Israeli Ambassador

[1234]

1234, your cut & paste efforts are truly laughable.

You even had the nerve to plagiarize from this site ( http://www.networkideas.org/themes/p...8_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

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]

@ 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..


@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

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? 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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

For Information Purposes in this argument:

Additional UN Resolutions against Israel Vetoed:

Vetoes: 1972-2003

US Vetoes at UN @ Israel

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]

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 &#39;battle&#39; 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&#39;d expect to be ignored for the rest of the discussion.

And now that we see who you really are, that&#39;s exactly what will happen.[/quote]

So basically you&#39;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&#39;re just so compelling.

<!--QuoteBegin-putty
Lefty, you&#39;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]

This statement alone should serve to disregard your entire post, or any other post you&#39;d ever make in the subject - it&#39;s obvious you are willing to blatantly lie in order to try and brainwash whoever&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t parade your ignorance so loudly you know. Try actually researching the subject first.

it&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s raison d&#39;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&#39;t mean Isreali terrorism predates occupation? You are aware of Gurions activities aren&#39;t you? Ever since &#39;48 the Isreali&#39;s have occupied palestinian land, whereas before &#39;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&nbsp;

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&#39;d have their own little terrorist country like they&#39;ve always wanted

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

let&#39;s see how they fare without us supporting them adn yes that&#39;s exactly what we&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s objectivity) many of our soldiers died because we weren&#39;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.

&nbsp; I&#39;m afraid i can&#39;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&#39;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.

&nbsp; when your civilians are bombed you should retaliate for the sole purpose of stopping the killing in your side - if the enemy knows he&#39;ll pay in lives when he takes your lives, he wouldn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t bomb Dublin or Belfast, and didn&#39;t firebomb the Serbs. Your attempts to explain away mass murder mean nothing.

[hobbes]

Hate has no boundaries and even less credibility.