ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Israel-Palestine conflict

Reply
Old 7th November 2010, 01:52 PM   #41
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
If you want to hold them to the standard of a government of a nation....do you have to allow them to actually be a nation?
Isn't it generally the other way around? Don't you usually look for evidence someone can handle the responsibility before you give it to them?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 06:40 PM   #42
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 11,757
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Isn't it generally the other way around? Don't you usually look for evidence someone can handle the responsibility before you give it to them?
No. Israels nation status was handed to a loose consortium of terrorist groups and political factions...


besides that.....I think Palestinians have shown ample evidence they could run a nation.
__________________
And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good.
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance)

Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.
The Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 08:28 PM   #43
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by MikeMangum View Post
Yet another instance of Thunder admitting to holding Israel to a higher standard than others.
That's because Israel holds herself to a higher standard than others. No one has to do that for Israel. Israel is more than capable of doing it for herself.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 08:33 PM   #44
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Because that happens so often.




Which the generally do. Case in point.




How about flipping that around? Why not hold Hamas and all Palestinian groups to the same standard we hold Israel?

Doesn't that seem fair?
Since when is Hamas and any other Palestinian groups occupying another country? They don't call themselves "the only democracy in the ME" inviting that higher standard. You can't call yourself a democracy if you're discriminating against another people/ illegally occupying and ethnic cleansing, among other crimes. Completely illogical.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 09:40 PM   #45
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
No. Israels nation status was handed to a loose consortium of terrorist groups and political factions...
Handed? Did you forget the war they had to fight?

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
besides that.....I think Palestinians have shown ample evidence they could run a nation.
Please cite this evidence.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 09:47 PM   #46
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Please cite this evidence.[/quote]

It actually doesn't matter if the Palestinians can run a nation. The occupation is not because the Palestinians can't run their affairs. The occupation is about colonialism, land theft and the quest for a Greater Israel, so this evidence you want is completely irrelevant.

Cite me some evidence that Israel is occupying the West Bank and Jerusalem because Palestinians can't run their own country.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 09:54 PM   #47
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Since when is Hamas and any other Palestinian groups occupying another country?
You could argue Hamas is occupying the Gaza Strip. After all, they're supposed to be sharing power with the Palestinian Authority, but they went around shooting all the Fatah supporters until the ones remaining alive opted not to press their claim to power anymore.


Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
They don't call themselves "the only democracy in the ME" inviting that higher standard.
By that logic the Palestinians invited that same standard when they last held elections. Or do you have some reason to disagree?

Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
You can't call yourself a democracy if you're discriminating against another people/ illegally occupying and ethnic cleansing, among other crimes. Completely illogical.
For starters, democracies can do all sorts of bad things and still call themselves democracies. The United States, for example, allowed slavery for its first hundred years.

But the real issue is that you categorize this conflict as "discrimination". It's not. It's war. For it to end both sides have to do their part to end it. That includes the Palestinians.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:06 PM   #48
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
The occupation is about colonialism, land theft and the quest for a Greater Israel,
Well, perhaps the Arab world should have thought about the possibility of losing land when it attacked Israel in 1967 to wipe it off the map.

Of course they didn't -- they considered the coming genocide of the Jews after the victory inevitable.

Yes, I know, I know: gaining or losing land in war?!?!?! Unheard of! It is a colonialist conspiracy!

Quote:
so this evidence you want is completely irrelevant.
Well, as an Israeli, it seems to me vaguely relevant if the Palestinian state would be a huge terrorist base which daily lobs rockets and mortars at my city and sends suicide bombers to kill me, not to mention building up an invasion army to finish off what's left of the Jewish state per the "staged plan" of 1974 (look it up).

So sorry I am so rude, with such disgusting, irrelevant demands, like wanting to continue to breath for a while. There will never be peace at this rate.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:21 PM   #49
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 11,757
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Handed? Did you forget the war they had to fight?
no I didn't forget a war. was it winning the war that gave them Nationhood? Basically, assuming you support the creation of israel....you are happy that the zionist movements terrorism is rewarded with nationhood....but not for arabs. who you want to match some standard that you cannot articulate.


