Wow. The Palestinian Militant Turned Zionist

[putty]

Originally posted by 1234@29 January 2004 - 08:17
How do I lose credibility exept from those with closed minds?

Apartheid - check out Isreali law, esp on land.

Holocaust - those ghettos in Poland etc look damn similar to refugee camps and besieged towns in Palestine.

Saddam - he invaded a neighbour and declared the land his own. At least he didn't claim justification from a book of 2500 year old morality tales though.

Open your mind, buddy.

Jeez, I typed up a lengthy response but you know how Windows goes... poof went the brower. I'll be shorter this time around.

Apartheid - check out Isreali law, esp on land.

You're wrong. Trust me on this.

Yes it makes great copy that Israeli law make it extremely difficult for Arabs to but land in Israel but the fact that people miss is that it's also difficult for Jews to own land. Because of the way the laws were originally set up, something like 93% of land is govt land and govt land cannot be sold, only leased. Govt land is leased to Arabs just as it is leased to Jews. In fact, Arab Bedouins receive huge govt subsidies for these long term leases and Israeli Jews have gone to court to try and get the same subsidies. They were denied on the basis of it being affirmative action.

So, you're correct in saying it's nearly impossible for Arabs to buy land. The caveat is that it's the same for Jews. But don't let truth stand in the way of a good story!

Holocaust - those ghettos in Poland etc look damn similar to refugee camps and besieged towns in Palestine.

You're right. The Holocaust was all about refugee camps and besieged towns. It had nothing to do with the mass murder of 6 million people. Sigh.

Saddam - he invaded a neighbour and declared the land his own. At least he didn't claim justification from a book of 2500 year old morality tales though.

I suggest you read the history of the 1967 war before you make statements like this. Here are the hints to look up:

- Straits of Tiran and the UN's Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
- United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF)
- May 30 defense agreement between King Hussein and Sadat

If you think that Israel invaded a peaceful tiny neighbour in order to obtain land then you'll believe anything. How many countries do you know who pick wars with 5 countries in order to obtain tiny slivers of land with large foreign populations?

You should be aware of the fact that after fighting broke out with Syria and Egypt, Israel informed King Hussein that Israel would not do anything on that front unless provoked. Hussein attacked thinking that he was about to win the other half of Jerusalem (remember that Jordan occupied the WB and half of Jerusalem at that time). He later called this his greatest error.

Whatever. I've been through these debates before. I know all of my arguments and trust me when I say that I know all of yours. You're not original. It's the same garbage that appears on sites like Radio Islam and Indymedia.

You'll notice how Lefty is yet to provide the link on Rupert Murdoch's Jewishness. I think I'll be waiting a while.

[hobbes]

Sorry 1234, you truly lose all credibility by going there. By stretching your argument to hyperbole, it devalues your total point alltogether. It makes you look like you're a foaming at the mouth one-trick pony, someone who is so overboard that you're not worth even trying to speak to rationally.

That about sums it up.

The board has seen the likes before in EvilBagPuss. Putty, I would add him to the "ignore" list as his responses will never cease and his distortion has no boundaries.

A small example is when he talked about the "great play" the woman made on Israeli deaths. Intentionally, he missed the point of her statement and misrepresented her non-emotive wording in an attempt to drive the discussion back toward his anti-Israel agenda.

When I called him on it, he ignored me and refused to admit his distortion. That was my test to see how he was going to behave.

He'll keep doing this and you will keep explaining how he is twisting a point. He has no intent on considering anything. His view is absolute, why bother talking to him?

In addition, this thread is a micro-cosm of human conflict, not specifically about I/P, and certainly not about which side is "more right" or "more wrong".

To 1234, get your own thread. It seems you are unable to satisfy your thirst for this issue on the many other I/P threads, maybe one more will be just the ticket.

[1234]

You're wrong. Trust me on this. 

Umm no.

Yes it makes great copy that Israeli law make it extremely difficult for Arabs to but land in Israel but the fact that people miss is that it's also difficult for Jews to own land. Because of the way the laws were originally set up, something like 93% of land is govt land and govt land cannot be sold, only leased. Govt land is leased to Arabs just as it is leased to Jews. In fact, Arab Bedouins receive huge govt subsidies for these long term leases and Israeli Jews have gone to court to try and get the same subsidies. They were denied on the basis of it being affirmative action.

