More Palestinian treachery.

[angelo]

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/117781/abbas-has-learned-irans-approach-west

I used to watch Jewish news shows on TV and marvel at how like American Mainstream News it was. Their news also does not cover or acknowledge Jewish atrocities in the occupied territories. Hmmm..why would that be? They still have some more stuff to take away from the Palestinians. I would be in favor of giving the criminal state of Israel a plea bargain deal and maintaining some sort of peace in the area, but I also believe a criminal state like Israel should have to reform before it can regain enough legitimacy to continue to exist. You and the Israeli press keep pickling a fresh batch of red herrings to keep the conflict going and therefor continue settling in Arab lands.

That source is a hoot. The settlements are "the most spectacular red herring ever to have swum in the fetid waters of diplomacy"? What kind of a moron thinks Israel's expansion onto Palestinian land isn't the single greatest point of conflict in the West Bank?

Even if there were no expansion of any kind, the Palestinians would pull out a red herring as you say, as an excuse to refuse to go to the negotiation table. Since 1948 Israel has tried to get these people to the negotiation table with no success. In 1948 when the Jews were granted that small sliver of land which up until then Palestinians had no interest in as a Jewish state, what did the Arabs do? Invade with an overwhelming army that was routed up and defeated by Israeli defence forces. Since that time like a whinnying wife all the Palestinians do is take all the aid and assistance afforded them and still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state.

 

[Arctish]

Even if there were no expansion of any kind, the Palestinians would pull out a red herring as you say, as an excuse to refuse to go to the negotiation table. Since 1948 Israel has tried to get these people to the negotiation table with no success. In 1948 when the Jews were granted that small sliver of land which up until then Palestinians had no interest in as a Jewish state, what did the Arabs do? Invade with an overwhelming army that was routed up and defeated by Israeli defence forces. Since that time like a whinnying wife all the Palestinians do is take all the aid and assistance afforded them and still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state.

Do you know anything about the conflict leading up to Israel's formation?

The Zionists wanted a Jewish State in a place where Jews were a minority. By the mid 1930s they had formed the Transfer Committee, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Weitz, whose mandate was come up with ways to remove the non-Jewish population and replace it with Jews arriving from Europe. Their most notorious plan was ship the Palestinians off to Iraq, but fortunately they couldn't get the backing they needed to make it happen. Nevertheless, Weitz continued to plan out the ethnic cleansing of what was to become Israel.

In 1947, after a sustained campaign of terrorism carried out by the Irgun (Menachen Begin's outfit), the Stern Gang ( Yitzhak Shamir's cadre) and some of the Haganah forces - a campaign that included massacres, bombing civilian targets, kidnappings, and ethnic cleansing- the Zionists declared the existence of the State of Israel. This new Jewish state included lands that had been set aside by the British for the Palestinian State that was supposed to come into existence at the same time. And it was not by chance the Palestinian land had fallen into Zionist hands. Weitz, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharrett, and other early zionist leaders had identified land they wanted for Israel and made sure it was in the hands of Zionist forces before the declaration of Israel's independence. Land seizures, and the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homes, farms, and communities, continues to this very day.

You don't have to take my word for it. Everything I have said is easy to confirm. Just start with Weitz and follow the trail through Ben Gurion statements about seizing orange groves and fertile farmland, Sharrett's declarations in the Knesset about never allowing Palestinians to have recognized land rights, and beyond. Eventually you'll get to the Oslo Accords and why they failed, and that will give you a pretty good idea why the US is pushing Israel to stop expanding into land that doesn't belong to it.

ETA: this part of your post: "still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state", is just plain bullshit. Jerusalem and it's environs was not useless land, the people who lived there had a great deal of interest in it, and their prosperity was taken from them when Zionists took their homes, farms, and businesses by force. Once again, I urge you to look into Yosef Weitz and the Transfer Committee. It was Weitz' job to decide which Palestinian properties (made vacant at gunpoint) would be given to Jews, and which would be destroyed to prevent the return of people the Zionists wanted gone.

