Why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians

[Loren Pechtel]

We talked about this before in a thread you started.

You were shown pictures of the destruction of Palestinian olive groves. You were given links to more evidence.

You have shown pictures of damage. Not proof that it was settlers.

Israel tried to conceal the attacks at first:
Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Olive Groves Kept Top Secret by State

Haaretz isn't credible.

But the settlers are getting pretty bold these days:
Settlers Filmed Destroying 100 Palestinian Olive Trees as IDF Appears to Look On

A rights group said that. Doesn't mean it happened.

Israelis have been destroying Palestinian agriculture for decades. And yet, even when Israel's own Army Says Palestinian Grove Torched by West Bank Settlers you declare (without a shred of evidence) that the source of the information is parroting terrorists. And then 6 months later you act like you've never heard it before.

Oh well, I guess I can just keep reposting links.

The Guardian is another questionable source. Faced with a choice between the truth and the leftist position they'll probably choose the latter.

 

[Ford]

Palestine: Jewish Settlers Torch 100 of World's Oldest Olive Trees

And you take the word of the terrorists as truth?

You routinely take the word promote the official position of the Isreali gov't Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing , so what is your point?

Fixed it for you.

 

[Arctish]

You have shown pictures of damage. Not proof that it was settlers.

Haaretz isn't credible.

A rights group said that. Doesn't mean it happened.

The Guardian is another questionable source. Faced with a choice between the truth and the leftist position they'll probably choose the latter.

Ha'aretz is credible. So is the Times of Israel. So is the Jerusalem Post. You've used IMEMC as a source, and iirc you've used Mondoweiss and the Middle East Monitor a time or two. Of course, they don't quite have the sterling reputation of the BBC, but they're not bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have shown pictures of damage. Not proof that it was settlers.

Haaretz isn't credible.

A rights group said that. Doesn't mean it happened.

The Guardian is another questionable source. Faced with a choice between the truth and the leftist position they'll probably choose the latter.

Ha'aretz is credible. So is the Times of Israel. So is the Jerusalem Post. You've used IMEMC as a source, and iirc you've used Mondoweiss and the Middle East Monitor a time or two. Of course, they don't quite have the sterling reputation of the BBC, but they're not bad.

Just because Haaretz says what you want to hear doesn't make it credible.

I have no problem with the Times of Israel, it's just you failed to note that it was an editorial reporting what the Palestinians said, not their reporting.

 

[laughing dog]

You have shown pictures of damage. Not proof that it was settlers.

Haaretz isn't credible.

A rights group said that. Doesn't mean it happened.

The Guardian is another questionable source. Faced with a choice between the truth and the leftist position they'll probably choose the latter.

Ha'aretz is credible. So is the Times of Israel. So is the Jerusalem Post. You've used IMEMC as a source, and iirc you've used Mondoweiss and the Middle East Monitor a time or two. Of course, they don't quite have the sterling reputation of the BBC, but they're not bad.

Just because Haaretz says what you want to hear doesn't make it credible.

Just because Ha'aretz says what you don't want to hear does not make it wrong.

 

[Arctish]

You have shown pictures of damage. Not proof that it was settlers.

Haaretz isn't credible.

A rights group said that. Doesn't mean it happened.

The Guardian is another questionable source. Faced with a choice between the truth and the leftist position they'll probably choose the latter.

Ha'aretz is credible. So is the Times of Israel. So is the Jerusalem Post. You've used IMEMC as a source, and iirc you've used Mondoweiss and the Middle East Monitor a time or two. Of course, they don't quite have the sterling reputation of the BBC, but they're not bad.

Just because Haaretz says what you want to hear doesn't make it credible.

Correct.

What makes a source credible is accuracy. Ha'aretz' reporting is accurate. The incidents it reports really did happen, and Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting them.

The sources I used in the other thread were the Washington Post, Counterpunch, and IMEMC. I've now provided links to the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Mondoweiss, IMEMC again, the Middle East Monitor, the BBC, and yes, Ha'aretz, all covering the destruction of thousands of Palestinian olive trees by Israeli settlers over the past several years.