Quote:

Please cite this evidence.
you want me to cite evidence that I think something?
__________________
And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good.
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance)

Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.
The Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:22 PM   #50
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
For starters, democracies can do all sorts of bad things and still call themselves democracies. The United States, for example, allowed slavery for its first hundred years.

Strawman. THe US never called themselves the only democracy in North America.

But the real issue is that you categorize this conflict as "discrimination". It's not. It's war. For it to end both sides have to do their part to end it. That includes the Palestinians.//

It's not war. Israel is occupying the West Bank and EJ illegally under international law. The law has already been laid out and so have final borders. The world is waiting for Israel and the US to obey. Please show me evidence that this is a war.

Myth #6 – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.
Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June ’67 war and called for the “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.
The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word “the” before “occupied territories” in that clause means not “all of the occupied territories” were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word “the” was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that “some of the occupied territories” was the intended meaning.
Grammatically, the absence of the word “the” has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to “territories”, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the ’67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.
Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.
One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so."

This is military occupation. Who knows what planet you've been living on that you don't know this.

Because a country calls itself a democracy, does not make it one. There are many facts to point to that Israel is not the democracy it makes itself out to be.

By that logic the Palestinians invited that same standard when they last held elections. Or do you have some reason to disagree?//

The Palestinians called themselves the only democracy in the ME? Cite it. And while we are at it, what has Hamas done that Israel has not done a thousand fold? How is Hamas 's actions worse than Israel's? You know I am not a advocate of violence, but this assumption that Israel is somehow on a higher moral basis than Hamas is, is patently false. And I"m quite sick of the propaganda.

Last edited by travelgirl; 7th November 2010 at 10:50 PM. Reason: forgot text
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:28 PM   #51
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Well, perhaps the Arab world should have thought about the possibility of losing land when it attacked Israel in 1967 to wipe it off the map.

Of course they didn't -- they considered the coming genocide of the Jews after the victory inevitable.

Yes, I know, I know: gaining or losing land in war?!?!?! Unheard of! It is a colonialist conspiracy! //

Interesting.

Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973
The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the “Six Day War”. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.
It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. Yet there was none.
It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U.N. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat.
Yet, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.
It must be kept in mind that Egypt had been the victim of aggression by the British, French, and Israelis in the 1956 “Suez Crisis”, following Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. In that war, the three aggressor nations conspired to wage war upon Egypt, which resulted in an Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, but Egypt had not forgotten the Israeli aggression.
Moreover, Egypt had formed a loose alliance with Syria and Jordan, with each pledging to come to the aid of the others in the event of a war with Israel. Jordan had criticized Nasser for not living up to that pledge after the Israeli attack on West Bank village of Samu the year before, and his rhetoric was a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world.
That Nasser’s positioning was defensive, rather than projecting an intention to wage an offensive against Israel, was well recognized among prominent Israelis. As Avraham Sela of the Shalem Center has observed, “The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nasser’s defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.”
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged that “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the “threat” of “annihilation” from the Arab states was pure propaganda.
General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”
General Ezer Weizman similarly said, “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.”
Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
In 1973, in what Israelis call the “Yom Kippur War”, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake the Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively. This joint action is popularly described in contemporaneous accounts as an “invasion” of or act of “aggression” against Israel.
Yet, as already noted, following the June ’67 war, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel, needless to say, refused to do so and has remained in perpetual violation of international law ever since.
During the 1973 war, Egypt and Syria thus “invaded” their own territory, then under illegal occupation by Israel. The corollary of the description of this war as an act of Arab aggression implicitly assumes that the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip were Israeli territory. This is, needless to say, a grossly false assumption that demonstrates the absolutely prejudicial and biased nature of mainstream commentary when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
This false narrative fits in with the larger overall narrative, equally fallacious, of Israeli as the “victim” of Arab intransigence and aggression. This narrative, largely unquestioned in the West, flips reality on its head.//

I can't post links yet for some stupid reason but it's Jeffrey Hammond ten top myths of the Israel Palestine conflict on Foreign Policy. You can google it. The links are there WITH the speech be Mr. Begin.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:32 PM   #52
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Well, as an Israeli, it seems to me vaguely relevant if the Palestinian state would be a huge terrorist base which daily lobs rockets and mortars at my city and sends suicide bombers to kill me, not to mention building up an invasion army to finish off what's left of the Jewish state per the "staged plan" of 1974 (look it up). //