Just because thieves are prosperous doesn't mean we should admire them.

 

[angelo]

The UN had no influence at all?

 

[Arctish]

The UN had no influence at all?

Very little. In 1947 it was a new organization with no experience in exerting its authority. The UN issued mandates, and Israel ignored them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/117781/abbas-has-learned-irans-approach-west

I used to watch Jewish news shows on TV and marvel at how like American Mainstream News it was. Their news also does not cover or acknowledge Jewish atrocities in the occupied territories. Hmmm..why would that be? They still have some more stuff to take away from the Palestinians. I would be in favor of giving the criminal state of Israel a plea bargain deal and maintaining some sort of peace in the area, but I also believe a criminal state like Israel should have to reform before it can regain enough legitimacy to continue to exist. You and the Israeli press keep pickling a fresh batch of red herrings to keep the conflict going and therefor continue settling in Arab lands.

Just about all the "atrocities" you are referring to are made in Pallywood, not Israeli actions.

- - - Updated - - -

There will never be a Palestinian state until it acknowledges the Israeli states right to exist.

The Palestinian government recognized Israel's right to exist more than 20 years ago. It is high time for Israel to recognize the right of the Palestinian State to exist.

They said they would acknowledge it. They didn't actually change the charter. They also make it clear now they intend to continue the war if they get their state. That sounds to me like they don't actually acknowledge it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/117781/abbas-has-learned-irans-approach-west

I used to watch Jewish news shows on TV and marvel at how like American Mainstream News it was. Their news also does not cover or acknowledge Jewish atrocities in the occupied territories. Hmmm..why would that be? They still have some more stuff to take away from the Palestinians. I would be in favor of giving the criminal state of Israel a plea bargain deal and maintaining some sort of peace in the area, but I also believe a criminal state like Israel should have to reform before it can regain enough legitimacy to continue to exist. You and the Israeli press keep pickling a fresh batch of red herrings to keep the conflict going and therefor continue settling in Arab lands.

That source is a hoot. The settlements are "the most spectacular red herring ever to have swum in the fetid waters of diplomacy"? What kind of a moron thinks Israel's expansion onto Palestinian land isn't the single greatest point of conflict in the West Bank?

More like it's what kind of moron thinks Israel's expansion into the West Bank has anything to do with a conflict that predates the expansion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if there were no expansion of any kind, the Palestinians would pull out a red herring as you say, as an excuse to refuse to go to the negotiation table. Since 1948 Israel has tried to get these people to the negotiation table with no success. In 1948 when the Jews were granted that small sliver of land which up until then Palestinians had no interest in as a Jewish state, what did the Arabs do? Invade with an overwhelming army that was routed up and defeated by Israeli defence forces. Since that time like a whinnying wife all the Palestinians do is take all the aid and assistance afforded them and still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state.

Do you know anything about the conflict leading up to Israel's formation?

The Zionists wanted a Jewish State in a place where Jews were a minority. By the mid 1930s they had formed the Transfer Committee, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Weitz, whose mandate was come up with ways to remove the non-Jewish population and replace it with Jews arriving from Europe. Their most notorious plan was ship the Palestinians off to Iraq, but fortunately they couldn't get the backing they needed to make it happen. Nevertheless, Weitz continued to plan out the ethnic cleansing of what was to become Israel.

In 1947, after a sustained campaign of terrorism carried out by the Irgun (Menachen Begin's outfit), the Stern Gang ( Yitzhak Shamir's cadre) and some of the Haganah forces - a campaign that included massacres, bombing civilian targets, kidnappings, and ethnic cleansing- the Zionists declared the existence of the State of Israel. This new Jewish state included lands that had been set aside by the British for the Palestinian State that was supposed to come into existence at the same time. And it was not by chance the Palestinian land had fallen into Zionist hands. Weitz, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharrett, and other early zionist leaders had identified land they wanted for Israel and made sure it was in the hands of Zionist forces before the declaration of Israel's independence. Land seizures, and the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homes, farms, and communities, continues to this very day.

