NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/09/beirut.violence/index.html

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- Western Beirut fell under the control of opposition Hezbollah militias Friday in what amounted to an army-negotiated surrender of pro-government positions, Lebanese Internal Security Forces and Western military observers said.

The "dramatic development" is a major blow to the democratically elected and pro-Western government of Lebanon, CNN's Brent Sadler said.

Soldiers went to several offices of pro-government political parties in western Beirut overnight, he said. They persuaded pro-government gunmen who had battled Hezbollah militants to leave the offices as Hezbollah militants hovered nearby, he said.

At least 11 have been killed and 44 wounded since the beginning of the clashes, according to Lebanese Internal Security Forces.

The renewed fighting came as two pro-government television stations -- Future TV and al-Ekhbariya TV -- ceased operations Friday.

They went off the air after being threatened by government opponents in Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim militia, and Amal, a major Shiite party in Lebanon, according to Nadim Mounla, head of Future TV.

"Early this morning, many armed militiamen were in the surroundings of the Future television headquarters and they have sent us a very clear message: 'Either you shut off or (we're going to) destroy the premises,'" Mounla said.

The television stations are owned by the Harriri family, supporters of the country's pro-Western, Sunni-led government. In addition, the building housing the Hariri-owned al-Mustaqbal newspaper came under fire overnight. No injuries were reported.

Saad Hariri, the leader of the government's bloc in parliament, is the son of the late former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose 2005 assassination sparked protests that brought the current government to power and led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops.
Don't Miss

* Gunbattles break out in Beirut
* CNN's Cal Perry blogs on being caught in the chaos

The move followed the government's demand this week that Hezbollah shutter its telecommunications operations, which Hezbollah called an act of war.

Friday's fighting began early.

"We were woken woke up around 7 o'clock our time in the morning in Beirut with very intense gunfire and all kinds of explosions," said Rami Khouri, an editor with the Daily Star newspaper.

Lebanese troops used tear gas to disperse rock-throwing demonstrators Thursday. But they stayed out of gun battles in Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods that have fueled fears of renewed violence in a country riven by a bloody civil war in the 1970s and 1980s.

The latest tensions between the Shiite militia and the Sunni-led government were sparked Monday by the government's crackdown on Hezbollah's telecommunication system and the firing the chief of security at the Beirut airport. The security chief was dismissed amid a probe of allegations that Hezbollah had installed cameras and other monitoring equipment there.

Thursday's fighting erupted shortly after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the government's ban on the telecommunications system amounts to "a declaration of open war.

"We believe the war has started, and we believe that we have the right to defend ourselves," Nasrallah said. "We will cut the hand that will reach out to the weapons of the resistance, no matter if it comes from the inside or the outside."

Hezbollah supporters continue to block roads leading to Beirut's airport, forcing the cancellation of nearly all incoming and outgoing flights.

The airport is strategic for Lebanon, which is wedged between Syria and Israel, because it is the only way in and out of the country for many people.
advertisement

An intense clash between fighters armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades broke out Thursday evening in downtown Beirut's Sodeco Square, which lies between a Shiite and Sunni neighborhood.

The Lebanese army, which is charged with trying to keep peace in the capital, did not intervene.

Yeah, innocent victims, they are. No terrorism or Islamic extremism there. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/09/beirut.violence/index.html



Yeah, innocent victims, they are. No terrorism or Islamic extremism there. :rolleyes:

coup d'etat != terrorism.

Islamic extremism is inconsequential, because it had nothing to do with the situation: it was a purely political/military operation (the fact that the organisation which carried it out is extremist is incidental, and had no bearing on the event).

And how was Israel right?

Not justifying Hezbollah, but Lebanon is not a democracy - it's an ethnic-religious sectarian 'arrangement' based on a census decades old.

It is funny the world protested Israel going into Lebanon I haven't heard more then a whisper of protest about Syria and Iran forcing their views on Lebanon.

Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel. Israel overreacts, further destabilising Lebanon. How, therefore was "Israel right" and what has that unfortunate episode to do with this?

You lost me with "So, turns out Israel was right all along." .

I mean I get it, they wee given the Palestinian land by the Brits and the Yanks.

I get it that when the Arabs failed to push them off they felt no ill feelings towards taking even more land from the Palestinians, I get it.

I get because a bunch of Europeans wanted to kill them, others didnt want them, that the Palestinians and Muslims in general had to kicked around for Europe's comfort...I get it.

So what is your point?

That there is unrest in region where so many people are displaced and oppressed and where war and death is more predictable then the sunrise?


And what, every man with his finger on the trigger who isn't killing Arabs for Israel is a fucking terrorist right?

Just what was Israel right about?

How much damage they can cause the region? How much strife and divisiveness they can provoke?

I mean really clarify, don't just link an article and give one mundane sentence, actually say something.

EDIT: I do certainly see a lot of Idiotic Extremism and some Ideological Extremism.

It is funny the world protested Israel going into Lebanon I haven't heard more then a whisper of protest about Syria and Iran forcing their views on Lebanon.

Syria withdrew in 2005, and although Iran helped found Hezbollah, they are pretty independent these days.

coup d'etat != terrorism.

Islamic extremism is inconsequential, because it had nothing to do with the situation: it was a purely political/military operation (the fact that the organisation which carried it out is extremist is incidental, and had no bearing on the event).

And how was Israel right?

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut. What's it going to take for people to accept that they are a threat to Israel and that the Israelis were justified in attacking?

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut. What's it going to take for people to accept that they are a threat to Israel and that the Israelis were justified in attacking?

Not really, if you knew anything about the history of Lebanon and in particular the history of Beirut you'd know civil strife has been apart of Lebanon for decades. Their political system is institutionally sectarian.

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut. What's it going to take for people to accept that they are a threat to Israel and that the Israelis were justified in attacking?

Those things actually being a reality would be a good start.

Syria withdrew in 2005, and although Iran helped found Hezbollah, they are pretty independent these days.

bit of debate of funding. Funding almost always has conditions attached to it.

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut. What's it going to take for people to accept that they are a threat to Israel and that the Israelis were justified in attacking?

So Hezbollah occupies half of Beiruth (conquered isn't exactly the right word considering it's not a foreign army) a few years after its existence was used as a pretext to invade Lebanon by Israel.

1) This happened years after Israel used the pretext. You're saying Hezbollah has done something now, surely it was a threat then. Can you grasp the idiocy of what you are saying?

2) Hezbollah occupied Beiruth. Is Beiruth in Israel? No. Did this have anything to do with Israel? No. Did this threaten Israel? No. Not even with reverse history your point makes no sense.

To sum those two points, what you have said is equivalent to saying that 20 neo-nazis in a club in Saxony are a threat to the existence of Israel. Get a fucking clue.

3) This was A MILITARY COUP: nothing to do with terrorism or extremism - it was carried out by an organization that is alleged to be terrorist and extremist, but at no time in this event did those play out.

Right. Just keep telling yourself that.

Right. Just keep telling yourself that.

Oh I'm sorry. How could I have been so stupid and not see how right your non-argument was all along.:rolleyes:

2) Hezbollah occupied Beiruth. Is Beiruth in Israel? No. Did this have anything to do with Israel? No. Did this threaten Israel? No. Not even with reverse history your point makes no sense.

.

Hezbollah supports terrorist in Israel, has this habit of launching mortars across the boarder or tolerating/encouraging other to do it. not to mention the death to all Jews because they secretly control the world tends to make Israel a little nervous.

Ferrous as usual you blow reality completely out of proportion with your mythical doomsday scenarios. This current situation started when the government deemed the Hezbollah private communication networks as 'illegal' and made moves to take them over. In response Hezbollah and it's allies occupied the private television stations of of the ruling government individuals.

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut.

No, they didn't.

Hezbollah supports terrorist in Israel, has this habit of launching mortars across the boarder or tolerating/encouraging other to do it. not to mention the death to all Jews because they secretly control the world tends to make Israel a little nervous.

Israel should be happy it gets a couple of days of a break then:p

Now IF Hezbollah starts an outright attack on Israel, fair play, it has the right to retaliate (as long as it is so kind as to mind the civilians going about their business - not one of their main concerns most of the time). But to say that what Hezbollah is doing now justifies Israel invading a few years ago is mentally deficient.

No entity named Israel has been right. Ever. :eek:

Christ K-P, you're struggling a little these days for alleged stories to create anti-Muslim fearmongering, aren't you?

Whatever happened to those fake Norwegian/Scandinavian newspapers that you used to post? At least those had some vague potential. This Lebanon thing is just stretching it, really. A civil dispute doesn't equal Islamic extremism in any way, shape or form.

Gettin' lazy, K-P :(

No entity named Israel has been right. Ever. :eek:

:eek: ?

Even you can't believe the astounding arrogance of that statement?

What, that's IT ?

U.B., face still blue and mouth agape, leaves?

LOL, the trolls around here aren't getting enough aerobic exercise! No tone. No endurance. On life-support!

Hezbollah supports terrorist in Israel, has this habit of launching mortars across the boarder or tolerating/encouraging other to do it. not to mention the death to all Jews because they secretly control the world tends to make Israel a little nervous.

Okay, just a few problems.

1) Hamas, and the Palestiniance generally, launch Katyusha rockets, not mortars. Although they use (much shorter range) mortars, too, if they get desperate.

2) The place you call 'Israel', due to the actions of the government of Israel (and against the wishes of the people of the area) is not Israel. The occupants do not have the same rights as Israelis, and are therefore not Israelis. Therefore the occupied territories, despite the constant imposition of Israeli millitary force in order to create a response, is independent (and democraticly elected Hamas, whether Israel likes it or not).

3) Hamas is not a terrorist group, and has not been since they ended suicide bombings and attacks on civilians. Modern Katyusha rocket attacks are aimed, as much as they can be aimed, at millitary targets. It just look like they aren't because they are really, really inaccurate- and just generally much worse than IDF weapons. The IDF, on the other hand, uses attacks on civilians as a matter of course. For instance, the deliberate attack on civilians before the war against Lebanon, or the deliberate attack on UN overseers during the war with Lebanon.

Right. Just keep telling yourself that.

You're really not up to the same standard you used to have, Potato. Where's your vigour? Decidedly sub-par this season. I'm disappointed.

I don't bother because trying to convince left-wingers that there are actually Muslim terrorists is like trying to convince Hitler that the Jews are good people. "Oh, Hezbollah is a PEACEFUL, POLITICAL organisation!". :rolleyes:

I don't bother because trying to convince left-wingers that there are actually Muslim terrorists is like trying to convince Hitler that the Jews are good people. "Oh, Hezbollah is a PEACEFUL, POLITICAL organisation!". :rolleyes:

Well, thank you for that Godwin, it's so nice to see trolls torpedoing their own arguments only two pages later.

Oh, and straw men. But that's par for the course.

How about this? I'll shoot you today, maybe not fatally, but enough to cripple you for life. And when you commit a crime, I'll have been right in trying to end your life. It's about as sensible as your idea that Israel was correct.

How about this? I'll shoot you today, maybe not fatally, but enough to cripple you for life. And when you commit a crime, I'll have been right in trying to end your life. It's about as sensible as your idea that Israel was correct.

Yeah, that's a great argument, until it's pointed out that Hezbollah's been doing shit like this since 1982. This is just the most recent example. But hey, we'll sweep this under the rug like all the other incidents, won't we? Can't have any peaceful Muslims accused of terrorism.

I don't bother because trying to convince left-wingers that there are actually Muslim terrorists is like trying to convince Hitler that the Jews are good people

I am mightly impressed by how you have got inside the left-wing mindset there. Like all left wingers, I believe that the explosions on trains in Madrid and London were caused by perfectly natural spontaneous human combustion. As for 9/11, the towers simply got bored of standing and decided to have a little lie down. The plane crash footage was faked by the government in order to trick a worried public into believing that buildings don't have free will.

I am mightly impressed by how you have got inside the left-wing mindset there. Like all left wingers, I believe that the explosions on trains in Madrid and London were caused by perfectly natural spontaneous human combustion. As for 9/11, the towers simply got bored of standing and decided to have a little lie down. The plane crash footage was faked by the government in order to trick a worried public into believing that buildings don't have free will.

Shush man, he's a rightie, they can't handle the truth ;)

Oh and Ferrous, could you quote me who said that Hezbollah is a peacefull organization in this thread ?

Oh, you can't find that quote...figures..

Yeah, that's a great argument, until it's pointed out that Hezbollah's been doing shit like this since 1982. This is just the most recent example. But hey, we'll sweep this under the rug like all the other incidents, won't we? Can't have any peaceful Muslims accused of terrorism.


So, Hezbolla has been attacking Israeli targets since the Israelis invaded their country? One might wish to point out a small correlation in events here.

So, Hezbolla has been attacking Israeli targets since the Israelis invaded their country? One might wish to point out a small correlation in events here.

Maybe they should stay the fuck out of the whole thing any they won't be labelled terrorists.

Maybe they should stay the fuck out of the whole thing any they won't be labelled terrorists.

Maybe people should accept that Israel and radical political Islamic groups have both acted badly over the years, rather than blindly siding with one and ignoring all negative aspects of the chosen group's behaviour?

Maybe people should accept that Israel and radical political Islamic groups have both acted badly over the years, rather than blindly siding with one and ignoring all negative aspects of the chosen group's behaviour?

I'll do it when left-wingers do it.

I'll do it when left-wingers do it.

Then I think it's about time you do it. Because, you know, if you had any sort of reading comprehension (which I sincerely doubt), you'd be able to figure out that no one, in the past few years, have ever in any way stated the muslims cannot be terrorists and that lebanon, syria, etc... cannot do wrong. The few who have merely up weigh the few who similarly claim that christians cannot be terrorists.

When somebody comes with a bullshit claim such as "Only muslims can be terrorist, but not all muslims are terrorist!" It'll be shot down just as well as the "zomg, all muslims are terrorists!" claim.

But you like putting words into other people's mouthes, so why don't you just keep doing that?