Except again this is not the reason for the occupation. The first serious resistance started in the early 90's and is a direct consequence of land theft and military occupation.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 10:40 PM   #53
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
You could argue Hamas is occupying the Gaza Strip. After all, they're supposed to be sharing power with the Palestinian Authority, but they went around shooting all the Fatah supporters until the ones remaining alive opted not to press their claim to power anymore. //

They won in a election. Also, the US funded Fatah to overthrow Hamas because the Palestinians voted the "wrong way" in a free election. Would you share power with a party that was out to overthrow you in a coup? I don't think so.

If you want the link and documents to my claim check out the Gaza Bombshell in Vanity fair by David Rose.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:09 PM   #54
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
no I didn't forget a war. was it winning the war that gave them Nationhood?
Yeah, unless you think they would have had nationhood if they had lost the war. Do you? That's a position I'd like to see you try to defend.


Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
Basically, assuming you support the creation of israel....you are happy that the zionist movements terrorism is rewarded with nationhood....but not for arabs. who you want to match some standard that you cannot articulate.
We've been over this ground so many times before.

First, the "terrorist" aspects of the Zionists movements, Lehi/Irgun, were the minority and widely condemned by the majority, who were working within the law to advance their cause. Frankly, if the Palestinians were even remotely similar, I'd be all for them getting statehood now too.

Second, even the Israelis who were terrorists were willing to stop being terrorists when it became time to become statesmen. If Arafat had been willing to do the same, Palestinians would already have a state by now.

As far as not being able to articulate the standards I think Palestinians should match, that's just another of your lies. The very easily articulated standard I'd propose is some reasonable assurance that their state would be a tool to advance the well-being and prosperity of the Palestinian people, and not be a platform to launch more attacks against Israel. That's pretty simple.

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
you want me to cite evidence that I think something?
You claim they've "shown ample evidence they could run a nation", so cite the evidence.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:15 PM   #55
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Second, even the Israelis who were terrorists were willing to stop being terrorists when it became time to become statesmen. If Arafat had been willing to do the same, Palestinians would already have a state by now.//

Huh? This makes no sense. The reason the Palestinians don't have a state is not because of Arafat. Why are you being deliberately misleading?
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:45 PM   #56
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Strawman. THe US never called themselves the only democracy in North America.
You’re exact words were, ”You can't call yourself a democracy if you're discriminating against another people”. You didn’t say, ”you can’t call yourself the only democracy…”

Look, it’s basic logic. The only requirement to be a democracy is that decisions get made by a popular vote. There is no rule that bad things can’t get done by a popular vote. We hope they don’t, but they can.

Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
It's not war. Israel is occupying the West Bank and EJ illegally under international law. The law has already been laid out and so have final borders. The world is waiting for Israel and the US to obey. Please show me evidence that this is a war.
My evidence that it’s war is all they guys running around with guns shooting each other. To a greater or lesser degree, it’s been going on for a little more than 100 years. Now show me your evidence that it’s “discrimination”.



Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Myth #6 – U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.

<snip>…
It’s customary that when you cut & paste from somewhere else that you give attribution to your source and not claim it as your own words.

The issue you raise has been covered here before. Recently, even.

Quote:
Well, let’s take a look at some statements from some of the diplomats of the time:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... "

Arthur Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to the U.N

“The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

Lord Caradon Britain’s representative to the U.N


"Until the states concerned in the dispute make peace in accordance with Resolution 242, the Security Council decided, Israel could remain in the territories it held after the Six Day War as occupying power. The legality and legitimacy of its presence as occupying power is thus certified by the Security Council"

Eugene V. Rostow U.S. Undersecretary of State.

So who cares what Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg think? Well, if you want to invoke UNSCR 242, you should. They’re the guys who wrote it.

Resolution 242 doesn’t call for Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967. It presumes that a withdrawal will be a part of a negotiated peace between all parties involved, but it also presumes that the negotiated peace will include secure and defensible boundaries that are not the armistice lines of 1949.”
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...909#post475909

See, the guys who wrote UNSCR 242 disagree with your interpretation.



Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Because a country calls itself a democracy, does not make it one. There are many facts to point to that Israel is not the democracy it makes itself out to be.
So if I point out again that “democracy” only means that the citizenry votes, are you going to move the goalposts again to say “only democracy in the Middle East”?

By that logic the Palestinians invited that same standard when they last held elections. Or do you have some reason to disagree?//

Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
The Palestinians called themselves the only democracy in the ME? Cite it.
Why? That wasn’t my claim.


Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
And while we are at it, what has Hamas done that Israel has not done a thousand fold? How is Hamas 's actions worse than Israel's? You know I am not a advocate of violence, but this assumption that Israel is somehow on a higher moral basis than Hamas is, is patently false. And I"m quite sick of the propaganda.
What standards would you hold the Palestinians to?

Last edited by Mycroft; 8th November 2010 at 12:11 AM.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2010, 11:51 PM   #57
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Second, even the Israelis who were terrorists were willing to stop being terrorists when it became time to become statesmen. If Arafat had been willing to do the same, Palestinians would already have a state by now.//

Huh? This makes no sense. The reason the Palestinians don't have a state is not because of Arafat. Why are you being deliberately misleading?
Back in 1993 the Palestine National Authority under the leadership of Arafat signed an agreement with Israel that would have gradually transferred control of the territories from Israel to the PNA, with Palestinian statehood as the goal for 1998. Unfortunately instead of living up to his agreement to curb terrorism, Arafat increased terrorism against Israel and torpedoed the plan.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 01:49 AM   #58
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Except again this is not the reason for the occupation.
True -- the (so far) failed Arab attempt to genocide the Jews in 1967 was the reason for the occupation (call it a "myth" all you like; my parents and grandparents were there at the time, and thus I know first hand, or very close to it, you're either lying or deluded about this).

But you have to admit it is a pretty good reason to keep the land unless there is good reason to think there will be peace for giving it up.

As things currently are, a study by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs recently noted, the real Palestinian goal isn't a state, but the destruction of Israel through the "right of return", which they see as a trump card. (Another study in preparation apparently discovered the sun rises in the east).

The next step after the establishment of the Palestinian state would be demading the "return" to Jaffa, Haifa, etc. of millions of Palestinians -- whom, despite having just been given a state, would still be considered "refugees" for Jew-killing purposes by the PLO and Hamas terrorists who rule them. This not counting the daily rocket bombings etc. which would quickly become routine.

Quote:
The first serious resistance started in the early 90's
Funny, the PLO's moderate chieftain, Dr. (his Ph.D. is on how the holocaust never happened) Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed that he is immensely proud that he was the first to fire a bullet at Israel -- in 1961. You also seem to forget, say, "fatahland", the 1970s and 80s constant bombarding of Israel's north by the PLO from Lebanon, to name just one example.

What is true is that the first serious "resistance" -- that is, the huge spike in Jew-killing -- occured in the early 90s, but it had nothing to do with "land theft and occupation", but with the idiotic decision of the Israeli government to bring the PLO's terrorists to the territories from Tunis due to the so-called Oslo "peace" accord.

Naturally this monstrously raise the number of dead Jews in terror attacks, thus making the resistance more "serious", thus making the Palestinian terrorists more just in the eyes of the likes of yourself -- after all, if they weren't really horribly occupied, they wouldn't do such awful things so "seriously", now would they?

By the way, in the bad old days, the police used to use the same logic when they investigatyed rape victims or beaten wives. The more mutilated or abused they were, the more it was considered their fault, since, after all, they surely were really slutty or disobedient to have innocent men lose their temper with them THAT badly.

Last edited by Skeptic; 8th November 2010 at 01:53 AM.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 03:17 AM   #59
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 11,757
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yeah, unless you think they would have had nationhood if they had lost the war. Do you? That's a position I'd like to see you try to defend.
The state was proclaimed before the war mycroft. And the war was never going to be lost once they proclaimed Israel and got international support.