You don't have to take my word for it. Everything I have said is easy to confirm. Just start with Weitz and follow the trail through Ben Gurion statements about seizing orange groves and fertile farmland, Sharrett's declarations in the Knesset about never allowing Palestinians to have recognized land rights, and beyond. Eventually you'll get to the Oslo Accords and why they failed, and that will give you a pretty good idea why the US is pushing Israel to stop expanding into land that doesn't belong to it.

ETA: this part of your post: "still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state", is just plain bullshit. Jerusalem and it's environs was not useless land, the people who lived there had a great deal of interest in it, and their prosperity was taken from them when Zionists took their homes, farms, and businesses by force. Once again, I urge you to look into Yosef Weitz and the Transfer Committee. It was Weitz' job to decide which Palestinian properties (made vacant at gunpoint) would be given to Jews, and which would be destroyed to prevent the return of people the Zionists wanted gone.

Just because thieves are prosperous doesn't mean we should admire them.

Check the death toll on the conflict. I didn't take the time to add it all up but it looks to me like more Jews killed than Arabs--and all the early events were perpetrated by the Arabs.

 

[Arctish]

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/117781/abbas-has-learned-irans-approach-west

I used to watch Jewish news shows on TV and marvel at how like American Mainstream News it was. Their news also does not cover or acknowledge Jewish atrocities in the occupied territories. Hmmm..why would that be? They still have some more stuff to take away from the Palestinians. I would be in favor of giving the criminal state of Israel a plea bargain deal and maintaining some sort of peace in the area, but I also believe a criminal state like Israel should have to reform before it can regain enough legitimacy to continue to exist. You and the Israeli press keep pickling a fresh batch of red herrings to keep the conflict going and therefor continue settling in Arab lands.

That source is a hoot. The settlements are "the most spectacular red herring ever to have swum in the fetid waters of diplomacy"? What kind of a moron thinks Israel's expansion onto Palestinian land isn't the single greatest point of conflict in the West Bank?

More like it's what kind of moron thinks Israel's expansion into the West Bank has anything to do with a conflict that predates the expansion.

Well, considering the founding of the State of Israel included some pretty horrible massacres and ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist expansionists, I'd have to say anyone who doesn't know Zionist expansionism has been a primary source of the conflict right from the start is possibly a moron and most definitely ill-informed. With that said, I don't actually think the writer of the linked article is either. I think he's a propagandist. I think he uses emotionally charged language and logical fallacies to lead his readers to false conclusions.

 

[Arctish]

Even if there were no expansion of any kind, the Palestinians would pull out a red herring as you say, as an excuse to refuse to go to the negotiation table. Since 1948 Israel has tried to get these people to the negotiation table with no success. In 1948 when the Jews were granted that small sliver of land which up until then Palestinians had no interest in as a Jewish state, what did the Arabs do? Invade with an overwhelming army that was routed up and defeated by Israeli defence forces. Since that time like a whinnying wife all the Palestinians do is take all the aid and assistance afforded them and still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state.

Do you know anything about the conflict leading up to Israel's formation?

The Zionists wanted a Jewish State in a place where Jews were a minority. By the mid 1930s they had formed the Transfer Committee, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Weitz, whose mandate was come up with ways to remove the non-Jewish population and replace it with Jews arriving from Europe. Their most notorious plan was ship the Palestinians off to Iraq, but fortunately they couldn't get the backing they needed to make it happen. Nevertheless, Weitz continued to plan out the ethnic cleansing of what was to become Israel.

In 1947, after a sustained campaign of terrorism carried out by the Irgun (Menachen Begin's outfit), the Stern Gang ( Yitzhak Shamir's cadre) and some of the Haganah forces - a campaign that included massacres, bombing civilian targets, kidnappings, and ethnic cleansing- the Zionists declared the existence of the State of Israel. This new Jewish state included lands that had been set aside by the British for the Palestinian State that was supposed to come into existence at the same time. And it was not by chance the Palestinian land had fallen into Zionist hands. Weitz, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharrett, and other early zionist leaders had identified land they wanted for Israel and made sure it was in the hands of Zionist forces before the declaration of Israel's independence. Land seizures, and the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homes, farms, and communities, continues to this very day.