Utterly incorrect. On Sunday, 7 July 2002, the Israeli cabinet, in a vote of 17-2, recommended the adoption of a new bill to restrict access to 'state land' to Jews only. The proposed bill was formulated as a response to a High Court decision on 8 March 2000, which upheld the right of Adel and Iman Qaadan, a Palestinian couple from Baqa al-Gharbiyya in the Galilee, to lease a plot of land and build a home in the nearby Jewish "lookout" settlement of Katzir. Katzir was jointly established by the Jewish Agency and the Katzir Cooperative Society in 1982 on 'state land' allocated by the Israel Lands Administration (ILA) as part of a project to prevent the development of large contiguous Palestinian areas in the Galilee. The Cooperative Society only accepts Jewish members. In reviewing the case, the High Court held that the state may not allocate land to the Jewish Agency knowing that the Agency will only permit Jews to use the land. The Court noted, however, that the decision applied only to the "particular facts of the case." Katzir has refused to implement the decision.

So, you're correct in saying it's nearly impossible for Arabs to buy land.

Where did I refer to buying land? I said that the land laws were a form of apartheid. Restricting 93% of the countries land to Jews (and passing new laws to overturn court decisions) shows this quite clearly.

The cabinet decision resembles, in principle, South Africa's 1950 Group Areas Act - one of the cornerstones of apartheid.

You're right. The Holocaust was all about refugee camps and besieged towns. It had nothing to do with the mass murder of 6 million people. Sigh.

Are you trying to belittle the suffering of people in the Warsaw ghetto? I suppose you are one of those people who also regards the Holocaust as purely a Jewish tragedy. I assume you are also unaware of the views of Kach and others.

The occupation of a people and their oppression based on religion or culture is exactly the same as the ghetto's. Sure, the IDF does not run gas chambers - they couldn't get away with it even if they wanted to (which of course most do not). But I was referring to the ghetto's, not the death camps as the programs were specifically about those ghetto's and the survivors. The similarities are stark and apparent to all.

I suggest you read the history of the 1967 war before you make statements like this. I suggest you read the history of the 1967 war before you make statements like this.

I know about the 67 war thanks. So does the UN which has passed numerous resolutions demanding Isreal's withdraw. Sound familiar? Read up on Saddam maybe?

If you think that Israel invaded a peaceful tiny neighbour in order to obtain land then you'll believe anything.

How naive are you? Ever heard of the phrase liebensraum? Take a geological map of the area out and you may notice why Isreal takes the land it does. For example, the Golan Heights. There is something much more valuable than oil there. Oh and don't give me the defenceable position argument, we are talking about a country with a nuclear arsenal and an army capable of crushing any neighbour. A few hills would change nothing militarily.

How many countries do you know who pick wars with 5 countries in order to obtain tiny slivers of land with large foreign populations?

Where to start. Sweden / Germany / UK / Russia / USSR / USA / France etc etc. Just about any country that at some point in history felt it could throw it's weight around locally. Isreal has the most powerful army in the region and nuclear weapons, it doesn't have to be afraid of any of it's neighbours and can do as it pleases.

You should be aware of the fact that after fighting broke out with Syria and Egypt

This has what exactly to do with the palestinians? You are another one who see's arabs as some homogenous mass rather than seperate populations with their own land and history.

What about Lebanon too? You know, that operation that led to Ariel Sharon being sacked as defence minister due to complicity in the deaths of 1000's of civilians in 2 refugee camps.

Whatever. I've been through these debates before

Me too, I have heard the same defences of state oppression from others and you say nothing new either. I will keep replying to anyone who states that mass murder of children (the IDF has admitted targetting children and has killed over 1200 in the last few years) is ok and that Isreal is somehow the aggrieved party. They are illegally (in the eyes of international law and opinion) occupying palestinian land and the palestinians have a right of defence. It's just a shame they target civilians sometimes too, something I oppose on their side as much as the Isreali side. However I understand the desperation that drives them to it.

It's the same garbage that appears on sites like Radio Islam and Indymedia

Garbage? Facts are included above - where is your defence? No opinion please, just facts regarding govt decisions and IDF actions.