I realize hasbara isn't just a hobby for you, it's a calling. Even so, it's beyond ridiculous that you're still trying to hand wave away the fact Israeli settlers are burning, uprooting, and stealing the harvest from Palestinian olive groves, and they've been doing it for years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because Haaretz says what you want to hear doesn't make it credible.

Correct.

What makes a source credible is accuracy. Ha'aretz' reporting is accurate. The incidents it reports really did happen, and Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting them.

The sources I used in the other thread were the Washington Post, Counterpunch, and IMEMC. I've now provided links to the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Mondoweiss, IMEMC again, the Middle East Monitor, the BBC, and yes, Ha'aretz, all covering the destruction of thousands of Palestinian olive trees by Israeli settlers over the past several years.

I realize hasbara isn't just a hobby for you, it's a calling. Even so, it's beyond ridiculous that you're still trying to hand wave away the fact Israeli settlers are burning, uprooting, and stealing the harvest from Palestinian olive groves, and they've been doing it for years.

Except Haaretz is not accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz#Criticism

And note that most of those reports say that the Palestinians say that olive trees were destroyed. Strangely enough, often on Saturday. (A highly religious Jew would certainly not destroy trees on Saturday.)

 

[Arctish]

Just because Haaretz says what you want to hear doesn't make it credible.

Correct.

What makes a source credible is accuracy. Ha'aretz' reporting is accurate. The incidents it reports really did happen, and Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting them.

The sources I used in the other thread were the Washington Post, Counterpunch, and IMEMC. I've now provided links to the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Mondoweiss, IMEMC again, the Middle East Monitor, the BBC, and yes, Ha'aretz, all covering the destruction of thousands of Palestinian olive trees by Israeli settlers over the past several years.

I realize hasbara isn't just a hobby for you, it's a calling. Even so, it's beyond ridiculous that you're still trying to hand wave away the fact Israeli settlers are burning, uprooting, and stealing the harvest from Palestinian olive groves, and they've been doing it for years.

Except Haaretz is not accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz#Criticism

Your link says:

"Andrea Levin, executive director of the American pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), said the newspaper was doing "damage to the truth" and sometimes making serious factual errors but not often correcting them.[39]

According to The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz editor-in-chief David Landau said at the 2007 Limmud conference in Moscow that he had told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to promote Sharon's 2004–2005 Gaza disengagement plan.[40]

In April 2017, Haaretz published an op-ed by a staff writer that said the religious right is worse than Hezbollah.[41][42] Condemnation followed, including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, and other government ministers and MPs, as well as from Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog.[43]"

That's it? That's all you've got?

The executive director of a pro-Israel Committee says Ha'aretz 'damages the truth' but doesn't say Ha'aretz distorts it, or tells lies, or points out any specific example of inaccuracy.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Ha'aretz editor-in-cheif told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. That accusation would have more weight if you showed us that Ha'aretz neglected to cover that story.

And a staff writer one expressed the opinion that the religious right is worse than Hezbollah in an op-ed piece.

An opinion, an unsupported assertion, and somebody getting their knickers in a twist because they feel insulted. Weak.

And note that most of those reports say that the Palestinians say that olive trees were destroyed. Strangely enough, often on Saturday. (A highly religious Jew would certainly not destroy trees on Saturday.)

I note more hand waving.

Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting the attacks, and Palestinians aren't the only witnesses on record. The IDF has confirmed that settlers are burning, uprooting, and cutting down olive trees, throwing rocks and threatening farmers, stealing harvests, and damaging other Palestinian property. Your quibbling about Ha'aretz isn't fooling anyone. You know the reports are coming from reputable sources, and you know these attacks are part of a larger pattern of Zionists making life miserable for the Palestinians so they will be motivated to surrender their land to Jewish colonists.