You don't have to take my word for it. Everything I have said is easy to confirm. Just start with Weitz and follow the trail through Ben Gurion statements about seizing orange groves and fertile farmland, Sharrett's declarations in the Knesset about never allowing Palestinians to have recognized land rights, and beyond. Eventually you'll get to the Oslo Accords and why they failed, and that will give you a pretty good idea why the US is pushing Israel to stop expanding into land that doesn't belong to it.

ETA: this part of your post: "still they vow to destroy the Israeli state because they made some useless land they originally had no interest in and turned into a prosperous democratic state", is just plain bullshit. Jerusalem and it's environs was not useless land, the people who lived there had a great deal of interest in it, and their prosperity was taken from them when Zionists took their homes, farms, and businesses by force. Once again, I urge you to look into Yosef Weitz and the Transfer Committee. It was Weitz' job to decide which Palestinian properties (made vacant at gunpoint) would be given to Jews, and which would be destroyed to prevent the return of people the Zionists wanted gone.

Just because thieves are prosperous doesn't mean we should admire them.

Check the death toll on the conflict. I didn't take the time to add it all up but it looks to me like more Jews killed than Arabs--and all the early events were perpetrated by the Arabs.

I would like to see your sources. But even if you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that Israel was founded on land grabs, ethnic cleansing, and Zionist expansionism. This activity was the source of the conflict, and it's continuation makes ending the conflict impossible.

The settlements aren't a red herring; false history of the kind that article's peddling is.

 

[angelo]

An apologist for the Palestinians and their hate for the state of Israel and Jews in particular. This hate existed long before a Jewish state was declared. Zionist were trying to create a Jewish state, not massacre Palestinians. It's they who want to push Israel into the sea. Who is that provides medical, electricity, clean drinking water, and billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians?

 

[Arctish]

An apologist for the Palestinians and their hate for the state of Israel and Jews in particular.

Are you talking about me? I don't support racial discrimination or religious bigotry of any kind. I don't accept special pleading, either. And I don't believe in burying unpleasant truths under a pile of hippy-dippy fairy tales and bullshit.

The Zionists who fought to establish a Jewish State in the Middle East weren't ashamed of what they did. They spoke plainly about what they were doing and why. IMO if you're going to defend what they did you should at least read what they had to say about it.

This hate existed long before a Jewish state was declared.

"We are of the same race and blood, and cooperation will bring great prosperity to the land," wrote Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter in 1917. Faisal was known for his affinity to the Zionists who had begun streaming to the Holy Land; in 1919, he signed a cooperation agreement with Chaim Weizmann, to whom he wrote that he was "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people." But Faisal's proclamations of kinship with the Jews were more than lip service to a commonly held belief, says Tsvi Misinai, who knows perhaps more about the origins of the modern Palestinians than anyone. "Faisal's paternal line was Hashemite," he says, "meaning he was directly descended from Muhammad. But the mother of his maternal grandfather, King On, was descended from a family of forced Jewish converts to Islam that immigrated to the east bank of the Jordan, later returning to one of the villages west of the Jordan. Unlike today, when Faisal was growing up, his grandfather's mother's Jewish origin was known, and they made no great effort to hide it. And what was known to Faisal is known to many Palestinians today as well." This is a story of what may be one of the best-kept secrets in history - one that could, in time, heal the terrible rift that has torn the Land of Israel asunder. After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says.....

..... Misinai is far from the first researcher to have stumbled upon this historical find. The first president of Israel, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, and the first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote several books and articles on the subject. In fact, Ben-Gurion believed so strongly in the idea that in 1956 he set up a task force headed by Moshe Dayan and Haim Levkov (the Palmah's "point man" among the Arabs of Israel, he worked with Yigal Allon to set up the Trackers' Unit, traditionally the domain of Negev Beduin), that was supposed to develop ways to "Judaize" the Beduin, teaching them something about modern Jewish life and tradition to integrate them with the Israeli people, ethnically if not religiously.
<link>

It really is a shame that marriages between Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the lands around Jerusalem have become so rare nowadays that people have no idea it used to be commonplace. But 100 years ago, before the massive immigration of Europeans and the big push to claim a huge chunk of real estate for an exclusively Jewish State, the people who lived there got along pretty well regardless of which version of the Abrahamic faith they followed. I truly believe they can do it again, if they can get the racists and bigots off center stage and let the more rational folks work out something fair to everyone.