Quote:

First, the "terrorist" aspects of the Zionists movements, Lehi/Irgun, were the minority and widely condemned by the majority, who were working within the law to advance their cause. Frankly, if the Palestinians were even remotely similar, I'd be all for them getting statehood now too.
are widely condemned people given a medal?

Quote:
Second, even the Israelis who were terrorists were willing to stop being terrorists when it became time to become statesmen. If Arafat had been willing to do the same, Palestinians would already have a state by now.
you seem confused. You are wondering why arafat didn't do something after he was given statehood? I suppose you could believe that the Zionist movement would have stopped if they were promised statehood at some undetermined time in the future.

Quote:
As far as not being able to articulate the standards I think Palestinians should match, that's just another of your lies. The very easily articulated standard I'd propose is some reasonable assurance that their state would be a tool to advance the well-being and prosperity of the Palestinian people, and not be a platform to launch more attacks against Israel. That's pretty simple.
good idea. whats a reasonable assurance?


Quote:
You claim they've "shown ample evidence they could run a nation", so cite the evidence.
By their population size, their existance on land that is not part of another existing nation , their self identity and their desire to be a nation. its all Israel had
__________________
And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good.
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance)

Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

Last edited by The Fool; 8th November 2010 at 03:22 AM.
The Fool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 06:50 AM   #60
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,431
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
For starters, democracies can do all sorts of bad things and still call themselves democracies. The United States, for example, allowed slavery for its first hundred years.

Strawman. THe US never called themselves the only democracy in North America.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 06:55 AM   #61
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,431
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
I can't post links yet for some stupid reason
Which doesn't mean you can copy and paste from other sites unattributed like you did.

Can you summarize in your own words?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 09:21 AM   #62
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Myth #5 – The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973
The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the “Six Day War”. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.
If the Big Bang occurred in 1966, galaxies formed, planets coalesced, life evolved, humans walked upright, invented fire, powered flight and jet engines all in time for those wascally jews to fire the first shot of the first war in the history of the Universe without cause or justification, then maybe you'd have a case against Israel.

As it stands, however, your knowledge of events that occurred prior to June 5th, 1967 is pathetic, all but non-existent and inexcusable.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:24 AM   #63
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
I wonder when we'll get a chance to see Travelgirl's "myths" 1 through 4, I wonder if the Holocaust will be one of them...
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:29 AM   #64
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
The occupation is about colonialism, land theft and the quest for a Greater Israel
Which still would be no bigger than New Jersey. We're far from the British Empire.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:13 PM   #65
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
But you have to admit it is a pretty good reason to keep the land unless there is good reason to think there will be peace for giving it up.//

No i don't, have to admit anything actually. This is a load of apologetic BS. But typical of a selfish racist zionist to say it. Israel doesn't want peace. It wants the land and the continued occupation for a greater Israel.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:15 PM   #66
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Which still would be no bigger than New Jersey. We're far from the British Empire.
Do you have a point? If not stop wasting my time with irrelevancy.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:16 PM   #67
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
I wonder when we'll get a chance to see Travelgirl's "myths" 1 through 4, I wonder if the Holocaust will be one of them...
If any of you could read you would notice that I gave the link with an explanation why I couldn't post it. Wake up.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:18 PM   #68
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
I wonder when we'll get a chance to see Travelgirl's "myths" 1 through 4, I wonder if the Holocaust will be one of them...

Is this playing the victim card? Haven't zionists played that over and over until we all want to puke? Why don't you stop wasting time on playing the victim and actually advocate for Holocaust victims to taken care of by the actual State that was formed supposedly for sheltering them.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:21 PM   #69
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Is this playing the victim card? Haven't zionists played that over and over until we all want to puke? Why don't you stop wasting time on playing the victim and actually advocate for Holocaust victims to taken care of by the actual State that was formed supposedly for sheltering them.
Could you repeat that in English?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:23 PM   #70
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Could you repeat that in English?
Why you don't you read it over or take a language course.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:29 PM   #71
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Of course the racism

Could you provide an example in this thread?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:46 PM   #72
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
Do you have a point? If not stop wasting my time with irrelevancy.
I just think you're spending alot of time, energy and anger on this particular territorial dispute.