I'll do it when left-wingers do it.

I'll raise the motion at the annual left-wingers conference in Moscow, straight after we've finished eating aborted fetuses and singing "Red Flag" twenty seven times. In all seriousness, I've found that certain elements of the 'right' (I'm uncomfortable with this language, as I find it doesn't describe politics very accurately) are just as bad if not worse in their blinkered view on the Middle East. Whatever, the main issue here is that regardless of whether other people have a blinkered view this can never justify individuals being equally narrow-minded on the other side. Surely the aim is to be correct, not as misguided as the ones you oppose?

Yeah, that's a great argument, until it's pointed out that Hezbollah's been doing shit like this since 1982. This is just the most recent example. But hey, we'll sweep this under the rug like all the other incidents, won't we? Can't have any peaceful Muslims accused of terrorism.

Shit like what? Coup de dat? This is a first I believe. And for your continued use of straw men, fail.

:eek: ?

Even you can't believe the astounding arrogance of that statement?You mean astounding accuracy. :cool:

coup d'etat != terrorism.

Islamic extremism is inconsequential, because it had nothing to do with the situation: it was a purely political/military operation (the fact that the organisation which carried it out is extremist is incidental, and had no bearing on the event).

/thread.

Next thing we'll see is some idiotic israeli commander ordering his troops to open fire against the UNIFIL.

It is funny the world protested Israel going into Lebanon I haven't heard more then a whisper of protest about Syria and Iran forcing their views on Lebanon.Might want to take the plugs out of your ears then.

Israel was right about...what, exactly? All I can see is the effect of Israel and Syria destablising the country.

I believe that the question of who is right and who is wrong (in the grand scheme of things) has completely been lost...somewhere in the late 1970s.

They need a comprehensive political situation to the problem, something they will never, ever get.

Maybe they should stay the fuck out of the whole thing any they won't be labelled terrorists.

What, should Hezbolla (ie the Lebanese) not defend the citizens of Lebanon against terrorist attack, or should the Lebanese not be in Lebanon? In what way should they 'stay out'?

I believe that the question of who is right and who is wrong (in the grand scheme of things) has completely been lost...somewhere in the late 1970s.

They need a comprehensive political situation to the problem, something they will never, ever get.

I agree, there needs to be a political solution. Fortunately, two exist. The first is Israeli acceptance of the Hamas ceasefire, followed by negotiations with Hamas. Israel will never do this, as Hamas poses no threat to the state of Israel and therefore their 'terrorist' attacks merely strengthen the junta, the objectives of Israel (ie colonisation of the occupied territories, while also keeping Arabs from voting, and ensuring that Israel remains an exclusively Jewish non-secular theocracy) are not fullfilled by peace, and also Israel does not want to add legitimacy to the Hamas peace movement, as this acts in opposition with previous stated Israel elite goals.
The other possibility is Israeli acceptance of Arabic citizenship. As Israel has occupied the occupied territories for over 40 years, surely that must lend some validity to Palestine's right to be Israel. Effectively this solution is the removal of apartheid constraints on the state of Israel. In other words, the right of return.
The only other outcome can be continuous Israeli agression, and Palestinian defence of their lives.

I agree, there needs to be a political solution. Fortunately, two exist. The first is Israeli acceptance of the Hamas ceasefire, followed by negotiations with Hamas. Israel will never do this, as Hamas poses no threat to the state of Israel and therefore their 'terrorist' attacks merely strengthen the junta, the objectives of Israel (ie colonisation of the occupied territories, while also keeping Arabs from voting, and ensuring that Israel remains an exclusively Jewish non-secular theocracy) are not fullfilled by peace, and also Israel does not want to add legitimacy to the Hamas peace movement, as this acts in opposition with previous stated Israel elite goals.
The other possibility is Israeli acceptance of Arabic citizenship. As Israel has occupied the occupied territories for over 40 years, surely that must lend some validity to Palestine's right to be Israel. Effectively this solution is the removal of apartheid constraints on the state of Israel. In other words, the right of return.
The only other outcome can be continuous Israeli agression, and Palestinian defence of their lives.

I would like to be hopeful but neither of your options are really acceptable on the ground.

Ferrous as usual you blow reality completely out of proportion with your mythical doomsday scenarios.

Pot, you really should listen to Kettle when he says this.

While the OP's ranting, raving, borderline racist posting here have been...less than helpful, there is a grain of truth throughout, if you're willing to dig throught the muck to find it.

During the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, Hezbollah did serve as a counter-occupation insurgency. While their methods were violent, they did restrict themselves primarily to Israeli military and governmental facilities and personel. Violence is never a good thing, but when your country is occupied, it's understandable.

however once Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah stopped being a counter-occupation insurgency and started lobbing rockets across the border, on some flimsy pretext that Israel continued to occupy a small plot of land that even their own pre-occupation maps agree belonged to syria, they stopped being a legitimate freedom group and became terrorists.

Since the end of occupation they have become more radical, more militant, more violent, more anti-Israel, more anti-democracy, more anti-secular, and the fact that they've turned on their own people should come as no surprise to anyone.

That's what terrorists do, after all.

Not justifying Hezbollah, but Lebanon is not a democracy - it's an ethnic-religious sectarian 'arrangement' based on a census decades old.

Which is irrelevant. The notion that any country that is not a western style democracy is fair game for a military coup/invasion is disconcertingly American.

Which is irrelevant. The notion that any country that is not a western style democracy is fair game for a military coup/invasion is disconcertingly American.And British.

And British.
No, we invade places regardless of whatever democratic state they're in, as long as we have some kind of national interest at stake. We didn't invade Iraq for any purpose other than to secure oil for ourselves.

It is funny the world protested Israel going into Lebanon I haven't heard more then a whisper of protest about Syria and Iran forcing their views on Lebanon.
You know what's funny? How you have managed to avoid hearing it! My word, that must have taken a lot of effort! I would consider notifying the Guinnes Book of World Records, because that is truly amazing! :eek:

And not only that, but I have a present for you:

GOOGLE! (http://www.google.com)

It's a fantastic invention, and it easily helps you find stuff like:

The U.N. Security Council has approved a veiled warning to Syria not to interfere in Lebaon's presidential election. (2004) (http://quickstart.clari.net/voa/art/au/2349A8BD-9291-4D8D-952EFC422EC4547E.html)

Roed-Larsen said there was a "unique, remarkable and broad consensus" within the U.N. Security Council and among other key governments that Syria should get out of Lebanon before the election. (2005) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42845-2005Mar17.html)

In the recommendations, the ISG says Syria must adhere to U.N. Security Council resolutions that demand Damascus stay out of Lebanon and cooperate in all investigations into the political assassinations of Lebanese leaders Rafik Hariri and Pierre Gemayel. (2006) (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234918,00.html)

I stand before you in awe, as you must be the most blissful poster in this thread!

Hezbollah just CONQUERED half of Beirut. What's it going to take for people to accept that they are a threat to Israel and that the Israelis were justified in attacking?

Justified in attacking ≠ justified in a disproportional response, attacking civilian infrastructure, killing and maiming civilians, etc.

Not to mention that Israel fucked up completely, since the last invasion of Lebanon left Hezbollah victorious and strengthened.

I would like to be hopeful but neither of your options are really acceptable on the ground.


Israel doesn't even need to do anything! Merely signing and obeying the hamas cesefire, ad then negotiating with hamas would be acceptable. As Israel would then, necessarily not be attacking either Palestinians or hamas, hamas would stop their defensive rocketing of Israel (which is now their only form of defense).

If hamas fails to obey the ceasefire, Israel would totally justified in responding to any attacks in a well-targeted and similar manner. Furthermore, hamas would lose all their public supoport, and fatah would take over.

I thought in order for it to be a Coup it had to be the legitimate Military of the nation.

Since Hezbollah are not the government this is an uprising\revolt.

Well, how long do you think it'll be before they're firing rockets into Israel again?

1 month? 2 months?

"Just the same old song and dance"

Israel doesn't even need to do anything!
They sure don't.
As Israel would then, necessarily not be attacking either Palestinians or hamas, hamas would stop their defensive rocketing of Israel (which is now their only form of defense).
Will you explain to me what in the world is "defensive" here???
Launching rockets at random civilians in an Israeli town that Palestinians never lived in does nothing, nothing, nothing to "defend" any Palestinian in any way.
If hamas fails to obey the ceasefire, Israel would totally justified in responding to any attacks in a well-targeted and similar manner.
Hamas continues to stockpile weapons and plan future attacks. Israel prefers to prevent attacks when possible, rather than respond after the fact. They have no reason whatsoever to grant a breathing space.
Furthermore, hamas would lose all their public supoport, and fatah would take over.
You really think Hamas would lose public support for killing Israelis? Palestinians have always supported continuing the killings, by wide majorities. That is the crux of the problem.

Hamas continues to stockpile weapons and plan future attacks. Israel prefers to prevent attacks when possible, rather than respond after the fact. They have no reason whatsoever to grant a breathing space.

You really think Hamas would lose public support for killing Israelis? Palestinians have always supported continuing the killings, by wide majorities. That is the crux of the problem.

Almost. The real crux of the problem is that Plan B (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56637) is an even less likely to succeed, but it's the safer option to try.

Unfortunately, the PLO/Hamas and Israel have set up a wonderful Prisoner's Dilemma between themselves, and while it's possible to get out, it's not very likely because each side has to give the other breathing room, while both sides have incentives to abuse said breathing room.

They sure don't.

Will you explain to me what in the world is "defensive" here???

Israel refuses to end the war with Palestine. Therefore, the are the agressor. The side fighting the aggressor is, historically, iknown as the defender. Any acts committed in order to deter Israeli attacks on civilians, and chocking of Palestinians, is defensive- even if also terroristic.

Launching rockets at random civilians in an Israeli town that Palestinians never lived in does nothing, nothing, nothing to "defend" any Palestinian in any way.

Hamas launches rockets at Israel, not any specific target. Unfortunately, those rockets, being unimaginably innaccurate, rarely hit anything- and even when they do hit something, it's usually a less well defended civilian.

Hamas continues to stockpile weapons and plan future attacks.

Israel continues to plan many, many more attacks, and stockpile many, many more weapons.

Israel prefers to prevent attacks when possible, rather than respond after the fact. They have no reason whatsoever to grant a breathing space.

Israel prefers to provoke attacks, so that they can retroactively justify the continued colonisation of the West Bank. If Israel acxtually wanted to prevent attacks, it would sign the Hamas ceasfire. Unfortunately, this is not what they want.

You really think Hamas would lose public support for killing Israelis? Palestinians have always supported continuing the killings, by wide majorities. That is the crux of the problem.

Hamas won the election on a peace platform. Apparently, not all Palestinians mindlessly follow you bullshit rascist stereotypes. The crux of the problem is Israeli refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank, to even acknowledge the existance of Palestinians, of Palestine as a state, hamas as an elected government, or of the right to return (otherwise known as secularism), and therefore their refusal to end the war.

Will you explain to me what in the world is "defensive" here???
Launching rockets at random civilians in an Israeli town that Palestinians never lived in does nothing, nothing, nothing to "defend" any Palestinian in any way..

Well, in response to being fired at by Hezbollah, Israel went and bombed Beirut, so I'd imagine its the same type of logic at work.

Hamas continues to stockpile weapons and plan future attacks. Israel prefers to prevent attacks when possible, rather than respond after the fact. They have no reason whatsoever to grant a breathing space...

....for fear the quiet would allow the consolidating moves on the West Bank around Arab East Jerusalem to come to the fore in the press, amongst other reasons.....

You really think Hamas would lose public support for killing Israelis? Palestinians have always supported continuing the killings, by wide majorities. That is the crux of the problem.

The crux of the problem is the attempted colonisation of the OT and the almost unilateral backing of Israel by the US since the early 70's.

I thought in order for it to be a Coup it had to be the legitimate Military of the nation.

Since Hezbollah are not the government this is an uprising\revolt.

Well, how long do you think it'll be before they're firing rockets into Israel again?

1 month? 2 months?

"Just the same old song and dance"

Uhm, no. A coup d'etat is the taking over of government by any organised political force in the country, like a party (which is what Hezbollah is). In fact, political parties are far more likely to organise coup-d'etats than militaries, because the latter are in some cases apolitical.

An uprising/revolt is a spontaneous event, with no pre-planning, and with no coherent organisation behind up to a certain time into the proceedings. It may seek to topple a government or not. It may be hijacked by a political organisation for the purposes of a coup d'etat. But in origin, it is spontaneous.

.... an Israeli town that Palestinians never lived in ....there is no such place. *all* of what is now called israel was once palestine.

Launching rockets at random civilians in an Israeli town that Palestinians never lived in does nothing, nothing, nothing to "defend" any Palestinian in any way.those "random civilians" are an occupational force that keeps palestinians from returning to their former homes and soil. the jews have been the aggressors since the beginning of the zionist movement over one hundred years ago, and as long as they do not give back what they took away from palestinian arabs they will remain being the aggressors and as such deserve to be the targets of rockets. there is no such thing as an innocent israeli, because their very existence and presence is a crime.

Since Hezbollah is the consequence of one of Israel's stupidest moves ever, I think it just proves how wrong Israel was.

Since Hezbollah is the consequence of one of Israel's stupidest moves ever, I think it just proves how wrong Israel was.
Quite. And I don't really see how the utter débâcle that is Lebanon at the moment proves anything other than that if you blow people's towns up, they'll support people that you disagree with.

And they haven't learned from the past, and keep repeating mistakes...