Zionist were trying to create a Jewish state, not massacre Palestinians.

It's true most, if not all, would have preferred to establish their State without massacring people. But it's also true they were willing to massacre people to achieve their goal, and in fact some of them did massacre people. The worst of the lot, the Irgun and the Stern Gang, were quite willing to murder unarmed civilians, as they proved time and again.

It's they who want to push Israel into the sea.

That "drive them into the sea" quote appears to have been said by an Egyptian who never lived in Palestine and never represented the Palestinian people. But even if it accurately describes what Palestinians want to do to Israelis, what do the Israelis want to do to Palestinians? It's pretty obvious the trend has been to drive them off any valuable land they might still have and into desert slums and shantytowns. That's not any better, you know.

Who is that provides medical, electricity, clean drinking water, and billions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians?

You make it sound as though the Israelis are doing the Palestinians some kind of favor. But who is it that won't allow the Palestinians to provide those things for themselves? Who is it that won't allow the Palestinians to retain their land, water, and mineral rights, sell their goods without interference, or conduct their affairs as they see fit?

We here in the US know from our own history that people forcibly displaced from their homeland, penned in on reservations, and kept dependent of the federal government for basic goods and services, are basically screwed. Don't even bother trying to sell me a line about the kindness of Israelis, generously allowing the Palestinians to receive water from Palestinian aquifers while the Israelis keep a mere 80% for their own use. We have that same kind of "generosity" here in the Southwest, and it's shameful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/117781/abbas-has-learned-irans-approach-west

I used to watch Jewish news shows on TV and marvel at how like American Mainstream News it was. Their news also does not cover or acknowledge Jewish atrocities in the occupied territories. Hmmm..why would that be? They still have some more stuff to take away from the Palestinians. I would be in favor of giving the criminal state of Israel a plea bargain deal and maintaining some sort of peace in the area, but I also believe a criminal state like Israel should have to reform before it can regain enough legitimacy to continue to exist. You and the Israeli press keep pickling a fresh batch of red herrings to keep the conflict going and therefor continue settling in Arab lands.

That source is a hoot. The settlements are "the most spectacular red herring ever to have swum in the fetid waters of diplomacy"? What kind of a moron thinks Israel's expansion onto Palestinian land isn't the single greatest point of conflict in the West Bank?

More like it's what kind of moron thinks Israel's expansion into the West Bank has anything to do with a conflict that predates the expansion.

Well, considering the founding of the State of Israel included some pretty horrible massacres and ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist expansionists, I'd have to say anyone who doesn't know Zionist expansionism has been a primary source of the conflict right from the start is possibly a moron and most definitely ill-informed. With that said, I don't actually think the writer of the linked article is either. I think he's a propagandist. I think he uses emotionally charged language and logical fallacies to lead his readers to false conclusions.

1) You're moving the goalposts here.

2) The poster boy for Israeli massacres was actually precipitated by the Arabs. When forces attack in civilian attire and from within a civilian population you sometimes get massacres. That's one of the big reasons the Geneva conventions require uniforms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Check the death toll on the conflict. I didn't take the time to add it all up but it looks to me like more Jews killed than Arabs--and all the early events were perpetrated by the Arabs.

I would like to see your sources. But even if you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that Israel was founded on land grabs, ethnic cleansing, and Zionist expansionism. This activity was the source of the conflict, and it's continuation makes ending the conflict impossible.

I was looking at Wikipedia.

The settlements aren't a red herring; false history of the kind that article's peddling is.

