• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

More Palestinian treachery.

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'm going to file this under "Unsupported assertion: sub category: fear mongering" until you provide evidence to support your claim that the Palestinians don't want a negotiated peace.

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.

Terrorists don't always plan to massacre hundreds of civilians when they gather together to commit an act of terrorism. Sometimes it just works out that way.

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.

What concessions has Israel made? Please be specific.
 
<snip>

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.<snip>

Are you seriously suggesting that, in case a town is attacked by armed paramilitias, civilians should stand back and watch, and any attempt to defend themselves with hunting rifles or whatever else they can put their hands on makes them the terrorists?
 
So Horrowitz makes a few controversial miss judgements means he's a nut job and everything he printouts should be ignored? But this isn't about him, this is about Palestinian duplicity.

Even by international standards the Anerican right are pretty extreme when it comes to bold faced lying in the press. They routinely just make shit up. They make the Soviet Pravda look like an honest publication. So they don't hold much weight.
 
...Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

When they have fully reached the Jordan River they will stop.

They don't want a 2 state solution, never did, it is a convenient placeholder for diplomacy while they complete the conquest of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (which everyone seems to have forgotten about but which Israel will consolidate on the toppling of Assad).
 
<snip>

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.<snip>

Are you seriously suggesting that, in case a town is attacked by armed paramilitias, civilians should stand back and watch, and any attempt to defend themselves with hunting rifles or whatever else they can put their hands on makes them the terrorists?

I think that that is the suggestion, are you really surprised by this?
 
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.

Seems to me you need a lesson in the history of the Israeli state. You'll find it in this excellent Wiki source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
 
...Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

When they have fully reached the Jordan River they will stop.

They don't want a 2 state solution, never did, it is a convenient placeholder for diplomacy while they complete the conquest of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (which everyone seems to have forgotten about but which Israel will consolidate on the toppling of Assad).
FFS, the Golan heights were used by Palestinians to launch their rockets into Israeli civilian areas. It was once ceded to the Palestinians who at once set it up as a launch site. It will never be ceded to them again with good reason.
 
...Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

When they have fully reached the Jordan River they will stop.

They don't want a 2 state solution, never did, it is a convenient placeholder for diplomacy while they complete the conquest of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (which everyone seems to have forgotten about but which Israel will consolidate on the toppling of Assad).
FFS, the Golan heights were used by Palestinians to launch their rockets into Israeli civilian areas. It was once ceded to the Palestinians who at once set it up as a launch site. It will never be ceded to them again with good reason.

This is factually inaccurate. Not a selective interpretation or some such, but plain wrong. The Golan Heights were never "ceded to the Palestinians", or "used by the Palestinians", for launching rockets or otherwise. They were Syrian territory before they were occupied by Israel during the Six Days War. At no point were they held by "the Palestinians". Even back when the region was controlled by European colonial powers, they were part of the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon rather than the British Mandate for Palestine.

Syria did launch rockets from there during the Six Days War if that's what you meant, but the way you said it its plain wrong, and the fact that you said it rather illustrates that you're not at all qualified to comment on the conflict.

Here's an illustration of the borders and ceasefire lines at various points (via  Golan_Heights):


500px-GolanHistoricalBorders.svg.png
 
...Israel will have to stop expanding someday. It might as well be now, while there still a chance for a 2 state solution.

When they have fully reached the Jordan River they will stop.

They don't want a 2 state solution, never did, it is a convenient placeholder for diplomacy while they complete the conquest of the West Bank and the Golan Heights (which everyone seems to have forgotten about but which Israel will consolidate on the toppling of Assad).
FFS, the Golan heights were used by Palestinians to launch their rockets into Israeli civilian areas. It was once ceded to the Palestinians who at once set it up as a launch site. It will never be ceded to them again with good reason.

This is factually inaccurate. Not a selective interpretation or some such, but plain wrong. The Golan Heights were never "ceded to the Palestinians", or "used by the Palestinians", for launching rockets or otherwise. They were Syrian territory before they were occupied by Israel during the Six Days War. At no point were they held by "the Palestinians". Even back when the region was controlled by European colonial powers, they were part of the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon rather than the British Mandate for Palestine.

Syria did launch rockets from there during the Six Days War if that's what you meant, but the way you said it its plain wrong, and the fact that you said it rather illustrates that you're not at all qualified to comment on the conflict.