The other possibility is Israeli acceptance of Arabic citizenship. As Israel has occupied the occupied territories for over 40 years, surely that must lend some validity to Palestine's right to be Israel. Effectively this solution is the removal of apartheid constraints on the state of Israel. In other words, the right of return.
The only other outcome can be continuous Israeli agression, and Palestinian defence of their lives.
This statement confuses me. Israel recognizes Arab citizens and, apart from non-institutional discrimination (which I agree needs to be addressed, but it's a far cry from saying it's institutional discrimination), have all the same rights and liberties as non-Arab Israelis, minus the obligation to serve in the military. At worst, you can criticize Israel for its recent policies on gaining Israeli citizenship, which seems to target Palestinians. I agree, it needs to change and it's bullshit, but it does not remove rights from Arab citizens or change the status of their citizenship or, even, disallow Arabs citizenship, as your post seems to imply. Maybe you're talking about something else I've missed?
Well, in response to being fired at by Hezbollah, Israel went and bombed Beirut, so I'd imagine its the same type of logic at work.
If I remember correctly, Israel invaded Lebanon in "response" to two of their soldiers being taken hostage (admittedly, this was more of the straw that broke the camel's back). So there was actually potential argument for the legality of the invasion. Or were you talking about the first invasion?
there is no such place. *all* of what is now called israel was once palestine.

those "random civilians" are an occupational force that keeps palestinians from returning to their former homes and soil. the jews have been the aggressors since the beginning of the zionist movement over one hundred years ago, and as long as they do not give back what they took away from palestinian arabs they will remain being the aggressors and as such deserve to be the targets of rockets. there is no such thing as an innocent israeli, because their very existence and presence is a crime.

Explain how Israelis born in Israel have stolen land, please. I'm interested in how you can maintain a logically consistent argument based upon such a premise that does actually hinder Palestinian claims to land. I imagine you cannot, because I think you're just a troll and nothing I've seen you post leads me to believe otherwise, but I'd still be intrigued to see what the train of thought of a troll actually looks like, if such a thing can be said to exist.

This statement confuses me. Israel recognizes Arab citizens and, apart from non-institutional discrimination (which I agree needs to be addressed, but it's a far cry from saying it's institutional discrimination), have all the same rights and liberties as non-Arab Israelis, minus the obligation to serve in the military. At worst, you can criticize Israel for its recent policies on gaining Israeli citizenship, which seems to target Palestinians. I agree, it needs to change and it's bullshit, but it does not remove rights from Arab citizens or change the status of their citizenship or, even, disallow Arabs citizenship, as your post seems to imply. Maybe you're talking about something else I've missed?.

Theres institutional discrimination re housing, land, and allocation of resources.


If I remember correctly, Israel invaded Lebanon in "response" to two of their soldiers being taken hostage (admittedly, this was more of the straw that broke the camel's back). So there was actually potential argument for the legality of the invasion. Or were you talking about the first invasion?.

I never mentioned legality. I'm pointing out that attacks by Hezbollah in the South provoked widespread attacks all over lebanon by Israel, frequently targetting those with no affiliation or direct linkage with Hezbollah or its actions.

there is no such place. *all* of what is now called israel was once palestine.

This is a slippery slope because if you go that route, you essentially place the human race into the fiery kettle which you are condemning.

those "random civilians" are an occupational force that keeps palestinians from returning to their former homes and soil. the jews have been the aggressors since the beginning of the zionist movement over one hundred years ago, and as long as they do not give back what they took away from palestinian arabs they will remain being the aggressors and as such deserve to be the targets of rockets. there is no such thing as an innocent israeli, because their very existence and presence is a crime.

So what are you and others like you doing to eliminate the existence of the Israeli? Or is this just hypocritical lip flapping without substance?

Theres institutional discrimination re housing, land, and allocation of resources.
Are you saying that Arab Israelis are specifically barred from certain areas simply for being Israeli? Like I said, I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination against Arab Israelis and that it isn't a major problem; I am saying, however, that there is no explicit policy that places Arab Israelis as "lesser citizens" than their non-Arab counterparts.
I never mentioned legality. I'm pointing out that attacks by Hezbollah in the South provoked widespread attacks all over lebanon by Israel, frequently targetting those with no affiliation or direct linkage with Hezbollah or its actions.

Ah...in that case I agree. The Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah attacks were, at best, misguided, regardless of legality and, at worst, bordering war crimes in terms of attacking infrastructure and non-military assets. But I do think this needs to be kept in the context of Hezbollah's definite illegal activity in terms of locating their own armaments and the nature of their attacks themselves.

My main issue in these threads is that both sides often decontextualize the other sides' actions, intentionally or unintentionally, and create this "us or them" atmosphere that isn't helpful to progress, at all.

Are you saying that Arab Israelis are specifically barred from certain areas simply for being Israeli? Like I said, I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination against Arab Israelis and that it isn't a major problem; I am saying, however, that there is no explicit policy that places Arab Israelis as "lesser citizens" than their non-Arab counterparts.


There is no law that designates Arab citizens as "lesser", though there are laws which seem to most certainly designate them as "other" - compensation for deaths by terrorism, for instance. There is however systematic discrimination by the state on an institutional level, with the result effects on the target populace.

This statement confuses me. Israel recognizes Arab citizens and, apart from non-institutional discrimination (which I agree needs to be addressed, but it's a far cry from saying it's institutional discrimination), have all the same rights and liberties as non-Arab Israelis, minus the obligation to serve in the military. At worst, you can criticize Israel for its recent policies on gaining Israeli citizenship, which seems to target Palestinians. I agree, it needs to change and it's bullshit, but it does not remove rights from Arab citizens or change the status of their citizenship or, even, disallow Arabs citizenship, as your post seems to imply. Maybe you're talking about something else I've missed?

Palestinians in the West Bank do not get a vote. Israelis in the West Bank do. Arabs do not have a right of return (even to the point of making marriage not allow that right) Jews do. Jews are required for military service. Arabs aren't. Ect, ect, ect.

If I remember correctly, Israel invaded Lebanon in "response" to two of their soldiers being taken hostage (admittedly, this was more of the straw that broke the camel's back). So there was actually potential argument for the legality of the invasion. Or were you talking about the first invasion?

Israel provoked Lebanon into defending itself, and then used Lebanese defence as an excuse to invade. Israel, for instance, shelled a public beach killing some civilians (a much worse crime that killing soldiers) a few weeks earlier, and has about 1000 kidnapped Lebanes in kail in Israel- a much worse crime than capturing 2 IDF soldiers.

I would suggest that the current situation is signifantly a result of Israel's previous agression- not a vindication of it. Had Israel not have absolutely hammered this prospering and growing regional pro-west tourist destination into a destabilised shithole again, then it is unlikely the various militant factions would be marching through the streets trying to pick up the pieces in the name of their respective causes.

By shattering the stability of the co-operative lebanese government, they literally handed Lebanon to the extremist factions of a populist silver platter. Israel taught the people of Lebanon what co-operation affords them. What excuse do they have to listen to the moderates anymore?

Lebabnon will be swept up in a very very negative political influence with thunderous applause, methinks.

Palestinians in the West Bank do not get a vote. Israelis in the West Bank do. Arabs do not have a right of return (even to the point of making marriage not allow that right) Jews do. Jews are required for military service. Arabs aren't. Ect, ect, ect.
I mentioned the latter two issues, however keep in mind that not only is the Arab marriage issue a recent thing, it also has an age cap; it is still inexcusable. The West Bank isn't a part of Israel proper, though, so it makes sense that Palestinians there would not receive the right to vote and those Israelis residing there still would (absentee voting, etc.). This does bring up the issue of settlements, though, which is entirely different than West Bank Arabs (and by Arabs, it is meant non-Israeli Palestinians, not actual Arab Israelis) being disallowed from voting.

As to the last issue: Arab Israelis are most definitely allowed to join the military should they wish, it is simply not obligatory, as it is for non-Arab Israelis. But, I agree, as Israeli citizens, Arabs or not, they should be obligated to fulfill the same citizen obligations as others.
Israel provoked Lebanon into defending itself, and then used Lebanese defence as an excuse to invade. Israel, for instance, shelled a public beach killing some civilians (a much worse crime that killing soldiers) a few weeks earlier, and has about 1000 kidnapped Lebanes in kail in Israel- a much worse crime than capturing 2 IDF soldiers.

Sources and context? I'm not saying you're lying or are wrong, I've just never heard of this.

Clearly the best solution is to simply kill all of the Jews and be done with it. That'd solve the problem once and for all.

Candy? For breakfast?!

Also, in b4 shitstorm, cocks, etc.

Clearly the best solution is to simply kill all of the Jews and be done with it. That'd solve the problem once and for all.

Godwin's law.
/thread.

Clearly the best solution is to simply kill all of the Jews and be done with it. That'd solve the problem once and for all.

Although that would be a certain end (if an almost impossible goal) to a serious problem, it would also necessitate both genocide and mass-murder, which aren't such good things.

Plus- Godwin.

Although that would be a certain end (if an almost impossible goal) to a serious problem, it would also necessitate both genocide and mass-murder, which aren't such good things.

Plus- Godwin.

That logic only works if you consider Jews to be people rather than vermin.

That logic only works if you consider Jews to be people rather than vermin.

Heey everyone, we've got a visitor from Stormfront!

Heey everyone, we've got a visitor from Stormfront!

Not for long. I'm sure the mods will take care of the infestation shortly.

Heey everyone, we've got a visitor from Stormfront!

I sincerely doubt that anyone that painfully not-subtle would be an actual stormer.

That logic only works if you consider Jews to be people rather than vermin.

Not really- you cannot argue that mass genocide of all Jews around the world would not end the Israeli (hence, mostly Jewish) occupation of the West Bank. While this is an admirable goal, the Stormfront Solution (Stormfronters being the only 'people' to support neither side in this war) would necessitate bad things happening, like mass-murder and genocide.

Israelis can be both people and a problem under this logic- and in fact the second half of the argument specifically states that the 'Solution' wouldn't work, as the Israelis are people and therefore have the same rights as the Palestinians.

Not really- you cannot argue that mass genocide of all Jews around the world would not end the Israeli (hence, mostly Jewish) occupation of the West Bank. While this is an admirable goal, the Stormfront Solution (Stormfronters being the only 'people' to support neither side in this war) would necessitate bad things happening, like mass-murder and genocide.

Israelis can be both people and a problem under this logic- and in fact the second half of the argument specifically states that the 'Solution' wouldn't work, as the Israelis are people and therefore have the same rights as the Palestinians.

The Palestinians didn't kill Jesus.

By shattering the stability of the co-operative lebanese government, they literally handed Lebanon to the extremist factions of a populist silver platter. Israel taught the people of Lebanon what co-operation affords them. What excuse do they have to listen to the moderates anymore?

Lebabnon will be swept up in a very very negative political influence with thunderous applause, methinks.

Especially the hardliners, Israeli and their supporters, who will beat the drum of war while proclaiming how "right" they were.

It's really a vulture's paradise, this particular mess. Israeli hardliners and politicians will beat the drums of war to distract the populace while sucking as much money as they can, while the insurgent groups in their crosshairs will use the opportunity to gain as much support and influence as they can get that Israeli attacks will give them.

The Palestinians didn't kill Jesus.

Excuse me Mister Gibson, Jesus was a Jew.

The Palestinians didn't kill Jesus.

We know, the romans killed jesus.

...the Israelis are people and therefore have the same rights as the Palestinians.which means no rights?

The Palestinians didn't kill Jesus.

Sorry, I was under the impression that Jesus' death was somewhat required for this whole salvation thing. You know, all the "He died in our place" stuff. But never mind, you obviously have a very different view of Christianity to me.

The army has moved in:

Lebanese troops have deployed in the northern city of Tripoli to end fierce fighting between Hezbollah sympathisers and supporters of the government.

Thousands fled their homes as several people were reportedly killed in heavy exchanges of machine gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Meanwhile, an uneasy calm has descended on Beirut, after four days of running street battles left 38 people dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7394395.stm


Clearly the best solution is to simply kill all of the Jews and be done with it. That'd solve the problem once and for all.
No.

That logic only works if you consider Jews to be people rather than vermin.
Which is the only logic to use.


...except by trolls, of course.

which means no rights?

Depends on who you ask. The Israeli government/elite say that people have the right to consume their products at high prices and little else, Amnesty International says the UN Declaration of Human Rights lists some of the rights everyone is entitled, and Hamas says anything the Israelis get, the Palestinians should too.

Hamas says anything the Israelis get, the Palestinians should too.
No, what Hamas says is that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world.

No, what Hamas says is that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world.

Really? Where?

What, that's IT ?

U.B., face still blue and mouth agape, leaves?

LOL, the trolls around here aren't getting enough aerobic exercise! No tone. No endurance. On life-support!

The thought occurs: Trolls here, by their blue complexion, are oxygen starved. However, they are still alive, so must be using anaerobic respiration. Gordelpus should they discover the more efficient, aerobic form of energy generation...

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

No, what Hamas says is that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world.Given what Jews did to Palestine and its population in the last 100+ years, and why, that's a justifiable position.

Lebanon's civil war is probably not going to end anytime soon...

Given what Jews did to Palestine and its population in the last 100+ years, and why, that's a justifiable position.

:confused:

Take a breath. Think about "utter and complete annihilation." That means killing (not exiling, not re-educating, not beating up and taking the property of, but deliberately killing to get rid of) millions of people.

Now, what would make that "a justifiable position"?

Now, what would make that "a justifiable position"?

Racism and bigotry.

Which is pretty much all UB brings to the table.

Clearly the best solution is to simply kill all of the Jews and be done with it. That'd solve the problem once and for all.

What about the Christians who live in Israel? Wanna kill them too?

=============

Godwin's law.
/thread.

/[/thread]

Godwin's does not apply when it's deliberate. YOU implied that BS was 'like Hitler or the Nazis' and then claimed a thread end. That fails.

Right. Just keep telling yourself that.

Telling ourselfs what? That this article does not say what you think it says?


All right.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/09/beirut.violence/index.html



Yeah, innocent victims, they are. No terrorism or Islamic extremism there. :rolleyes:

Yeah, and? The Israelis are guilty of just as many crimes. Read up on the Zionist nationalist organizations in 1944 and what they did and Israel starts looking more like Hezbollah.

Yeah, and? The Israelis are guilty of just as many crimes. Read up on the Zionist nationalist organizations in 1944 and what they did and Israel starts looking more like Hezbollah.