A small example is when he talked about the "great play" the woman made on Israeli deaths. Intentionally, he missed the point of her statement and misrepresented her non-emotive wording in an attempt to drive the discussion back toward his anti-Israel agenda.

Ok, since you are obviously blind to what I am saying I will say it again.

Palestinian article - mentions the propaganda on the part of the PLO and attacks on Isreali's. No mention of Isreali killings, which are up to 10x higher depending on when you start counting.

Isreali article - mentions the suicide bombers and attacks on Isreali's, the interviewee points out Isreali aggression.

Therein lies the problem - why does the interviewer not mention the Isreali aggression in the first article as a balance to the demonisation of the PLO?

When I called him on it, he ignored me and refused to admit his distortion. That was my test to see how he was going to behave. 

Um dream on m8. I answered, and have again here. Try reading rather than skimming ok? Where is the balance in the first article when compared to the second?

He'll keep doing this and you will keep explaining how he is twisting a point. He has no intent on considering anything. His view is absolute, why bother talking to him?

I present facts and evidence, you present nothing but opinion and personal attacks. Who do you think has zero credibility? Try answering my points, I have answered yours.

In addition, this thread is a micro-cosm of human conflict, not specifically about I/P, and certainly not about which side is "more right" or "more wrong".

Oh definitly, in the original articles and in the responses from people such as yourself. Blind agression while disregarding the evidence. Answer my points.

To 1234, get your own thread. It seems you are unable to satisfy your thirst for this issue on the many other I/P threads, maybe one more will be just the ticket.

Anyone who condones the IDF slaughtering people, illegally occupying land, and operating an oppressive apartheid regime will have to defend their position, can you?

The point of the original post was (and it's subtitle confirms this) to paint the palestinians as unprovoked terrorists rather than an occupied people with a right to self defence. My reply was to show that Isreali's agree with that position too.

[hobbes]

Your second article was welcome addition to the thread. It provided the opposite viewpoint, so we have articles which balance each other out. I personally didn't need it to understand the theme of the first, but perhaps some needed some hand-holding in that regard.

Each article reveals a personal awakening and appreciation of the other side.

This highlights the concept that neither side is right nor wrong. It emphasises that when the barriers of institutional brainwashing and politics are stripped away that people are people.

Your comments otherwise are completely off-topic and simply driven by your personal agenda. This personal interest is apparently the only thing you care to talk about, and you will do so even if you have to highjack threads to do it. Nothing like throwing out the Nazi card to lure people into debate.

BTW, please compelte the following sentence:

The author makes great play on the deaths of a few hundred Isreali's, by.....

Oh wait, she actually didn't and it wasn't even her point in making the statement.



Get your own thread. Have a nice day in your angry little world. Could you please post something in the lounge that makes you at least seem human. Post a picture of your favorite actress or pair of boobies.

[1234]

To avoid confusion, the reporter is a he.

I agree with your preamble, no difference between us there. Once people look at the historical and current positions without prejudice there is hope of a solution. However Isreali and Palestinian extemists are in control (in the Isreali govt and in Hamas etc) who believe killing civilians advances their case.

This personal interest is apparently the only thing you care to talk about

I have posted about India, Mother Theresa, Bush, Iraq, Blair and a few other things. How is Isreal the only thing I talk about?

The author makes great play on the deaths of a few hundred Isreali's, by.....

1) Challanging the Isreali about suicide bombers but not challenging the Palestinian about IDF killings.

2) Depicting the entire PLO and other palestinians as lunatic mass murderers with no mention of Isreali aggression and mass murders.

Clear?

Both sides have nutters, but that should not make us forget who is the truly wronged party.

[J'Pol]

In order to reach any solution the people must be willing to let the past go.

Every time there is some clever intellectual diatribe on how we got to where we are today it is a retrograde step. It simply re-inforces old prejudices and justifies the actions of those who don't really seek peace. Their lives would (in their own eyes) be worthless without the conflict. It defines what they are.

The only way forward is to accept that the past happened. Let it go and start building the future.

This applies to any such conflict.

People think it is useful to say that in 1427 King Nob of Nobia insulted Queen Arse of Arsism and this is the basis for their current conflict. Therefore we, the Arses are right and you are wrong. I disagree, that would just be a group of Arses and Nobs coming up with an excuse to fight with each other.

I am now going to get slowly drunk and perceive the World as a good and happy place.