And once again I will point out that Zionists do not refrain from work on the Sabbath, just in case you're actually trying to argue that the settlers leave their settlements completely undefended one day each week.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except Haaretz is not accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz#Criticism

Your link says:

"Andrea Levin, executive director of the American pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), said the newspaper was doing "damage to the truth" and sometimes making serious factual errors but not often correcting them.[39]

According to The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz editor-in-chief David Landau said at the 2007 Limmud conference in Moscow that he had told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to promote Sharon's 2004–2005 Gaza disengagement plan.[40]

In April 2017, Haaretz published an op-ed by a staff writer that said the religious right is worse than Hezbollah.[41][42] Condemnation followed, including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, and other government ministers and MPs, as well as from Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog.[43]"

That's it? That's all you've got?

The executive director of a pro-Israel Committee says Ha'aretz 'damages the truth' but doesn't say Ha'aretz distorts it, or tells lies, or points out any specific example of inaccuracy.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Ha'aretz editor-in-cheif told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. That accusation would have more weight if you showed us that Ha'aretz neglected to cover that story.

And a staff writer one expressed the opinion that the religious right is worse than Hezbollah in an op-ed piece.

An opinion, an unsupported assertion, and somebody getting their knickers in a twist because they feel insulted. Weak.

And note that most of those reports say that the Palestinians say that olive trees were destroyed. Strangely enough, often on Saturday. (A highly religious Jew would certainly not destroy trees on Saturday.)

I note more hand waving.

Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting the attacks, and Palestinians aren't the only witnesses on record. The IDF has confirmed that settlers are burning, uprooting, and cutting down olive trees, throwing rocks and threatening farmers, stealing harvests, and damaging other Palestinian property. Your quibbling about Ha'aretz isn't fooling anyone. You know the reports are coming from reputable sources, and you know these attacks are part of a larger pattern of Zionists making life miserable for the Palestinians so they will be motivated to surrender their land to Jewish colonists.

And once again I will point out that Zionists do not refrain from work on the Sabbath, just in case you're actually trying to argue that the settlers leave their settlements completely undefended one day each week.

I was looking for something left wing as I know you're going to dismiss anything that comes from the right anyway.

 

[Arctish]

Your link says:

"Andrea Levin, executive director of the American pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), said the newspaper was doing "damage to the truth" and sometimes making serious factual errors but not often correcting them.[39]

According to The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz editor-in-chief David Landau said at the 2007 Limmud conference in Moscow that he had told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to promote Sharon's 2004–2005 Gaza disengagement plan.[40]

In April 2017, Haaretz published an op-ed by a staff writer that said the religious right is worse than Hezbollah.[41][42] Condemnation followed, including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, and other government ministers and MPs, as well as from Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog.[43]"

That's it? That's all you've got?

The executive director of a pro-Israel Committee says Ha'aretz 'damages the truth' but doesn't say Ha'aretz distorts it, or tells lies, or points out any specific example of inaccuracy.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Ha'aretz editor-in-cheif told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. That accusation would have more weight if you showed us that Ha'aretz neglected to cover that story.

And a staff writer one expressed the opinion that the religious right is worse than Hezbollah in an op-ed piece.

An opinion, an unsupported assertion, and somebody getting their knickers in a twist because they feel insulted. Weak.



I note more hand waving.

Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting the attacks, and Palestinians aren't the only witnesses on record. The IDF has confirmed that settlers are burning, uprooting, and cutting down olive trees, throwing rocks and threatening farmers, stealing harvests, and damaging other Palestinian property. Your quibbling about Ha'aretz isn't fooling anyone. You know the reports are coming from reputable sources, and you know these attacks are part of a larger pattern of Zionists making life miserable for the Palestinians so they will be motivated to surrender their land to Jewish colonists.

And once again I will point out that Zionists do not refrain from work on the Sabbath, just in case you're actually trying to argue that the settlers leave their settlements completely undefended one day each week.

I was looking for something left wing as I know you're going to dismiss anything that comes from the right anyway.

You're wrong about that. I don't care if the information you present is from a left wing or a right wing source. I care whether it's fact or opinion, accurate or inaccurate, intended to inform or designed to deceive. That's why I look for context when someone posts a single sentence and claims it sums up an author's position. That's why I investigate claims that a line from a speech represents a widely held view among an ethnic, national, religious, or political group. More often than not, I find a mined quote that doesn't represent the author's or listeners' views at all.