While the source is garbage I have no reason to think it's wrong. Abbas has more than once been caught admitting that his words of peace are just for western ears. For this to have happened again would be no surprise at all.

 

[Arctish]

That source is a hoot. The settlements are "the most spectacular red herring ever to have swum in the fetid waters of diplomacy"? What kind of a moron thinks Israel's expansion onto Palestinian land isn't the single greatest point of conflict in the West Bank?

More like it's what kind of moron thinks Israel's expansion into the West Bank has anything to do with a conflict that predates the expansion.

Well, considering the founding of the State of Israel included some pretty horrible massacres and ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist expansionists, I'd have to say anyone who doesn't know Zionist expansionism has been a primary source of the conflict right from the start is possibly a moron and most definitely ill-informed. With that said, I don't actually think the writer of the linked article is either. I think he's a propagandist. I think he uses emotionally charged language and logical fallacies to lead his readers to false conclusions.

1) You're moving the goalposts here.

No I'm not. Zionist expansion into Palestinian land led to the creation of Israel and has resulted in Palestinians being forced off their land ever since, much to their anger and dismay. I asked what kind of a moron believed that expansion wasn't a central issue in the fighting. I don't think the author believes it. I think he knows he's spouting propaganda, but wants people to buy into it.

2) The poster boy for Israeli massacres was actually precipitated by the Arabs. When forces attack in civilian attire and from within a civilian population you sometimes get massacres. That's one of the big reasons the Geneva conventions require uniforms.

If you are talking about Deir Yassin, please explain why the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah forces advanced on the town to begin with? It could not possibly have been because they saw men in dresses, since that allegedly happened after the Zionist terrorists (and don't even try to claim the Irgun and Lehi weren't terrorists) invaded the town and began rounding up people. Please account for the pre-planning necessary to co-ordinate the movements of 3 disparate groups so they all arrived at the correct time and place for the assault. Also, don't forget to explain how men in dresses excuses taking captives to a quarry to be executed. And please show your sources.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You're moving the goalposts here.

No I'm not. Zionist expansion into Palestinian land led to the creation of Israel and has resulted in Palestinians being forced off their land ever since, much to their anger and dismay. I asked what kind of a moron believed that expansion wasn't a central issue in the fighting. I don't think the author believes it. I think he knows he's spouting propaganda, but wants people to buy into it.

Thank you for admitting your true position.

You're referring to the "expansion" in 48 and before--during which time the "occupied territories" didn't exist. If you undo this "expansion" you precipitate genocide. Is that what you want?

2) The poster boy for Israeli massacres was actually precipitated by the Arabs. When forces attack in civilian attire and from within a civilian population you sometimes get massacres. That's one of the big reasons the Geneva conventions require uniforms.

If you are talking about Deir Yassin, please explain why the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah forces advanced on the town to begin with? It could not possibly have been because they saw men in dresses, since that allegedly happened after the Zionist terrorists (and don't even try to claim the Irgun and Lehi weren't terrorists) invaded the town and began rounding up people. Please account for the pre-planning necessary to co-ordinate the movements of 3 disparate groups so they all arrived at the correct time and place for the assault. Also, don't forget to explain how men in dresses excuses taking captives to a quarry to be executed. And please show your sources.

You're missing the point. I'm not denying they advanced on the town. It was of strategic importance, they wanted to control it. That has nothing to do with anyone even getting hurt, let alone a massacre. The problem came from the fact that the Arabs held the town and shot at the Israelis while wearing civilian attire. That's what precipitated the massacre.

While massacres are never good things the primary blame in a situation like this goes with the side that fought in civilian attire. Sometimes the soldiers will snap and start shooting at anyone who looks like their assailants. You address this by not fighting in civilian attire rather than by pretending the troops were bad guys.

 

[Arctish]

1) You're moving the goalposts here.

No I'm not. Zionist expansion into Palestinian land led to the creation of Israel and has resulted in Palestinians being forced off their land ever since, much to their anger and dismay. I asked what kind of a moron believed that expansion wasn't a central issue in the fighting. I don't think the author believes it. I think he knows he's spouting propaganda, but wants people to buy into it.