Of course the difference is that Israel is financed and protected by the United States so they're "The Good Guys" while the Palestinians are just "Mor Ebil Moslemz".

Now for all you Israel haters out there, here's a small bit of historical trivia that might offer you some hope. Most regimes that have been propped up and supported by the United States inevitably came to an end. Ngo Dinh Diem, The Shah, Gus Pinochet, Fred Marcos, and Saddam Hussein. Pervy Musharraf isn't looking too far from the pit either.

Racism and bigotry.Racism and bigotry is the basis of Judaism and Jewishness, and it is what Israel is founded on. Take away their invented god and all justification of their existence as a distinct group, or even nation, crumbles. Zionism is a form of racism, and the ideology of racial superiority through divine selection is the sole reason why Jews wanted to own the land between the Jordan and the sea, regardless who was already living there. Judaism has been unenlightened ideological dirt since ancient times, and those who adhere to it or derive their identity from it will never be regarded by me as full humans, as they fail to meet the second part of the designation of the human species homo sapiens.
To forcefully create and maintain a state within the living space of another people based on some dubious ancient claim is a crime of incomprehensible viciousness and deserves only the punishment of destruction. The crimes of Israel - including their ideology - exceed by far anything that Hezbollah or any other Arab organization could have ever done.

I got to say I side with the jews on this. They were largely buying the land until they were attacked.

No, what Hamas says is that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world.

Rather than trying to read minds via standard ISP, I'd think we should look at the acts committed by Hamas, and the political positions taken by Hamas; which don't really support that hypothesis.

Racism and bigotry is the basis of Judaism and Jewishness, and it is what Israel is founded on. Take away their invented god and all justification of their existence as a distinct group, or even nation, crumbles. Zionism is a form of racism, and the ideology of racial superiority through divine selection is the sole reason why Jews wanted to own the land between the Jordan and the sea, regardless who was already living there. Judaism has been unenlightened ideological dirt since ancient times, and those who adhere to it or derive their identity from it will never be regarded by me as full humans, as they fail to meet the second part of the designation of the human species homo sapiens.
To forcefully create and maintain a state within the living space of another people based on some dubious ancient claim is a crime of incomprehensible viciousness and deserves only the punishment of destruction. The crimes of Israel - including their ideology - exceed by far anything that Hezbollah or any other Arab organization could have ever done.

Kind of.

Wanting to go to Israel because it was the 'home of the Jews' is, IMO, anti-sematic and totally unnecissary. However, wanting to make somewhere actually safe for Jews (even America was not fully free of ethnic violence) is a perfectly acceptable, even laudable goal.

However, to insist that that this 'safe land' had to be free of uncleanliness like Palestinians, or that Arabs already had several states and therefore needed no other land (like Germany has Belgium and Austria and Belorussia, and therefore can be happily occupied by the Lebanese) is idiotic and hateful at best, and ethnic cleansing at worst. Israel should be a state of Jews, not a Jewish state- it should be totally secular and wonderful, but full of people of Jewish persuasion. It currently isn't.

On the other hand, exectuing all Jews, entirely based on acts committed by others, and perhaps not even supported by them, is at best counter-productive. At worst, it is deliberate mass-murder and genocide, and all sorts of other bad stuff.

Racism and bigotry is the basis of Judaism and Jewishness,

Behold, bollocksology, complete and undiluted.

I got to say I side with the jews on this. They were largely buying the land until they were attacked.They bought only 8%. But they set up militias to terrorize the natives. That aggression was the reason for the UN to come up with a division plan in the first place.
The basic point is that if Jews had wanted a state for themselves they could have had it elsewhere, and not in an already populated area. But Jews refused all offers and stuck to their ideology. These Jews are to blame for all the wars and atrocities that happened in and around Palestine since then. And their guilt is collective because the children have continued the crimes of the parents, and they don't even understand why the existence of Israel is wrong.

Behold, bollocksology, complete and undiluted.
Just read the Tanakh and you will see I am right. And then look at the history of Palestine in the past 100+ years.
And unlike you I am not ready to make concessions to murderers and ethnic cleansers. You condemn the building of new settlements in the West Bank but you are not ready to ask these Jews to leave or even make them leave. Love-your-enemy, huh?

They bought only 8%. But they set up militias to terrorize the natives. That aggression was the reason for the UN to come up with a division plan in the first place.
The basic point is that if Jews had wanted a state for themselves they could have had it elsewhere, and not in an already populated area. But Jews refused all offers and stuck to their ideology. These Jews are to blame for all the wars and atrocities that happened in and around Palestine since then. And their guilt is collective because the children have continued the crimes of the parents, and they don't even understand why the existence of Israel is wrong.

thats only if you measure it by the entire British mandate of Palestine.

Look at just Israel and Palestine it is closer to 20%. factor out the west bank and Gaza and the number is about 30% with roughly the remaining 30% being public or unowned/public land, which the Jews would have bought except selling land from state/former state structures (used to be Ottoman) was outlawed in the mid 20's and the request of the Arabs.

Just read the Tanakh and you will see I am right. And then look at the history of Palestine in the past 100+ years.
And unlike you I am not ready to make concessions to murderers and ethnic cleansers..

Jew baiting, anti-semetic, cliched, dull, useless shite, which undermines the validity of the Palestinian cause. People dedicate their whole lives , often literally, and its often tarnished because some keyboard Jew-baiter can't wait to latch on to it like some sort of diseased parasite and spread their slime about the place. As I've said on numerous occassions, you have nothing to contribute to these discussions, except acting as propoganda for the other side of the debate.


You condemn the building of new settlements in the West Bank but you are not ready to ask these Jews to leave or even make them leave.

I support military action to end settlement building, settlements and all things connected. Who is or is not a Jew is irrelevant. Deeds are.

I see you hurling vitriol and insults.

Sounds to me like you have nothing to contribute beyond venom at people who don't support your unflinching support for the oppression of Palestinians.

Also, he cant be supporting the Palestinians and be anti-Semitic, it isnt possible.
Since Palestinians are themselves Semites, the Zionists of Israel do not hold a monopoly on an Ethnicity.
While I cant comment on his personal beliefs, I can say that not supporting Israel, even to the degree of not supporting its legitimacy as a nation doesnt make you anti-semitic or anti-Judaic, it makes you anti-Israel. Plenty of Jews are not Israeli, and do not support the actions of an oppressive State in their religion's name.

And unlike you I am not ready to make concessions to murderers and ethnic cleansers.


No, what Hamas says is that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world.

Given what Jews did to Palestine and its population in the last 100+ years, and why, that's a justifiable position.


You propose your own death?

Rather than trying to read minds via standard ISP

Hey, what's wrong with Internet Sensory Perception?

Works OK for me, anyway ...

I support military action to end settlement building, settlements and all things connected. Who is or is not a Jew is irrelevant. Deeds are.These deeds are committed by Jews, and these Jews commit these deeds because of Judaism and Jewishness. Settlements are built because of the Jewish ideology of being the chosen seed of Yhvh who by alleged divine decree are the rightful owners of Palestine, and the settlements are supported because of that. Israel exists because of that. The construction of new Jewish settlements is funded by all of Israel, not just the settlers. And at the same time Palestinian houses are bulldozed and a apartheid wall/fence is erected by Israel. Israel refuses the return of Palestinian refugees out of the camps around Palestine. Israel is a selfrighteous racist shithole that lacks every justification of existence. And the root of the evilness of Israel is Zionism, and ultimately Judaism. You know the history.

These deeds are committed by Jews, and these Jews commit these deeds because of Judaism and Jewishness. .

In which case why do not all practicing Jews back these actions? As they don't, the two cannot be directly linked, if at all. Therefore I reiterate my remarks about you having nothing to contribute to the discussion, save jew-baiting and anti-semitism, all of which we could do well without. Please find another cause to clamp on to. This one is far too serious to be degraded by your vile nonsense.

In which case why do not all practicing Jews back these actions?...That has nothing to do with the fact that those who commit those crimes are Jews and do it because of Judaism and its ideology of racial superiority. Whether other Jews back that or not does not change the fact. I have not heard of any Jew who admits that the existence of Israel is a mistake. Judaism and the attitude of Jewishness deriving from it are the root of the Palestinian Arabs problems and *you* know that very very well. What other reason do you know that makes Jews build new settlements except the claim that they have a divine right to do? What made Jews come to Palestine in the first place and claim the land for themselves, no matter who lived there at the time? It was their religion and the "values" this religion conveys. This is not the first time that a group naming itself Israel drenches this land blood.
And stop using the term anti-semitism as if it meant something bad.

Rather than trying to read minds via standard ISP, I'd think we should look at the acts committed by Hamas, and the political positions taken by Hamas; which don't really support that hypothesis.

This is their official policy statement, to kill Jews "until that day when the last of the Jews hide behind trees, crying, 'O trees! Protect us!' but the trees will cry out 'Ho, Muslims! Look, here is a Jew! Come and slay him!' except for the Zamzam tree, which is a Jewish tree." They are not any more subtle or coy about it than Bryn Shander or Beleriand. They are quite explicit that the only reason they would consider a temporary "truce" is to improve their position for a better chance to exterminate the Jews.

You pretend that their acts of murder are "defensive" or "deterrent"; those are actually two quite different things, but that scarcely matters since Hamas never acts with either a "defensive" or a "deterrent" purpose. To be "defensive", an act would have to lessen the ability of the Israelis to do harm to Palestinians, but launching at a town to kill random inhabitants does not serve any such purpose; to be "deterrent", an act would have to lessen the willingness of Israelis to do Palestinians harm, but quite the opposite is accomplished. Ending the occupation of Lebanon only caused an acceleration of the rocket launches from there; removing all settlements from Gaza and some from the West Bank likewise caused an acceleration of rocket launches, so what Israelis have been "deterred" from is considering any further removal of settlements.
On the other hand, exectuing all Jews, entirely based on acts committed by others, and perhaps not even supported by them, is at best counter-productive. At worst, it is deliberate mass-murder and genocide, and all sorts of other bad stuff.
Quite so. That is who you are supporting.

This is their official policy statement, to kill Jews "until that day when the last of the Jews hide behind trees, crying, 'O trees! Protect us!' but the trees will cry out 'Ho, Muslims! Look, here is a Jew! Come and slay him!' except for the Zamzam tree, which is a Jewish tree."

Thats a quote from the Koran thats included in their charter. There is no preamble immediately before that quote similar to the one you imply above.

I ask you to provide a quote where they specifically say - as you put it - " that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world."

That has nothing to do with the fact that those who commit those crimes are Jews and do it because of Judaism and its ideology of racial superiority.

Who says thats the correct interpretation of Judaism? You? Are you a Rabbi that now adjudges such things? The majority of Jews disagree with you, Rabbi UB. Again - you dishonour an honourable cause. Every good and noble effort towards it is made less by your filth and lies. You are as much a barrier to progress as the staunchest pro-expansionist zealot.


Judaism and the attitude of Jewishness deriving from it are the root of the Palestinian Arabs problems

Prove it, addressing the anti-settlement attitude in the Jewish disaspora and within Israel in your answer.

Who says thats the correct interpretation of Judaism? You? Are you a Rabbi that now adjudges such things? The majority of Jews disagree with you, Rabbi UB. Again - you dishonour an honourable cause. Every good and noble effort towards it is made less by your filth and lies. You are as much a barrier to progress as the staunchest pro-expansionist zealot.There is no interpretation needed. The Tanakh is pretty clear. And show me a Jew who rejects the Tanakh.

Prove it, addressing the anti-settlement attitude in the Jewish disaspora and within Israel in your answer.Zionism was/is a Jewish movement. It was the Zionist Federation including Rothschild that the criminal retard Balfour made his declaration to and that started the calamity that Palestinians Arabs are trapped in until today.
And there is no anti-Israel attitude in the Jewish diaspora and within Israel.

And the insult goes on......

There is no interpretation needed. The Tanakh is pretty clear. And show me a Jew who rejects the Tanakh..

Not an answer, in that there are Jews who accept the Tanakh and don't as you describe. I was quite specific in asking that you explain those who disagree with Israels policy. Why have you dodged doing so Rabbi?


Zionism was/is a Jewish movement.

There are criminal gangs composed entirely of one group, such as Irish/Italians/Hispanics. Why do you not extend the same all encompassing standard re them?

Thats a quote from the Koran thats included in their charter.
I don't believe it is from the Qur'an-- not that I have the Qur'an memorized, but if it were, I'm sure it would be prominent in all the lists of out-of-context Qur'an quotes that are found on the ZOMG MUZLIMS ARE TEH EBIL!!11!! sites.

It may have an earlier source, but in context it is a quote from 1930's "National Socialist" propaganda, emphasizing that Hamas is an institutional continuation of Izadin Qassem's Ikhwan and other explicitly Nazi organizations.
There is no preamble immediately before that quote similar to the one you imply above.
What do you mean? It is, as you say, their "charter", their official pronouncement of their policy aims and reason for existing at all.
I ask you to provide a quote where they specifically say - as you put it - " that Israelis should get absolute and complete annihiliation, along with all other Jews in the world."
I don't know how much more specific you would like them to get. The quote I supplied indicates that they want to keep killing Jews until they are down to the last handful.

I don't believe it is from the Qur'an-- not that I have the Qur'an memorized, but if it were, I'm sure it would be prominent in all the lists of out-of-context Qur'an quotes that are found on the ZOMG MUZLIMS ARE TEH EBIL!!11!! sites..

It appears you are correct. It is however a Hadith.. The question therefore changes to whether or not muslims who accept that Hadith read it to mean they must "keep killing Jews until they are down to the last handful. "etc.


It may have an (....) Nazi organizations.
..

They do not identify themselves as a "Nazi" organisation. Thats a label thats been applied to them, but not one they apply to themselves. One would not get that impression from the way you phrased that statement, however.


What do you mean? It is, as you say, their "charter", their official pronouncement of their policy aims and reason for existing at all...