Anyway, this thread isn't about Ha'aretz or what types of sources I reject. It's about the many reasons why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The destruction of Palestinian olive groves by Israelis is one of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your link says:

"Andrea Levin, executive director of the American pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), said the newspaper was doing "damage to the truth" and sometimes making serious factual errors but not often correcting them.[39]

According to The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz editor-in-chief David Landau said at the 2007 Limmud conference in Moscow that he had told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in order to promote Sharon's 2004–2005 Gaza disengagement plan.[40]

In April 2017, Haaretz published an op-ed by a staff writer that said the religious right is worse than Hezbollah.[41][42] Condemnation followed, including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Reuven Rivlin, and other government ministers and MPs, as well as from Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog.[43]"

That's it? That's all you've got?

The executive director of a pro-Israel Committee says Ha'aretz 'damages the truth' but doesn't say Ha'aretz distorts it, or tells lies, or points out any specific example of inaccuracy.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the Ha'aretz editor-in-cheif told his staff not to report about criminal investigations against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. That accusation would have more weight if you showed us that Ha'aretz neglected to cover that story.

And a staff writer one expressed the opinion that the religious right is worse than Hezbollah in an op-ed piece.

An opinion, an unsupported assertion, and somebody getting their knickers in a twist because they feel insulted. Weak.



I note more hand waving.

Ha'aretz isn't the only news outlet reporting the attacks, and Palestinians aren't the only witnesses on record. The IDF has confirmed that settlers are burning, uprooting, and cutting down olive trees, throwing rocks and threatening farmers, stealing harvests, and damaging other Palestinian property. Your quibbling about Ha'aretz isn't fooling anyone. You know the reports are coming from reputable sources, and you know these attacks are part of a larger pattern of Zionists making life miserable for the Palestinians so they will be motivated to surrender their land to Jewish colonists.

And once again I will point out that Zionists do not refrain from work on the Sabbath, just in case you're actually trying to argue that the settlers leave their settlements completely undefended one day each week.

I was looking for something left wing as I know you're going to dismiss anything that comes from the right anyway.

You're wrong about that. I don't care if the information you present is from a left wing or a right wing source. I care whether it's fact or opinion, accurate or inaccurate, intended to inform or designed to deceive. That's why I look for context when someone posts a single sentence and claims it sums up an author's position. That's why I investigate claims that a line from a speech represents a widely held view among an ethnic, national, religious, or political group. More often than not, I find a mined quote that doesn't represent the author's or listeners' views at all.

Anyway, this thread isn't about Ha'aretz or what types of sources I reject. It's about the many reasons why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The destruction of Palestinian olive groves by Israelis is one of them.

You would dismiss it as pro-Israel. And the issue is that most of that Israeli destruction of olive groves is fabrication.

 

[Arctish]

You would dismiss it as pro-Israel. And the issue is that most of that Israeli destruction of olive groves is fabrication.

I don't care if it's pro-Israel. I care whether it's properly sourced accurate and reliable reporting or just bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit, I would like to see what sources you have that say the destruction of thousands of olive trees by Israeli settlers is fabrication. I have no doubt Zionists have their very own Alex Jones-style commentators, but I don't know if that's where you're getting your information.

Anyway, here's a really good article that addresses the topic of the OP: Israel and the Palestinians: A conflict viewed through olives

 

[laughing dog]

You're wrong about that. I don't care if the information you present is from a left wing or a right wing source. I care whether it's fact or opinion, accurate or inaccurate, intended to inform or designed to deceive. That's why I look for context when someone posts a single sentence and claims it sums up an author's position. That's why I investigate claims that a line from a speech represents a widely held view among an ethnic, national, religious, or political group. More often than not, I find a mined quote that doesn't represent the author's or listeners' views at all.

Anyway, this thread isn't about Ha'aretz or what types of sources I reject. It's about the many reasons why there won't be peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The destruction of Palestinian olive groves by Israelis is one of them.

You would dismiss it as pro-Israel. And the issue is that most of that Israeli destruction of olive groves is fabrication.