Thank you for admitting your true position.

You're referring to the "expansion" in 48 and before--during which time the "occupied territories" didn't exist. If you undo this "expansion" you precipitate genocide. Is that what you want?

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank are part of the Zionist expansionism that has fueled the conflict from the start, but not all Zionist expansionism is settlement building in the West Bank.

You'll have to explain how returning stolen property is the same as genocide, because I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

2) The poster boy for Israeli massacres was actually precipitated by the Arabs. When forces attack in civilian attire and from within a civilian population you sometimes get massacres. That's one of the big reasons the Geneva conventions require uniforms.

If you are talking about Deir Yassin, please explain why the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah forces advanced on the town to begin with? It could not possibly have been because they saw men in dresses, since that allegedly happened after the Zionist terrorists (and don't even try to claim the Irgun and Lehi weren't terrorists) invaded the town and began rounding up people. Please account for the pre-planning necessary to co-ordinate the movements of 3 disparate groups so they all arrived at the correct time and place for the assault. Also, don't forget to explain how men in dresses excuses taking captives to a quarry to be executed. And please show your sources.

You're missing the point. I'm not denying they advanced on the town. It was of strategic importance, they wanted to control it. That has nothing to do with anyone even getting hurt, let alone a massacre.

Terrorists advanced on the town. The Irgun, the Stern Gang, and Haganah advanced in a coordinated attack. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that these were violent thugs and murderers who attacked a village full of people they wanted to drive out and were willing to kill.

The problem came from the fact that the Arabs held the town and shot at the Israelis while wearing civilian attire. That's what precipitated the massacre.

While massacres are never good things the primary blame in a situation like this goes with the side that fought in civilian attire. Sometimes the soldiers will snap and start shooting at anyone who looks like their assailants. You address this by not fighting in civilian attire rather than by pretending the troops were bad guys.

The residents of Deir Yassin were wearing civilian clothes because they were civilians. They weren't in military uniforms because none of them were soldiers. They were attacked by Zionist terrorists because the terrorists wanted to remove them from that area and were willing to kill them to achieve that goal. The fact that people attempted to defend themselves while dressed in their regular clothes doesn't shift responsibility for the death toll onto the victims of a terrorist attack.

We can discuss Deir Yassin further in another thread if you'd like. The only reason it came up in this thread is because massacres were a part of the Zionist expansionism underpinning the founding of Israel, a point you don't deny. Fortunately, there haven't been any massacres of Palestinian civilians lately, but the expansionism continues in the form of West Bank settlements and Israeli interference with Palestinian affairs. These are issues that must be addressed before a peaceful resolution can be found.

Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're referring to the "expansion" in 48 and before--during which time the "occupied territories" didn't exist. If you undo this "expansion" you precipitate genocide. Is that what you want?

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank are part of the Zionist expansionism that has fueled the conflict from the start, but not all Zionist expansionism is settlement building in the West Bank.

You'll have to explain how returning stolen property is the same as genocide, because I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

You want the land returned--that's all of Israel.

You're putting the Jews under a government that seeks their death.

(Not to mention handing terrorists a bunch of nuclear weapons.)

The residents of Deir Yassin were wearing civilian clothes because they were civilians. They weren't in military uniforms because none of them were soldiers. They were attacked by Zionist terrorists because the terrorists wanted to remove them from that area and were willing to kill them to achieve that goal. The fact that people attempted to defend themselves while dressed in their regular clothes doesn't shift responsibility for the death toll onto the victims of a terrorist attack.

The Jews sought to occupy the town. They didn't come with the intention of killing anyone. If the people there were civilians there was no reason for them to be shooting at all.

Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

You have already indicated that you don't want a two-state solution--that would mean the land you consider stolen wouldn't be returned.

 

[Arctish]

You're referring to the "expansion" in 48 and before--during which time the "occupied territories" didn't exist. If you undo this "expansion" you precipitate genocide. Is that what you want?