Ok. So presumably you'll give equal weight to "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other." as thats in there too....


I don't know how much more specific you would like them to get. The quote I supplied indicates that they want to keep killing Jews until they are down to the last handful.

As its religous gibberish I've no idea what it means. However as its a Hadith, you'll have to explain to me why other muslims don't read it as some genocidal imperative, and why an apparent contradiction to your interpretation exists in the same document.

That has nothing to do with the fact that those who commit those crimes are Jews and do it because of Judaism and its ideology of racial superiority. Whether other Jews back that or not does not change the fact. I have not heard of any Jew who admits that the existence of Israel is a mistake. Judaism and the attitude of Jewishness deriving from it are the root of the Palestinian Arabs problems and *you* know that very very well. What other reason do you know that makes Jews build new settlements except the claim that they have a divine right to do? What made Jews come to Palestine in the first place and claim the land for themselves, no matter who lived there at the time? It was their religion and the "values" this religion conveys. This is not the first time that a group naming itself Israel drenches this land blood.
And stop using the term anti-semitism as if it meant something bad.


And what would you advocate then? Drive Israel into the sea? Another holocaust? Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. More Jews were forced from Arab nations than Palestinians have been forced from Israel. The idea of Palestine as a distinct Arab state only came into being in the middle of the 20th century. There is already a Palestinian state, Jordan, and there are dozens of Arab states. Had these states recognised the actions of the UN during their partition plan in 1947, rather than deciding to DRIVE ISRAEL INTO THE SEA, there would be none of this stateless Palestinian problem, but instead they chose your path of complete ignorance, you are an Anti-Semite. And as for your remarks that it is "Judaism" as a religion which fuels the settlements, you are sorely mistaken. It is extreme Judaism which drives this, just as another branch of extreme Judaism advocates the destruction of Israel as do you. Jews were driven to return to Israel, their biblical homeland because of the persecutions put on them by your own western people, (As an Irishman our nation has little history of any anti-semitism so i'm excluded from this).

So please tell me, what would you do with the people of Israel then?

It appears you are correct. It is however a Hadith..
There are all kinds of "Hadiths". Is this one from one of the early medieval sources, or is it one that was invented recently, say, during the 1930's?
The question therefore changes to whether or not muslims who accept that Hadith read it to mean they must "keep killing Jews until they are down to the last handful. "etc.
I do not see another reading. Just how explicit does a statement need to be before you take its words at their plain meaning?

They do not identify themselves as a "Nazi" organisation. Thats a label thats been applied to them, but not one they apply to themselves. One would not get that impression from the way you phrased that statement, however.
I did not say that Hamas comes right out and calls themselves "Nazi", which would not be politically expedient post-1945.

The way I phrased it was that Izeddin Qassem's Ikhwan was "explicitly" a Nazi organization (the "Arab wing of the National Socialist movement", as they put it themselves; of course they endorsed the extermination of the Jews, along with more mainstream Palestinian leaders like the Grand Mufti), and that Hamas emphasizes that they are the institutional continuation of the Ikhwan and allied movements (their claim to continuity is weak, since old-timers like Sheikh Yassin were not particularly active between 1948 and the promulgation of the Hamas Charter in 1978, but they do deliberately hark back to the thirties; my point is not endorse their claims to institutional continuity, but to emphasize that this is where they draw their inspiration).


Ok. So presumably you'll give equal weight to "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other." as thats in there too....
I will have to look for that. I do not know that quote (I am not disputing you, just saying I have not heard that) and need to see in full what it says.
As its religous gibberish I've no idea what it means.
??? It is not particularly difficult to read. And it is not like Hamas makes any secret of their intentions. They launch rockets to kill whatever Jews are within reach.
However as its a Hadith, you'll have to explain to me why other muslims don't read it as some genocidal imperative, and why an apparent contradiction to your interpretation exists in the same document.
The authenticity of "Hadiths" are frequently disputed. I don't know whether any Muslims besides Hamas accept this particular Hadith, and I certainly don't know of any who accept it and somehow manage to give it a non-genocidal spin, which would seem very difficult to do.

So please tell me, what would you do with the people of Israel then?

I'll take em. Put them on the border to stop the "ebil messican invasion!!!1"

There are all kinds of "Hadiths". Is this one from one of the early medieval sources, or is it one that was invented recently, say, during the 1930's?.

Unlike others, I don't pretend to be a religous scholar.


I do not see another reading. Just how explicit does a statement need to be before you take its words at their plain meaning??.

You don't. However as its contradicted within the same text its meaning is therefore not that plain, is it?


I did not say that Hamas comes right out and calls themselves "Nazi", which would not be politically expedient post-1945..

Its the implication that they are trying to identify with same....even though contextually they reject both secuarlism and nazism.....



The authenticity of "Hadiths" are frequently disputed. I don't know whether any Muslims besides Hamas accept this particular Hadith, and I certainly don't know of any who accept it and somehow manage to give it a non-genocidal spin, which would seem very difficult to do.

Yet theres a line there later on which clearly
indicates the contrary. Normally seeming contradictions would give one pause before making such damning claims.

. The idea of Palestine as a distinct Arab state only came into being in the middle of the 20th century.

1911-23 is hardly the middle of the 20th century. Nor was I aware that the antiquity of a claim is an indication of its validity.

.
There is already a Palestinian state, Jordan, ?

Why does the CIA factbook entry relating to Jordan distinguish betwen Jordanians and Palestinians then?

.
Jews were driven to return to Israel, their biblical homeland because of the persecutions put on them by your own western people, (As an Irishman our nation has little history of any anti-semitism so i'm excluded from this).?

...because there were few Jews to take it out on. However where there were (Limerick in the early 1900's) there was indeed anti-semitism and riots. You are aware of the various speeches in the dail against the acceptance of Jewish refugees, the prepartion of lists to hand over to the Germans, should they invade....?

This is their official policy statement, to kill Jews "until that day when the last of the Jews hide behind trees, crying, 'O trees! Protect us!' but the trees will cry out 'Ho, Muslims! Look, here is a Jew! Come and slay him!' except for the Zamzam tree, which is a Jewish tree." They are not any more subtle or coy about it than Bryn Shander or Beleriand.

It's quite true that their Covenant (or Charter if you like) states that.

And the US declaration of independence states that 'all men are created equal' which has not been US policy ever.

They are quite explicit that the only reason they would consider a temporary "truce" is to improve their position for a better chance to exterminate the Jews.

Depends how you define 'Jews'. If you define them as the post 1967 border, that it certainly true.
Anything else is a lie.

Let's assume Hamas was only asking for a truce so that it could stockpile weapons (all in one place, hopefully). If it did break that truce, not only would that destroy what little international support for that organisation there is, it would also destroy all domestic voters, who elected them on the promise of at least trying to get peace. It would also absolve Israel the blame which they are so surely owed at the moment for the war. For this, an organisation that is almost defenceless would be slightly less defenceless and still facing the fourth best army in the world.

You pretend that their acts of murder are "defensive" or "deterrent"; those are actually two quite different things, but that scarcely matters since Hamas never acts with either a "defensive" or a "deterrent" purpose. To be "defensive", an act would have to lessen the ability of the Israelis to do harm to Palestinians, but launching at a town to kill random inhabitants does not serve any such purpose; to be "deterrent", an act would have to lessen the willingness of Israelis to do Palestinians harm, but quite the opposite is accomplished. Ending the occupation of Lebanon only caused an acceleration of the rocket launches from there; removing all settlements from Gaza and some from the West Bank likewise caused an acceleration of rocket launches, so what Israelis have been "deterred" from is considering any further removal of settlements.

Hamas realises that they cannot possibly have enough firepower to defend themselves, or to deter Israeli terrorism, hence why they ran on a peace platform in 2006 (the election that Israel would have you believe never happened) and are now calling for a truce and ceasefire, followed by negotiations to the effect of the return of Palestinian land, and the creation of Palestine.

Until that time, Hamas has been quite pleased by the successful defence of Lebanese land in 2006, using exactly the same methods Hamas uses today.

And what would you advocate then? Drive Israel into the sea? Another holocaust? Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. More Jews were forced from Arab nations than Palestinians have been forced from Israel. The idea of Palestine as a distinct Arab state only came into being in the middle of the 20th century. There is already a Palestinian state, Jordan, and there are dozens of Arab states. Had these states recognised the actions of the UN during their partition plan in 1947, rather than deciding to DRIVE ISRAEL INTO THE SEA, there would be none of this stateless Palestinian problem, but instead they chose your path of complete ignorance, you are an Anti-Semite. And as for your remarks that it is "Judaism" as a religion which fuels the settlements, you are sorely mistaken. It is extreme Judaism which drives this, just as another branch of extreme Judaism advocates the destruction of Israel as do you. Jews were driven to return to Israel, their biblical homeland because of the persecutions put on them by your own western people, (As an Irishman our nation has little history of any anti-semitism so i'm excluded from this).

So please tell me, what would you do with the people of Israel then?

Where were Israel and its "people" in 1916 ? The Palestinian Arabs were in Palestine, but where were the Jews? Exactly, they were in Europe, while Arabs lived in Palestine. Israel is an artificial creation, while the actual inhabitants of Palestine after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire were very real.
Palestine is not the homeland of Jews, it is the homeland of Arabs, namely Palestinians.

Where were Israel and its "people" in 1916 ? The Palestinian Arabs were in Palestine, but where were the Jews? Exactly, they were in Europe, while Arabs lived in Palestine. Israel is an artificial creation, while the actual inhabitants of Palestine after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire were very real.
Palestine is not the homeland of Jews, it is the homeland of Arabs, namely Palestinians.

Look, let's just take the Palestinian babies, turn them into Jewbies, and the matter will settle itself.

Where .(......)Palestinians.

There were no Jews in Palestine in 1916?

Like I said, nothing to contribute except shame.

There were no Jews in Palestine in 1916?

Like I said, nothing to contribute except shame.

Those few Jews in Palestine at that time were Shatner type jews, not the really observant, don't operate light switches on Osh Koshbghosha kind of jews.

A narrow distinction, but a vital one.

Those few Jews in Palestine at that time were Shatner type jews, not the really observant, don't operate light switches on Osh Koshbghosha kind of jews.

A narrow distinction, but a vital one.

William Shatner is Jewish? I always thought he was Canadian......

William Shatner is Jewish? I always thought he was Canadian......

He is, he's a cashew.

(As an Irishman our nation has little history of any anti-semitism so i'm excluded from this).

Because the number of Jews in Ireland was so tiny rather than any superiority of the Irish.

William Shatner is Jewish? I always thought he was Canadian......So even you think that religion determines nationality?

So even you think that religion determines nationality?

No, 'even' I have a sense of humour.

You still haven't remarked on whether or not there were Jews in Palestine in 1916.

You still haven't explained the discrepancy between the actions of many practicing Jews and your description of Jews and Judaism.

You still haven't explained why you blame all Jews for the ills of zionism, yet fail to (for example) blame all Italians for the Mafia.

Where were Israel and its "people" in 1916 ? The Palestinian Arabs were in Palestine, but where were the Jews? Exactly, they were in Europe, while Arabs lived in Palestine. Israel is an artificial creation, while the actual inhabitants of Palestine after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire were very real.
Palestine is not the homeland of Jews, it is the homeland of Arabs, namely Palestinians.

Yet again you've dodged the question I asked. What then would you do with the Jews/Israelis currently living in "Palestine"? And the Jews were not just in Europe but spread across the middle east aswell, where they were eventually persecuted and forced to leave FOR ISRAEL, just as Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave for other arab nations. And I think you'll find the homeland of the Arabs is Arabia, a little to the south east of Israel.

. And I think you'll find the homeland of the Arabs is Arabia, a little to the south east of Israel.


The "Homeland" for Europeans is Europe, yet you'd find the French, Dutch and Germans do care to make the distinction over which precise part of it is their "homeland".

Weren't you already asked to explain why theres a differentiation between Jordanians and Palestinians?

Unlike others, I don't pretend to be a religous scholar.
As I have said before on other threads, I know a lot of Hebrew, a little Greek, and zero Arabic (I have tried studying the language but it defeated me). I know Jewish and Christian history in detail, but not much about Islamic history, which interests me far less. I told you "I don't know" about the provenance of this particular Hadith, and a claim by Hamas that it is a genuine Hadith carries little weight when, after all, they take for granted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a genuine text.

It ought to be up to you to research it, when your claims rely on a presumption that it is accepted by other Muslims, and given some non-genocidal spin. However, I did a quick search for other Muslim sources that accept this Hadith, for example
Signs of the End Times (http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/Majorsigns.html#battle)
Here, the Jews will follow the "Dajjal" (Antichrist) and the hunting down of the Jews (the "Jewish" Gharkam tree, not Zamzum as I mis-remembered it before, is translated as "boxthorn") will occur when Prophet Isa (Jesus) destroys him and them together; no Jews will survive except those who accept Islam.
I do not see that this helps your case.
You don't. However as its contradicted within the same text its meaning is therefore not that plain, is it?
You made me read through that ugly and painful Charter, to find your quote in section 31. The section is describing how "All peoples have the duty to recognize the supremacy of Islam in this region." Jews and Christians who accept dhimmitude, and do not expect to be treated as citizens or think that they have any right to be in the land save insofar as Muslims permit it, will be spared and "protected". But this is an admonition, not a prediction: it seems clearly expected that few, or no, Jews would actually accept this.
Its the implication that they are trying to identify with same....even though contextually they reject both secuarlism and nazism.....
They constantly fling the term "Nazi" at the other side, but themselves actively identify with those who WERE on the Nazi side; this is just dishonesty about the history. Contextually, they accept all Nazi propaganda (such as the Protocols) as axiomatic truth.
Yet theres a line there later on which clearly
indicates the contrary. Normally seeming contradictions would give one pause before making such damning claims.
I don't see section 31 as being any less ugly than the rest of the Charter.