Palestinians, Towelheads, Arabs, Syrians, Sandni@@ers? All the same thing really aren't they? /sarcasm
 
a
All of the above seek to destroy the Israeli state. All were allied against Israeli forces in the the various wars.
 
a
All of the above seek to destroy the Israeli state. All were allied against Israeli forces in the the various wars.

Why would anyone give any weight to what you say after you've conclusively demonstrated your profound ignorance of the topic?
 
a
All of the above seek to destroy the Israeli state. All were allied against Israeli forces in the the various wars.

Why would anyone give any weight to what you say after you've conclusively demonstrated your profound ignorance of the topic?
You mean my ignorance in not been a Palestinian apologist?

Did you, or did you not, mix up some very basic facts?

At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

None of this means that you are necessarily wrong. What it does mean is that the probability of you being right is no better than chance. So why should anyone assume that listening to you will gain them more understanding than, say, throwing a coin?
 
While you of course have the facts and the truth at your disposal. The Joose are the villains, always have been throughout history, correct?
 
While you of course have the facts and the truth at your disposal. The Joose are the villains, always have been throughout history, correct?

You can't quote me saying this, so don't put words in my mouth. I'm very close to reporting your post. I give you 60 minutes to edit it on your own account.
 
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

Oh, that's not inflammatory?
 
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

Oh, that's not inflammatory?

It's a statement of fact. You have mixed up major participants in the conflict, showing your ignorance. Your analysis, whether or not it happens to be right, is definitely not fact based.

At no point did I attribute a particularly vile position to you. At no point did I put words into your mouth.

I give you 55 minutes to retract (edit out) your offensive remark before I report your post.
 
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

Oh, that's not inflammatory?

It's a statement of fact. You have mixed up major participants in the conflict, showing your ignorance. Your analysis, whether or not it happens to be right, is definitely not fact based.

At no point did I attribute a particularly vile position to you. At no point did I put words into your mouth.

I give you 55 minutes to retract (edit out) your offensive remark before I report your post.

I see no offensive remark anywhere therefore I retract nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/10-facts
 
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

Oh, that's not inflammatory?

It's a statement of fact. You have mixed up major participants in the conflict, showing your ignorance. Your analysis, whether or not it happens to be right, is definitely not fact based.

At no point did I attribute a particularly vile position to you. At no point did I put words into your mouth.

I give you 55 minutes to retract (edit out) your offensive remark before I report your post.

I see no offensive remark anywhere therefore I retract nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict

Which part of that Wikipedia page is supposed to support your implicit assertion that everybody who doesn't fully support the Israeli position (and more specifically, an interpretation that is considered right wing even within Israel) is a raging anti-Semite who believes that "the Jews" are to blame for everything bad in history?

There's what you have to retract.
 
At this point, it doesn't matter whether you're an apologist, and for which side if so. You demonstrated that you don't know shit about the topic. Even if you say something correct once in a while, we'll have to assume that it happened by chance. Even if you did pick the "right side", it would be by chance, and certainly not as the result of a careful analysis of the facts. We can logically exclude latter because you've demonstrated that you don't know the facts.

Oh, that's not inflammatory?

It's a statement of fact. You have mixed up major participants in the conflict, showing your ignorance. Your analysis, whether or not it happens to be right, is definitely not fact based.

At no point did I attribute a particularly vile position to you. At no point did I put words into your mouth.

I give you 55 minutes to retract (edit out) your offensive remark before I report your post.

I see no offensive remark anywhere therefore I retract nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/10-facts

Well actually, you do need to retract your remark because Jokodo has done nothing but, point out your obvious and embarrassing mistake regarding the Golan Heights. If your remark was as a result of my post #49 (more of which later) and confusion from a red mist descending, which it does not appear to be the case reading the thread through again, then I apologise to Jokodo for being on the receiving and of some ire that I may have provoked.

Returning to post #49, I find it instructive that you did not appear to be uncomfortable with the characterisation of 'Towelheads' and Sandni@@ers' or your own characterisation of people that contradict you as being 'Anti-Semite Conspiracy Theorists'? It might come as a surprise to you that it is reasonable to hold a position on modern Israel contrary your own and not believe that Da Joos are responsible for anything or everything bad that has ever happened, ever.
 
Back
Top Bottom