Fascinating. Arctish has provided lots of documentation to substantiate her case. You have not. It appears your claim that the Israeli destruction of olive groves is the epitome of fabrication.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You would dismiss it as pro-Israel. And the issue is that most of that Israeli destruction of olive groves is fabrication.

I don't care if it's pro-Israel. I care whether it's properly sourced accurate and reliable reporting or just bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit, I would like to see what sources you have that say the destruction of thousands of olive trees by Israeli settlers is fabrication. I have no doubt Zionists have their very own Alex Jones-style commentators, but I don't know if that's where you're getting your information.

Anyway, here's a really good article that addresses the topic of the OP: Israel and the Palestinians: A conflict viewed through olives

There are 100x as many Muslims as Jews. The BBC reflects this--they are far from neutral on such matters.

 

[laughing dog]

You would dismiss it as pro-Israel. And the issue is that most of that Israeli destruction of olive groves is fabrication.

I don't care if it's pro-Israel. I care whether it's properly sourced accurate and reliable reporting or just bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit, I would like to see what sources you have that say the destruction of thousands of olive trees by Israeli settlers is fabrication. I have no doubt Zionists have their very own Alex Jones-style commentators, but I don't know if that's where you're getting your information.

Anyway, here's a really good article that addresses the topic of the OP: Israel and the Palestinians: A conflict viewed through olives

There are 100x as many Muslims as Jews. The BBC reflects this--they are far from neutral on such matters.

Instead of making posting your unsubstantiated opinions about the trustworthiness of any source with whom you disagree, why not actually present some actual evidence to support your claims?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are 100x as many Muslims as Jews. The BBC reflects this--they are far from neutral on such matters.

Instead of making posting your unsubstantiated opinions about the trustworthiness of any source with whom you disagree, why not actually present some actual evidence to support your claims?

Here's a site that keeps track of their problems in reporting on Israel: https://bbcwatch.org/

 

[laughing dog]

There are 100x as many Muslims as Jews. The BBC reflects this--they are far from neutral on such matters.

Instead of making posting your unsubstantiated opinions about the trustworthiness of any source with whom you disagree, why not actually present some actual evidence to support your claims?

Here's a site that keeps track of their problems in reporting on Israel: https://bbcwatch.org/

Thank you for
1) tacitly admitting that you have no evidence to support your claims of fact about the olive groves, and
2) providing evidence of your bias.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a site that keeps track of their problems in reporting on Israel: https://bbcwatch.org/

Thank you for
1) tacitly admitting that you have no evidence to support your claims of fact about the olive groves, and
2) providing evidence of your bias.

Nice job of missing the point.

Showing their bias in general is enough to show that a specific report is questionable.

 

[laughing dog]

Here's a site that keeps track of their problems in reporting on Israel: https://bbcwatch.org/

Thank you for
1) tacitly admitting that you have no evidence to support your claims of fact about the olive groves, and
2) providing evidence of your bias.

Nice job of missing the point.

Showing their bias in general is enough to show that a specific report is questionable.

I did not this point. Instead of producing any evidence to support your claims of fact about the olive groves, you resort to your tactic of accusing any site that produces evidence that rebuts your claims as "biased" by using biased sources. It is a boring and unconvincing as it is predictable.

But, adopting your reasoning, then every negative comment you post about the Palestinians is questionable, iven your overwhelming bigotry against the Palestinians.

 

[Vork]

One set of actors has the ability to make peace.

The oppressed set of actors are helpless.

They can do nothing to move the process forward.

Yes, one group has the ability to make peace: The Palestinians.

No. The oppressed have no power to move anything forward unless some higher power forces the oppressor to move.

That you side with the oppressor over the oppressed is troubling.

The Hamas charter supports the traditional Islamic position-- once the Muslims have stolen the land of non-Muslims (which their religion gives them the right to do) then the land belongs to the Muslims forever.

So it's not allowed that non-Muslims ever get back control of the land and free themselves from Islamic tyranny.

I guess you can always try to blame traditional Islamic teachings on relatively modern Zionism if you want...