broadcast pictures of blown up buses would it? When Hamas attacks a school bus, you will generally find that the IDF has killed palestinian children recently. Does this excuse it? Nope, but it should be a warning to the IDF to behave itself.

It's truly scary that you might believe this.

Israel deliberately places troops on public city buses so that civilians will be killed while Hamas is targeting the soldiers.

I've now heard it all.

It doesn't say that Israel never withdrew completely from Area A. Another lie

Yes it does, on the map you posted and on the page itself.

The page shows 1) that Area A was a ghetto ala' South Africa 2) Isreal never even withdrew fully from the area anyway

1) You're changing the subject. You were saying that Israel didn't withdraw from Area A, as required. But go ahead, when in doubt just use South Africa as an example.

2) Jesus Murphy. Once again, show me where the map shows that Israel didn't withdraw from Area A. Show me where the link says that Israel didn't withdraw from Area A.

I could've sworn I already asked for this but hey, I'm a patient guy.

Here's the PLO statement on Area A to make it easy for you:

The Oslo Accords represented a triumph for Israel’s long-standing strategy of taking as much Palestinian land as possible with as few Palestinians as possible. The Oslo Accords carved the Occupied West Bank into 3 areas, giving Palestinian full civil and security authority over “Area A”: 17.2% of the Occupied West Bank comprised of 13 non-contiguous reservations (Map: Israeli and Palestinian Security-Controlled Areas). However, Area A contained more than 80% of the Palestinian West Bank population (excluding East Jerusalem). The Oslo Accords therefore allowed Israel to carve away the vast majority of the Palestinian people onto reservations while maintaining effective control over 83% of Occupied West Bank territory. Israel never implemented the Oslo Accords’ obligation for further troop withdrawals.

Now, where in this does it say that Israel did not withdraw from Area A?

Like you say in another thread, I may have to use this as my signature.

Now, show me where the ghettos are on that map? Show me how there's no contiguous border. Show me where it is surrounded by Israeli land.

Try looking at the map you provided. It even states on the map/page that the borders are non-contiguous just in case you are too blind to notice yourself.

Too much. Since I'm not sure you understand what the map was I'll explain it. It was the final Taba offer that Barak made to Arafat, that Arafat rejected only to say 18 months later that of course he'd accept it. He's a very reasonable man, afterall. Anyways, the darkest area is Area A & B which the PA already controlled. The lighter grey is what was to join Area A & B to become part of Palestine. The settlements are there for illustration purposes but were to be evacuated.

Get it? Under the Taba offer, there was no non-contiguity. Are you sure you understand? If you're not purposely lying about it and just don't understand, will you stop the misinformation now?

You both push the same line and I conflated the two of you into one poster.

Wow, even when you admit that you're wrong you manage to insult. I'm impressed. Contrary to what you might think, there are many people who feel that Israel is not evil. If you'd open your eyes and mind, you might just see that.