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear. All Israeli settlements in the West Bank are part of the Zionist expansionism that has fueled the conflict from the start, but not all Zionist expansionism is settlement building in the West Bank.

You'll have to explain how returning stolen property is the same as genocide, because I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

You want the land returned--that's all of Israel.

You're putting the Jews under a government that seeks their death.

(Not to mention handing terrorists a bunch of nuclear weapons.)

I want a resolution to the conflict that's fair to everyone. I want a negotiated peace that sidelines the haters and doesn't reward racial prejudice and religious bigotry. So, unless you want to argue that Jews are allergic to fairness and need bigotry to survive, I don't see why it would kill them to treat the Palestinians as nicely as they treat themselves.

The residents of Deir Yassin were wearing civilian clothes because they were civilians. They weren't in military uniforms because none of them were soldiers. They were attacked by Zionist terrorists because the terrorists wanted to remove them from that area and were willing to kill them to achieve that goal. The fact that people attempted to defend themselves while dressed in their regular clothes doesn't shift responsibility for the death toll onto the victims of a terrorist attack.

The Jews sought to occupy the town. They didn't come with the intention of killing anyone. If the people there were civilians there was no reason for them to be shooting at all.

I think you're forgetting the part about the attackers being terrorists with a long history of killing civilians, regardless of whether the civilians were armed, much less fighting back. I think when you say "They didn't come with the intention of killing anyone" you are stating an article of faith, not a matter of fact. And I think your claim that "If the people there were civilians there was no reason for them to be shooting at all" is utterly absurd. The people of Deir Yassin were being attacked terrorists. They had more reason to shoot than the terrorists themselves did.

Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

You have already indicated that you don't want a two-state solution--that would mean the land you consider stolen wouldn't be returned.

I have indicated I think the two-state solution is as good as dead, and what ultimately will happen is a one-state solution. I believe Israel will refuse to relinquish control of any part of the West Bank or withdraw it's settlers. It will not allow the Palestinians to retain the land, resources, and authority needed to form a successful state, and a Palestinian State that fails because Israel keeps stealing water and treating Palestinians like shit would just fuel more fighting.

 

[William Rea]

Not my quotes but two that sum the whole thing up...

'We are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime Israel is eating it.'

'If Israel were to take someone and cut of his head, some of you would post that he still has arms and legs.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You want the land returned--that's all of Israel.

You're putting the Jews under a government that seeks their death.

(Not to mention handing terrorists a bunch of nuclear weapons.)

I want a resolution to the conflict that's fair to everyone. I want a negotiated peace that sidelines the haters and doesn't reward racial prejudice and religious bigotry. So, unless you want to argue that Jews are allergic to fairness and need bigotry to survive, I don't see why it would kill them to treat the Palestinians as nicely as they treat themselves.

What you are missing is that the Palestinians don't want a negotiated peace. This whole crap is about improving their position to continue the war.

I think you're forgetting the part about the attackers being terrorists with a long history of killing civilians, regardless of whether the civilians were armed, much less fighting back. I think when you say "They didn't come with the intention of killing anyone" you are stating an article of faith, not a matter of fact. And I think your claim that "If the people there were civilians there was no reason for them to be shooting at all" is utterly absurd. The people of Deir Yassin were being attacked terrorists. They had more reason to shoot than the terrorists themselves did.

If the intent had been a massacre the civilian killings would have happened at the start, not the end.

I have indicated I think the two-state solution is as good as dead, and what ultimately will happen is a one-state solution. I believe Israel will refuse to relinquish control of any part of the West Bank or withdraw it's settlers. It will not allow the Palestinians to retain the land, resources, and authority needed to form a successful state, and a Palestinian State that fails because Israel keeps stealing water and treating Palestinians like shit would just fuel more fighting.

It would be stupid for Israel to relinquish any areas it controls. Doing so has no upside beyond momentarily placating those who have fallen for the Palestinian line.

Unfortunately, the world isn't interested in learning the lessons. Again and again Israel is pressured into stupid concessions, again and again the Palestinians don't follow through on their side of the deal. Again and again fools like Obama think it will work this time.