Depends how you define 'Jews'. If you define them as the post 1967 border, that it certainly true.
Anything else is a lie.
No, you are the one propagating a lie. Explain why they shoot at Sderot.
Let's assume Hamas was only asking for a truce so that it could stockpile weapons
That is what they tell their followers, and what their behavior has been observed to be.
(all in one place, hopefully)
Hardly.
If it did break that truce, not only would that destroy what little international support for that organisation there is, it would also destroy all domestic voters, who elected them on the promise of at least trying to get peace.
They were elected on a platform of continuing the struggle until absolute victory. They have always been plain that temporary truces would only be for the purpose of continuing the struggle later from a more advantageous position.
Hamas realises that they cannot possibly have enough firepower to defend themselves
They trust to Allah to give them victory in the end. Realistic appraisals of their abilities have very little to do with their calculations.
hence why they ran on a peace platform in 2006 (the election that Israel would have you believe never happened)
WTF are you talking about??? EVERYBODY knows perfectly well that Hamas won that election, on a promise of continued armed struggle. I have heard Palestinian apologists trying to tell me that this doesn't demonstrate Palestinian majority support for violence, on grounds that Hamas really won on other issues, but I have never heard anyone speak such anti-truth as a claim that Hamas is a "peace" party.

As I (....)of Zion are a genuine text.

It ought to be up to you to research it, when your claims rely on a presumption that it is accepted by other Muslims, and given some non-genocidal spin. .

My claims are that it may not be as you portray it.


You made me read through that ugly and painful Charter, to find your quote in section 31. The section is describing how "All peoples have the duty to recognize the supremacy of Islam in this region." Jews and Christians who accept dhimmitude, .

And it says that where about "dhimmitude"....? Yes it does claim that all must be 'under the wing' of Islam but I saw no mention of "Dhimmitude".



They constantly fling the term "Nazi" at the other side, but themselves actively identify with those who WERE on the Nazi side; this is just dishonesty about the history. Contextually, they accept all Nazi propaganda (such as the Protocols) as axiomatic truth..

They identify with groups who may have been allies of convenience to the nazis or had nazi leanings. Then again, some zionist groups attempted similar.
The Protocols date back to Tsarist Russia and the pogroms, and are not German in origin.


I don't see section 31 as being any less ugly than the rest of the Charter.

Its a long waffling document, full of crap and religous allusions and language. It does not, whatever else it might contain, have within a declaration that the Jews must be exterminated.


No, you are the one propagating a lie. Explain why they shoot at Sderot.
.

Much the same reason Israel bombed Beirut airport, I'd imagine.

No, you are the one propagating a lie. Explain why they shoot at Sderot.

Trying to swing the balance of terror their way, and to put a (minor) dent in Israel's economy (vis-a-vis Lebanon 2006).

Israel does the same thing- shooting at peaceful demonstations, besieging the Gaza strip and putting road blocks up everywhere- specifically to cause as much economic damage as possible, and to scare the Palestinians into surrender.

They were elected on a platform of continuing the struggle until absolute victory. They have always been plain that temporary truces would only be for the purpose of continuing the struggle later from a more advantageous position.

They trust to Allah to give them victory in the end. Realistic appraisals of their abilities have very little to do with their calculations.

Which is why they no longer use cheap and effective suicide attacks? Because they want to kill Jews, no because they want peace?

The fact remains, if Hamas reneged on a truce of their making, not only would Israel have the legal right to defend themselves against an agressor and Hamas would lose all of their support both domestically and internationally.

My claims are that it may not be as you portray it.
Right. Tell the Israelis that Hamas "may not be" out to kill them. When it comes to mortal threats, from people with decades of history of random killings, people err on the side of safety.
And it says that where about "dhimmitude"....? Yes it does claim that all must be 'under the wing' of Islam but I saw no mention of "Dhimmitude".
Dhimmi is Arabic for "under the wing".
They identify with groups who may have been allies of convenience to the nazis or had nazi leanings.

This was an alliance of the LIKE-MINDED. The commitment to the Nazi movement was quite thorough. You do know where the Mufti spent the war, and what he did during that time? I thought we had been over this repeatedly.
The Protocols date back to Tsarist Russia and the pogroms, and are not German in origin.
Where do you think the Palestinians got them? From an alliance with the Tsars?
Its a long waffling document, full of crap and religous allusions and language. It does not, whatever else it might contain, have within a declaration that the Jews must be exterminated.
OK, it merely contains a declaration that they must be hunted down until the last few try to hide, and then that Muslims should come and slay those last few. I am not sure what kind of distinction you are trying to draw.
Much the same reason Israel bombed Beirut airport, I'd imagine.
Beirut airport is important for the shipment of all kinds of goods, including weapons. I am not going to defend the last Lebanese war, which was handled with gross disregard to civilian casualties and damages. But you cannot consider the civilian deaths in Sderot as "collateral" damage: they were the TARGET; there was NO STRATEGIC PURPOSE whatsoever except to kill civilians. This has been characteristic of almost all the Palestinian actions for the last 90 years.

Which is why they no longer use cheap and effective suicide attacks?
There have been fewer suicide attacks lately because the wall and the roadblocks have been effective in preventing them. That is the whole purpose of the wall and the roadblocks.
When Hamas has an opportunity to smuggle personnel around the barriers, they do still prefer suicide attacks, as at Dimona during the breakout on the Egyptian border. "Good will" on the part of Hamas has absolutely zero to do with it.

Weren't you already asked to explain why theres a differentiation between Jordanians and Palestinians?

"Palestine and Jordan are one..." said King Abdullah in 1948

The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan," said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

"There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people," according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977. Distinguished Arab-American Princeton University historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee

More than 2/3 of the Jordanian people are Arab 'Palestinians'

Approximately half of Jordan's prime ministers since 1950 have been Arab 'Palestinians'

http://www.peacefaq.com/jordan.html
enjoy reading some facts.


I don't know about you but i'd believe what the Arabs classify themselves as over what the CIA does.

What then would you do with the Jews/Israelis currently living in "Palestine"?

We could deport them to the Jewish homelands of Florida and Jew Jersey.

Or Mexico.

Or we could cut out the middle man and deport them directly to hell.

We could deport them to the Jewish homelands of Florida and Jew Jersey.

Or Mexico.

Or we could cut out the middle man and deport them directly to hell.

A lot of people replied to your last foray into this thread. Did you even read any of them, or are you just going to bump up the offensive suggestions until you get a ban ?

You're not far off that, I think. :mad:

Right. Tell the Israelis that Hamas "may not be" out to kill them. When it comes to mortal threats, from people with decades of history of random killings, people err on the side of safety..

Who said they didn't intend hostile action? I'm saying theres no declaration of intent to commit genocide.


Dhimmi is Arabic for "under the wing"...

Not as far as I can tell. Or a few others either. You have a dictionary source for this? They certainly do want to make sure its a muslim state however. A rather objectionable goal, as setting up a state with the set intention of keeping one named group in control is just heading for trouble, in the long run.


This was an alliance of the LIKE-MINDED. The commitment to the Nazi movement was quite thorough. You do know where the Mufti spent the war, and what he did during that time? I thought we had been over this repeatedly..

We have. Each time you seek to ascribe a specfic view belonging to a few individuals to all and sundry and thereby undermine the cause of Palestinian self determination. Its similar to what anti-semites do with Baruch Goldstein or Ariel Sharon and Jews generally.


Where do you think the Palestinians got them? From an alliance with the Tsars.

You stated
Contextually, they accept all Nazi propaganda (such as the Protocols)
It is not a work of Nazi propoganda, but Russian anti-semitism from the Tsarist era. Thats a fact. Its also a fact that "Nazi" carries far more emotional weight, generally speaking, than "Tsarist".


OK, it merely contains a declaration that they must be hunted down until the last few try to hide, and then that Muslims should come and slay those last few. I am not sure what kind of distinction you are trying to draw.

Again, according to you. Yet theres a statement made in the same document that would contradict that reading. The truth is that I've no idea what the fuck they're on about. Given the tendency for hysterical claims and wild exaggerations to arise, however, I think it best to look at the full context before assuming the worst. As material appears that would seem to contradict the 'genocidal' reading, I think it unlikely that you are correct.


Beirut airport is important for the shipment of all kinds of goods, including weapons. .

...as oppossed to the border with Syria, because it makes sense to fly them in to an area where they aren't fully in control, as oppossed to just putting them in the back of a truck and bringing them through their own strongholds.....

Beirut was chose to "send a message" to Lebanon, much as many of those killed were. Like Sderot, except with far more organisation and precision.


There have been fewer suicide attacks lately because the wall and the roadblocks have been effective in preventing them. .

And nothing to do with most of the groups agreeing to cease suicide bombing (and largely holding to it) within Israel whatsoever, of course.


That is the whole purpose of the wall and the roadblocks..

Why does the wall not follow Israels borders then?
And why are the roadblocks and wall used to block farmers from their fields?
Aren't many of the roadblocks placed to protect settlements?

"
Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture." .

...referring to the integration of Palestinians to Jordanian society....

"
More than 2/3 of the Jordanian people are Arab 'Palestinians'.

I think its just over 50%. However that wasn't the case before they arrived en masse in 1947/48 and a second wave in 1967. Refugees. Therefore they are clearly seperate from Jordanians.

"
I don't know about you but i'd believe what the Arabs classify themselves as over what the CIA does.

Well if they classify themselves as Palestinians, seperate from Jordanians, what about that?

I presume that the UNs classification doesn't intrude on your pronouncement either.

Not as far as I can tell. Or a few others either. You have a dictionary source for this? They certainly do want to make sure its a muslim state however. A rather objectionable goal, as setting up a state with the set intention of keeping one named group in control is just heading for trouble, in the long run.

Of course, there are no other, Jewish, states in the region that specifically refuse to allow people of other religions in for this specific reason (ie to keep Jews as the majority in a de facto theocracy.

(And I know that you were kind of implying that, I just made it clear. Because I want to look clever.)

Who said they didn't intend hostile action? I'm saying theres no declaration of intent to commit genocide.
The text is quite explicit. It is not as subtle as Bryn or Beleriand. Your refusal to understand it appears to be willful, since there really isn't anything difficult to figure out.
Not as far as I can tell. Or a few others either. You have a dictionary source for this?
My bad: dhimmi is Arabic for "protected" (http://www.dhimmitude.org/). I had difficulty determining which word in the Arabic text went to which in the English translation because I have a lot of trouble with Arabic. However, that word dhimmi is in the Arabic of section 31, the whole subject of which is, precisely, the demand for everyone else to accept dhimmitude status.
Each time you seek to ascribe a specfic view belonging to a few individuals...
Not a FEW individuals: the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian leadership.
It is not a work of Nazi propoganda
It did not originate with them, but it most definitely WAS propagated by the Nazis, one of their most major and common pieces of propaganda in fact-- and that is why the Palestinians believe in it from the 1930's continually up to the present.
Its also a fact that "Nazi" carries far more emotional weight, generally speaking, than "Tsarist".
It is also a fact that "Nazi" is an accurate description of the Palestinian leadership in the 1930's, and of such factions within the Palestinian leadership as Hamas, up to the present day; whereas the Tsarists never had any contact with the Palestinians, except indirectly through the use by the Nazis of a Tsarist composition.
The truth is that I've no idea what the fuck they're on about.
Well they're not exactly subtle. Most people have no trouble whatsoever figuring out what they mean.
...as oppossed to the border with Syria
They dropped bombs out that way too, but stayed away from direct confrontations with Syrian forces, for strategic reasons.
And nothing to do with most of the groups agreeing to cease suicide bombing (and largely holding to it) within Israel whatsoever, of course.
Nobody "agreed" to stop suicide bombing until Israel had made it difficult-to-impossible to do it anymore. The "agreement" is not sincere, obviously, since they do still carry suicide bombings whenever opportunity arises.
Aren't many of the roadblocks placed to protect settlements?
Yes. I am not going to defend the legitimacy of the settlements, as you know, but of course they are targets of attack, and so there are efforts to prevent such attacks. The intrusive placement of the settlements means that these preventative measures are likewise intrusive, to a wholly unreasonable degree, which is why I agree that those settlements must go.

The text is quite explicit. It is not as subtle as Bryn or Beleriand. Your refusal to understand it appears to be willful, since there really isn't anything difficult to figure out..

Where does it say 'exterminate the Jews' then?


My bad: (.....) is, precisely, the demand for everyone else to accept dhimmitude status...

The people at Yale don't translate it that way, however.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm


Not a FEW individuals: the ENTIRETY of the Palestinian leadership....

So George Habash was a Nazi then?


It did not originate with them, (.....) except indirectly through the use by the Nazis of a Tsarist composition..

We established that. Obviously you just couldnt resist typing "Nazi" and "Palestinian" a few times in the same sentence again.


Well they're not exactly subtle. Most people have no trouble whatsoever figuring out what they mean...

Actually its far from clear.


Nobody "agreed" to stop suicide bombing until Israel had made it difficult-to-impossible to do it anymore. The "agreement" is not sincere, obviously, since they do still carry suicide bombings whenever opportunity arises....

You mean in attempted retaliation for Israeli killings....

:eek: I've lost count of the number of pages past since there was anything said relating to the OP.

:eek: I've lost count of the number of pages past since there was anything said relating to the OP.

We're in the rough area. Early days yet though.

We're in the rough area. Early days yet though.

That's what worries me.

I think there should be a corrolary to Godwin: "Every mention of Jew and Israel will result in a debate on the Palestinian problem in maximum 2 pages".

O yes. And a genuine Godwin or seven should follow thereafter.

O yes. And a genuine Godwin or seven should follow thereafter.

That's a tautology :D

That's what worries me.

I think there should be a corrolary to Godwin: "Every mention of Jew and Israel will result in a debate on the Palestinian problem in maximum 2 pages".

There is no Palestinian problem. Just a Jewish problem.

There is no Palestinian problem. Just a Jewish problem.

Stop being pedantic. My intention was to stop the exact absurd arguments that this is likely to restart.