Do you have that much enthusiasm for Tibet, Kashmir, Kurdistan, and other territorial conflicts?

Last edited by Pardalis; 8th November 2010 at 12:47 PM.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:49 PM   #73
travelgirl
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
I just think you're spending alot of time, energy and anger on this particular territorial dispute.

Do you have that much enthusiasm for Tibet, Kashmir, Kurdistan, and other territorial conflicts?
Lol! Why are Pro Israel people so predictable? In fact, we hear the same questions and usual bs arguments that we wrote about it!

How to make the case for Israel and win

To the benefit of the many not-very-bright zionist wannabe apologists who read this blog assiduously, I decided to offer a clear and simple method of arguing the case for Israel. This clear and simple method has been distilled from a life spent listening to and reading Zionist propaganda. It is easy to follow and results are guaranteed or your money back.

So don't hesitate! Take advantage NOW of this revolutionary rhetorical system that will make YOU a great apologist for Israel in less time than it takes to shoot a Palestinian toddler in the eye.

Ready? 1..2..3..GO!


Edited by kmortis:  Please only quote short passages from other sites. TO do otherwise violates Rule 4 of the Membership agreement.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.c...l-and-win.html

Last edited by kmortis; 8th November 2010 at 02:37 PM.
travelgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 12:52 PM   #74
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
"Jews sans frontières"? Now who is making this about race?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 01:13 PM   #75
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
I can't post links yet for some stupid reason
It always raises a red flag when someone whines about this particular forum rule.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 02:12 PM   #76
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Quote:
No i don't, have to admit anything actually.
You don't have to admit that 2+2=4, either. as long as you don't mind looking like a fool.

Quote:
This is a load of apologetic BS. But typical of a selfish racist zionist to say it.
Yes, so selfish and racist of me to not want to be killed by terrorist attacks, mortars, kassam rockets, etc., isn't it?
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 02:18 PM   #77
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
"Jews sans frontières"? Now who is making this about race?
That web site should save bandwidth and just tell us what conspiracy theories about the all-powerful world-controlling immoral, money-grubbing Jews zionists it does not believe. There don't seem to be much.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:25 PM   #78
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
The state was proclaimed before the war mycroft.
Duh.

But the point remains that the state would have gone away if they had lost the war.

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
And the war was never going to be lost once they proclaimed Israel and got international support.
You can make all the "was never gonna" proclamations you want, but the Arabs that fought believed they could win just like the Israelis certainly believed they could lose, and the "international support" wasn't a sure thing until it happened.

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
are widely condemned people given a medal?
Arafat got a Nobel prize.

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
you seem confused. You are wondering why arafat didn't do something after he was given statehood? I suppose you could believe that the Zionist movement would have stopped if they were promised statehood at some undetermined time in the future.
Arafat could have followed the Oslo plan, he did not. When the time came to transition from terrorist to statesman, he declined.

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
good idea. whats a reasonable assurance?
The usual things you object to requiring of them whenever it's brought up. Changing the Hamas charter, having Hamas arrest some of these guys firing their missiles into Israel, redrafting the PLO charter, Recognizing Israel...

Originally Posted by The Fool View Post
By their population size, their existance on land that is not part of another existing nation , their self identity and their desire to be a nation. its all Israel had
So you don't think they need a ruling government interested in something other than lining their own pockets (fatah) or pursuing a mindless, religiously-motivated genocidal agenda?

Well, alright. If that's your opinion there is no point arguing it out.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:30 PM   #79
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 16,508
Originally Posted by travelgirl View Post
But you have to admit it is a pretty good reason to keep the land unless there is good reason to think there will be peace for giving it up.//

No i don't, have to admit anything actually. This is a load of apologetic BS. But typical of a selfish racist zionist to say it. Israel doesn't want peace. It wants the land and the continued occupation for a greater Israel.
So what's this "greater Israel" of which you speak?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2010, 10:30 PM   #80
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
It always raises a red flag when someone whines about this particular forum rule.
We're supposed to believe it's TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to copy and paste that line of text that appears on the "address" bar in the browser, but no problem at all to posts oodles of text from the site itself.

Right.
Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.