There are no saints in the Holy Land. Get over it.

There is no Palestinian problem. Just a Jewish problem.

Sieg heil!

Sieg heil!

:p

Where does it say 'exterminate the Jews' then?
It says "Ho, Muslims! Look, here are Jews! Come and slay them!" referring to the last surviving Jews pitifully trying to hide.
The people at Yale don't translate it that way, however.
So? The Arabic word which they are translating is DHIMMI. Your claim was that section 31 wasn't talking about DHIMMI. We can go off on an argument about DHIMMI does or doesn't mean, if you like, but that is the subject of the section.
It is saying, if only the Jews recognized that Muslims are superior (as all people have a duty to do), then we wouldn't have to kill them.
So George Habash was a Nazi then?
During the Third Reich, George Habash was not a Palestinian "leader", he was a Palestinian "infant".
In periods later than the time we were discussing (1933-45), some Palestinian factions have, and others have not, clung on to the paleo-Nazi rhetoric of seventy years ago. Hamas I singled out as a faction which does still repeat the same old rhetoric.
We established that. Obviously you just couldnt resist typing "Nazi" and "Palestinian" a few times in the same sentence again.
I repeated the point because I did not understand you to be conceding it. I thought you were pretending that Palestinians learned to believe in the Protocols because the Tsars taught it to them.
Actually its far from clear.
To you, maybe. If I talked about "slaying" your family, would you be saying "oh well, at least he isn't using the word 'exterminate'"?
You mean in attempted retaliation for Israeli killings.
The Palestinians did not even CLAIM that Dimona was any kind of retaliation for "Israeli killings"; you are just trying to make excuses, as well as trying to change the subject (the question was whether suicide bombings have largely ceased because Israel has successfully made opportunities to commit them rarer, or because there is any genuine willingness to stop it).
I do not, in any case, accept "retaliation" as any kind of excuse. The ONLY moral justification for killing is to prevent other killings. I will not pretend that Israel has always obeyed this principle; however, the Palestinians do not even have this principle in their moral vocabulary, thinking that "we hurt, so others should hurt" is justified. Every time you indulge in a "so's your old man" response, you show yourself to have the same moral void.

It says "Ho, Muslims! Look, here are Jews! Come and slay them!" referring to the last surviving Jews pitifully trying to hide..

Yet refers to living with Jews later on. Therefore....


So? The Arabic word(............)to kill them...

Yet translation is as much about the concept as about literal meaning. Why didn't they translate it so as to make your interpretation clear.


During the Third Reich, George Habash was not a Palestinian "leader", he was a Palestinian "infant"....

So not all the Palestinian leadership were Nazis then.....


In periods later than the time we were discussing (1933-45), some Palestinian factions have, and others have not, clung on to the paleo-Nazi rhetoric of seventy years ago. ...

O well done.


Hamas I singled out as a faction which does still repeat the same old rhetoric.
...

They spout a load of largely religous crap, yes......


To you, maybe. If I talked about "slaying" your family, would you be saying "oh well, at least he isn't using the word 'exterminate'"?...

Saying that they do wish to "exterminate" this particular group seems to be done in order to make them seem akin to possibly the most reviled regime of the 20th century...


The Palestinians did not even CLAIM that Dimona was any kind of retaliation for "Israeli killings"; you are just trying to make excuses, "...

Being colonised would be all the excuse thats required, IMO. And I do believe some statement was made that was in retaliation for "months" of killings....

the Palestinians do not even have this principle in their moral vocabulary, thinking that "we hurt, so others should hurt" is justified.

It seems to be more along the lines of causing others to suffer some of what they have, so that they might at least have knowledge of their actions effects....Besides, having asked for the foot to be removed from their neck, and having received no relief from its pressure, its only natural that they hack at it, in some way or other...'Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris'

Yet refers to living with Jews later on.
It states what the only conditions would be, under which they would consider living with Jews. The document does not assume that any Jews exist who would exist those conditions. I read it rather as meaning "For us to spare you, you would have to bow to your superiority; but you do not, and that is why we have to kill you." If you read it rather as saying that there is a small class of Jews (those who would totally surrender) who are exempt from the general slaughter, I don't see that it improves the overall tone. The Germans spared some collaborators too.

Yet translation is as much about the concept as about literal meaning. Why didn't they translate it so as to make your interpretation clear.
You are asking for my telepathic assessment of the motives of a group of translators I know nothing about?
The issue here wasn't about my "interpretation" of the word dhimmi; you were denying that it was in there, I am telling you that it is in there throughout. If you want to move on to interpretation, I would take it as pretty much given that, when using in a political context a word of such long history and well-established meaning in the political context, Hamas intends by it the meaning it has held for centuries.

So not all the Palestinian leadership were Nazis then.....
In the 1930's, ALL of the Palestinian leadership was whole-heartedly devoted to the Nazi cause. If you dispute that, then name me a non-Nazi Palestinian leader from the 1930's. If you think that there must have been some, even though you can't think of any, at least spare me this crap about how only "a few" Palestinians in that period were on the Nazi side.
Leaders from later periods, like Habash, have been of differing factions, some more loyal to the Nazi heritage, others less so or not at all. I singled out Hamas, to which Habash did not belong, as the quintessentially paleo-Nazi faction.
They spout a load of largely religous crap, yes......
So does "Christian Identity".
Saying that they do wish to "exterminate" this particular group seems to be done in order to make them seem akin to possibly the most reviled regime of the 20th century...
What do you mean, "seem"? They ARE the direct heirs. They are what remains of the Axis. Sheikh Yassin fought for the Nazis when he was young, and never changed a hair.
It seems to be more along the lines of causing others to suffer some of what they have
This is what I consider the basest and most vile of motives.
Besides, having asked for the foot to be removed from their neck, and having received no relief from its pressure
At what time, pray tell, did they "ask"? They chose the path of violence long before there was any occupation, long before there was any state of Israel at all. Those who choose the path of violence have no right to complain that the violence turns out badly for them. If they want the situation to change, they have to change their path.

What do you mean, "seem"? They ARE the direct heirs. They are what remains of the Axis. Sheikh Yassin fought for the Nazis when he was young, and never changed a hair.


http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o170/psychoticmongooses/319047856_dbf1ef3e92_o.jpg

My bad. It was his father who fought. At one time he claimed to be ten years older than he actually was, to make it plausible he fought in the 1940's, but it appears that in fact he was only born in the late 30's.

What do you mean, "seem"? They ARE the direct heirs. They are what remains of the Axis. Sheikh Yassin fought for the Nazis when he was young, and never changed a hair.

And the Israelis are the direct heirs of the crusaders. They use the same words sometimes and I want to use a word to demean them, even though they don't have similar goals, force or ethnicity. And they would be second or third against the wall in a Crusader invasion.

This is what I consider the basest and most vile of motives.

Killing to stop killing is worse than simple killing for profit and power, as practiced by Israel and the US everywhere all the time?

If they want the situation to change, they have to change their path.

Surely, in order to 'change their path' they must be given the opportunity to do so. Say, by accepting the Hamas truce. If the only possible way out of their hole is blocked by IDF tanks, you can't really criticise them for not 'changing their path'.

There is no Palestinian problem. Just a Jewish problem.

Jetzt die Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden abschaffen!

And the Israelis are the direct heirs of the crusaders.
How do you trace the lineage?
The founders of Hamas were old members of Ikhwan, who joined while the founders of Ikhwan were still around. The Ikhwan was directly allied to the Nazis. It is a very straight line.
They use the same words sometimes
As the crusaders? WTF??? Don't you know that the Crusaders also spoke of exterminating the Jews?
Surely, in order to 'change their path' they must be given the opportunity to do so.
They can change their own actions, at any time. Nobody else needs to do anything for them to change their behavior.
Say, by accepting the Hamas truce.
Israel is not going to promise to allow them to rearm in peace. If Hamas really wanted a truce, all they have to do is stop smuggling machine guns and building rockets.
If the only possible way out of their hole is blocked by IDF tanks, you can't really criticise them for not 'changing their path'.
To get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

I read it rather as meaning ......

Yep, you do.


I
You are asking for my telepathic assessment of the motives of a group of translators I know nothing about?......

Yeah, its a hard one. I mean why would they not have tried to get across the ideas of (a) genocidal intent and (b) dhimmitude, in the clear language you seem to see.......


The issue (....)for centuries.......

So you keep saying. Yet others didn't translate it in that fashion....


In the 1930's,(......)Nazi side........

The Nashashibi, al-Khalidi and al-Budeiri clans all oppossed Husseini. I look forward to hearing why this doesn't count.


This is what I consider the basest and most vile of motives.........

You'd rather they layed down and sucumbed to the crushing then....


Those who choose the path of violence have no right to complain that the violence turns out badly for them.

A bit of a double edged sword, you'll find.

To get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

No doubt it will be used as foundation for some settlement expansion as soon as they do.....

Yeah, its a hard one. I mean why would they not have tried to get across the ideas of (a) genocidal intent and (b) dhimmitude, in the clear language you seem to see.......
They don't need to try. It is clear enough, if you understand the references. You just don't seem to pick up on the code. It's like when Reagan chose Philadelphia, Mississippi to talk about the importance of "states' rights": he didn't need to say that those civil rights agitators deserved what they got; everyone who was familiar with the background understood perfectly.
The Nashashibi, al-Khalidi and al-Budeiri clans all oppossed Husseini. I look forward to hearing why this doesn't count.
This Mu'aribun faction was only the main opposition to Husseini's Majlissiyun party during the early part of the 1920's; by the latter part of the decade, the role was increasingly taken over by Qassem's Iqtalal party. Husseini's 1929 speeches extending itbach-al-Yahud to cover all Jews, not just recent settlers, was not intended to set off assaults on Hebron and the Jewish Quarter so much as to keep himself from getting out-flanked by Iqtalal's rhetoric. As soon as Hitler became Chancellor and Qassem began negotiating for arms shipments, Husseini started vying to outdo him in pro-German sentiments. Where were the remnants of the Mu'aribun during the Strike and the Uprising? Joining forces with the Ikhwan, if they wanted to retain any "leadership" role; that was where the popular sentiment was trending.
I did not ask you for names of leaders other than Husseini; I asked you to name leaders who did not take the pro-Axis position all during the Third Reich's heyday.

You'd rather they layed down and sucumbed to the crushing then....
Nations which start wars and lose them lose territory, are forcibly disarmed, pay heavy economic penalties, and/or forfeit sovereignty altogether and are subjected to long-term occupation; this should not be news to anyone. This "crushing" does not stop unless the loser SURRENDERS. If Japan kept on launching kamikaze attacks from 1945 until the present day, Japan would be thoroughly crushed by now.

A bit of a double edged sword, you'll find.
The Palestinian edge is quite blunted by now, and will get blunter if they so insist.
[Tmut]To get out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging.
No doubt it will be used as foundation for some settlement expansion as soon as they do.....
If they keep digging holes, I can guarantee you they will be the foundations of more settlement expansion.

As the crusaders? WTF??? Don't you know that the Crusaders also spoke of exterminating the Jews?

Yes. They also exterminated quite a few. I also know that the Nazis spoke about exterminating the sematic races. Including a certain middle-eastern race starting with A. By using the same rhetoric (ie speaking the language) and committing similar (if less brutal) acts, the Israelis are the direct decendents of the Crusaders.

They can change their own actions, at any time. Nobody else needs to do anything for them to change their behavior.

In order to have peace, both sides have to agree to not shoot at each other. When Hamas 'changed their behaviour' in 2005, and ceaced fire, the war did not end because the IDF didn't reciprocate.

Thjerefore, as long as the IDF continues to shoot at Palestinians, nothing the Palestinians can do can make peace.

Israel is not going to promise to allow them to rearm in peace. If Hamas really wanted a truce, all they have to do is stop smuggling machine guns and building rockets.

Apparently asking for and wanting peace is simply not enough. They also have to surrender themselves to the tender (and non-existant) mercies of the IDF, even more so than they are already.

Reminder: it is not actually illegal for a nation to have legal weapons, such as Katyusha rockets, AK47s or stones. It is, however, both illegal and dangerous to proliferate nuclear weapons outside of the original nuke powers.

And finally we see the obvious massive double-standard. The agressor, with the massive advantage in economy and millitary power is allowed to have even illegal weapons, but the defender (currently having very few forms of defence) must remain totally defenceless and powerless even to the point of refusing to arm with legal and justifiable weapons for defence. If they completely surrender, then we might let them have independence and peace. Before removing it again when they attempt to retake the rights every other nation on earth enjoys (ie the right to security).

They don't need (.....)perfectly..

And again, its not clear at all.


This Mu'aribun (.......) pro-Axis position all during the Third Reich's heyday.
..

So now you shift the goal posts from "Nazi" (as below) to pro-axis in order to tar with a wider brush......
In the 1930's, ALL of the Palestinian leadership was whole-heartedly devoted to the Nazi cause. If you dispute that, then name me a non-Nazi Palestinian leader from the 1930's. If you think that there must have been some, even though you can't think of any, at least spare me this crap about how only "a few" Palestinians in that period were on the Nazi side.
.
..Of course they were largely pro-axis. It was a marriage of convenience. They were pro-British in the first world war because they thought they'd do better by them than the Ottomans and come the second war, they felt they'd been shafted and changed sides. That doesnt nessecarily entail support of Nazism by the majority that took that position.


Nations which start (...........)1945 until the present day, Japan would be thoroughly crushed by now..

Yet I can guarantee that no American party would be advocating holding its civillian colonies in Japan, regardless of the result of its peace settlement...Its rather a bad analogy on your part.


The Palestinian edge is quite blunted by now, and will get blunter if they so insist...

As the alternative being effectively offered to resisting their fate is submitting to it, I think it will make little difference.

Yes. They also exterminated quite a few. I also know that the Nazis spoke about exterminating the sematic races. Including a certain middle-eastern race starting with A. By using the same rhetoric (ie speaking the language) and committing similar (if less brutal) acts, the Israelis are the direct decendents of the Crusaders.

Source ?

Also, the crusaders were mainly christians. During certain crusades, Jews and Muslims even defended Jerusalem together against the crusaders.

Source ?

What for? That Crusaders killed both European and Arabic Jews, or that the Crusaders wanted to take back the holy land?

[quote]Also, the crusaders were mainly christians. During certain crusades, Jews and Muslims even defended Jerusalem together against the crusaders.

Exactly my point. The crusaders directly killed Jews. Therefore modern Israel is as much a Crusader state as Hamas is Nazi.

I also know that the Nazis spoke about exterminating the sematic races. Including a certain middle-eastern race starting with A.
That is not true. You might think it would be true following their supposedly race-based "logic", but just as their denunciation of the "Slavic" race as subhuman did not apply to Bulgarians or Croatians, only to Poles and Russians, their denunciation of "Semites" did not actually include Arabs (logic was not one of the Nazis' strong suits).

You seem to have the impression that the National Socialist movement was restricted to Germans. It was more widespread. National Socialists controlled the governments of Hungary and Bulgaria before the war, Croatia during the war, and Rumania off and on. Present-day Neo-Nazis in those countries are mostly just newbie poseurs, but some organizations (like the Iron Guard in Rumania) were, in fact, started by old-timers from the original paleo-Nazi organizations, and THAT is what I mean by being the "direct heirs" or "descendants" to the original Nazis. National Socialism was rather successful in the Arab world: National Socialists took over the government of Iraq in 1941 (the British quickly acted to overturn this; Saddam Hussein's father was killed in that fighting), and the Baath Party of Syria and Iraq is directly descended from these; in Algeria, Ben Bella and other leaders of the revolution first cut their teeth as members of the Algerian SS (like the Bosnian SS, this organization was recruited and trained by the Palestinians).


In order to have peace, both sides have to agree to not shoot at each other. When Hamas 'changed their behaviour' in 2005, and ceaced fire, the war did not end because the IDF didn't reciprocate.
As long as Hamas was promising to resume shooting later, there was no "peace", and no reason for the other side to let them re-arm undisturbed.
Thjerefore, as long as the IDF continues to shoot at Palestinians, nothing the Palestinians can do can make peace.
What the Palestinians can do is to STOP IT, once and for all. Then the IDF will have nobody to shoot at.
Reminder: it is not actually illegal for a nation to have legal weapons, such as Katyusha rockets, AK47s or stones.
Nations which use weapons against their neighbors, however, will be forcibly disarmed, or forfeit their sovereignty altogether.
The agressor, with the massive advantage in economy and millitary power...
The word "aggressor" refers to the side which STARTED the war. That would be the Arabs. They did, indeed, have a massive advantage in economy and military power at that time, but have lost it due to an utter absence of strategic sense (a preference to attack civilian targets) and a devotion to destructive rather than creative activities (Israel in its early days, the "Austerity Period", was in pervasive poverty, since most of its refugees came there with only the shirts on their backs; why did they go on to build up an economy, while the Palestinians would not?)
If they completely surrender, then we might let them have independence and peace.
Correct. If on the other hand they continue to insist on re-re-refighting the war that they have lost, they will continue to lose.

So now you shift the goal posts from "Nazi" (as below) to pro-axis in order to tar with a wider brush......
I was not intending there to be any distinction between "Nazi" and "Pro-Axis". Nobody in Palestine was advocating alignment with the Japanese.

..Of course they were largely pro-axis. It was a marriage of convenience.
It was an alliance of the like-minded. They agreed completely with the destruction of the Jews.
Yet I can guarantee that no American party would be advocating holding its civillian colonies in Japan, regardless of the result of its peace settlement...Its rather a bad analogy on your part.
In my hypothetical, there WAS NO peace settlement, just Japanese attacking and attacking and attacking, regardless of the futility... and I am quite sure a lot of Americans would be in favor of taking as much land away from the Japanese as possible, under such circumstances.
As the alternative being effectively offered to resisting their fate is submitting to it, I think it will make little difference.
The alternative is a recognized independent state. The first duty of any state is to prevent attacks upon its neighbors: the international community is really indifferent to whether a state serves the interests of its citizens or oppresses them brutally, that is all "internal affairs", but a state that cannot maintain the peace with its neighbors has no right to continue to exist at all. The Palestinians could have had a recognized state in 1948, if they had just been willing to live in peace with their neighbors; their statelet still could have had recognition up to 1951, but accepting the peace was an absolute precondition; what they need to do is exactly the same as what they have always needed to do, and always refused to do.

(like the Bosnian SS, this organization was recruited and trained by the Palestinians)..

How many, outside of Husseini, were involved? I'd like numbers, please, and sources.



What the Palestinians can do is to STOP IT, once and for all. Then the IDF will have nobody to shoot at...

....but that hasn't stopped their aggression before, because its about colonisation.


Nations which use weapons against their neighbors, however, will be forcibly disarmed, or forfeit their sovereignty altogether..

...this is the law according to....?


why did they go on to build up an economy, while the Palestinians would not?)
..

...because they were stateless refugees scatterd across a number of states...Or are you trying to get "racial" here.....

It was an alliance of the like-minded. They agreed completely with the destruction of the Jews...

So the Lehi contacted the Germans because they too wanted to be involved in the "destruction of the Jews"?


there WAS NO peace settlement, just Japanese attacking and attacking and attacking, regardless of the futility... and I am quite sure a lot of Americans would be in favor of taking as much land away from the Japanese as possible, under such circumstances....

Cart before horse. Israel is trying to colonise the occupied territories.

As long as Hamas was promising to resume shooting later, there was no "peace", and no reason for the other side to let them re-arm undisturbed.

We decided what they were going to do later/read their minds by telelkenisis and deliberately acted aggressively (by restarting a war that they tried to end) to create an upswell of support for an organisation we supposedly hate, and destroying what little informed international support we ever had.

What the Palestinians can do is to STOP IT, once and for all. Then the IDF will have nobody to shoot at.

What do you mean. Not to be condascending, but it seems like you are implying Masada-esque mass suicide here.

Nations which use weapons against their neighbors, however, will be forcibly disarmed, or forfeit their sovereignty altogether.

Israel, the United States, and Great Britain being first on the list, of course, due to their far worse crimes of agression than poor old Palestine.

The word "aggressor" refers to the side which STARTED the war. That would be the Arabs. They did, indeed, have a massive advantage in economy and military power at that time, but have lost it due to an utter absence of strategic sense (a preference to attack civilian targets) and a devotion to destructive rather than creative activities

The agressor is the nation who continues the war, be that Iran in the Iran-Iraq, or Israel in Israel-Palestine.

Correct. If on the other hand they continue to insist on re-re-refighting the war that they have lost, they will continue to lose.

And if they try to end it, the war will keep going- but the rockets will all be going one way.

How many, outside of Husseini, were involved? I'd like numbers, please, and sources.
That will take me time, but I will look it up for you if you are really interested.
....but that hasn't stopped their aggression before, because its about colonisation.
What "before" are you talking about??? The Palestinians were launching rockets at Israeli farms, at greater frequency than at present, back before any "colonisation" in the occupied territories, back before there WERE any "occupied territories". That is the reason why there are any occupied territories in the first place.

[Tmut] Nations which use weapons against their neighbors, however, will be forcibly disarmed, or forfeit their sovereignty altogether..
...this is the law according to....?
All history, ever, from the beginning of time to the present day.
...because they were stateless refugees scatterd across a number of states...Or are you trying to get "racial" here.....
Huh? The West Bankers were in Jordan, and had Jordanian citizenship for the asking. The Gazans had their own state, but refused to comply with the condition required for international recognition.
So the Lehi contacted the Germans because they too wanted to be involved in the "destruction of the Jews"?
Huh? No, there is a distinction between alliances of convenience and alliances of the like-minded, which you consistently ignore. Finland, for example, was strictly an ally of convenience to Germany and never adopted the ideological rhetoric, as opposed to the Palestinians, who bought into all the rhetoric and, in some cases, continue to spout it.
Cart before horse. Israel is trying to colonise the occupied territories.
And will only cease doing so if they are persuaded there is anything to gain from the forbearance. So far, every act of withdrawal is met by an acceleration of the attacks.
The agressor is the nation who continues the war
No, that is not what the word means. BOTH sides are continuing this, but the Palestinian side is the side that started it: that is what "aggressor" means.
And if they try to end it, the war will keep going- but the rockets will all be going one way.
No, that is not how this works. The Israelis have no interest in just killing Palestinians for the sake of killing them: if they did, the Palestinians would have been obliterated long ago. The Israelis are interested in preventing the attacks upon Israelis, and the Palestinians can unilaterally stop this, at any time.

Arab-Nazi affiliations (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/recruited.html)

More thorough (http://soc.world-journal.net/harabr.html), particularly on the Nazi connections of Habash and his PFLP.

Hello again.

I just like popping in to see how people are getting on masturbating to this thread. Looking as heated as ever.

I would like to point out again that the thread was concluded at about page 2, when the issue raised by the OP was dealt with by a few people, in parallel.

Happy wanking.

Nobody denied the mufti was a nazi, nor have I disputed any of your claims to his activities. Nobody denied that there were pro-German elements in the middle east. What I object to is your blanket "trained by the Palestinians". Theres no mention there.

I might add that quoting a site which itself uses extracts from the entirely discredited "From time immemorial" helps your cause not at all.

More thorough (http://soc.world-journal.net/harabr.html), particularly on the Nazi connections of Habash and his PFLP.

They might as well call it "Six degrees of seperation from a Nazi".

Just as Islamists and the extreme right are beginning to find common ground, the gap between the far left and the far right may be narrowing as well. Both movements often decry globalization. Increasingly, they both share a criticism of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. A case in point is the case of Rachel Corrie, an attractive twenty-three-year-old American student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, and a member of the International Sol*idarity Movement, who took a semester off to work as a peace activist in Gaza. While there, she took part in a protest in which an Israel driver using a bull*dozer was preparing to knock down a Palestinian's house. Corrie stood between the bulldozer and the house and refused to move. However, the Israel driver ran over her, and she sustained injuries from which she ultimately died. De*spite Corrie's presumably left-leaning political orientation, various right-wing publications and websites eulogized her as an Aryan martyr

Dear o dear. Osama supports Arsenal. Arsenal therefore supports Osama and haytes the J00s. Therefore all who support arsenal are teh 3bbil. Great fucking reasoning there.

Didn't some asshole put out a book based on the same assinine excuse for reasoning?

All history, ever, from the beginning of time to the present day..

With the exceptions of Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy, Romania etc.....They're different, presumably. Presumably Italy isn't worth colonising.....


as opposed to the Palestinians, who bought into all the rhetoric and, in some cases, continue to spout it...

...all of them bought into it?

And will only cease doing so if they are persuaded there is anything to gain from the forbearance. So far, every act of withdrawal is met by an acceleration of the attacks....

...but they never stopped building, expanding, consolidating....

No, that is not what the word means. BOTH sides are continuing this, but the Palestinian side is the side that started it: that is what "aggressor" means.....

Theres no act of the Palestinians that forces the Israeli state to build civillian housing outside its own borders.


No, that is not how this works. The Israelis have no interest in just killing Palestinians for the sake of killing them: .

No, they do it to maintain control over the "natives" as colonialists have always done. Should they drive some out, thats a bonus.

Hello again.

I just like popping in to see how people are getting on masturbating to this thread. Looking as heated as ever.

I would like to point out again that the thread was concluded at about page 2, when the issue raised by the OP was dealt with by a few people, in parallel.

Happy wanking.

It's an NSG meme. Whenever any topic touches on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the thread will eventually boil down to Tmutarakhan arguing that Israel can never do wrong and that the Palestinians are all hivemind terrorists that need to be exterminated or reduced to nice little subservient kaffirs versus most other posters who argue that Israel has done some wrong and the Palestinians are getting screwed.

It's an NSG meme. Whenever any topic touches on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the thread will eventually boil down to Tmutarakhan arguing that Israel can never do wrong and that the Palestinians are all hivemind terrorists that need to be exterminated or reduced to nice little subservient kaffirs versus most other posters who argue that Israel has done some wrong and the Palestinians are getting screwed.

I gathered. I was merely wishing people merry wanking;)

Tmutarakhan is a troll, right?

Tmutarakhan is a troll, right?

The quintessential troll, yes.

The quintessential troll, yes.

No, not really. I disagree with Tmutarakhan on many aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we agree on some. He's persistent, and I could criticize his style of debating and he's often wrong (;)) - but in my mind, he is not a troll.

You can find some trolls in this thread though.

It's an NSG meme. Whenever any topic touches on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the thread will eventually boil down to Tmutarakhan arguing that Israel can never do wrong and that the Palestinians are all hivemind terrorists that need to be exterminated or reduced to nice little subservient kaffirs versus most other posters who argue that Israel has done some wrong and the Palestinians are getting screwed.

Now thats harsh. He has admitted to Israeli wrong doing on occassion. tThen when he gets to the Palestinians he screams "NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZEEEEESSSSS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS....." for a very long time. Its Argumentum Ad Hitlerum Ad Infinitum.

With the exceptions of Germany, Japan, Austria, Italy, Romania etc.....They're different, presumably. Presumably Italy isn't worth colonising.....
WTF are you talking about??? ALL of those nations suffered occupation. Germany, Japan, and Austria did not get their sovereignty returned to them for years, and it was taken for granted that none of them had any right to have their sovereignty returned except as the occupying powers became satisfied that it was safe to do so; it is so obvious that I would hardly think it worth stating, except that to you apparently it needs stating over and over again, that if those nations did not SURRENDER, they would still be under the heel. Germany lost a substantial percentage of its territory: Pomerania, Silesia, Prussia, Alsace-Lorraine; except in Alsace-Lorraine, all the German occupants were expelled, and the territories have been colonized by Poles and Russians. Japan lost territories where few Japanese lived (Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan), but those Japanese who did live there were of course expelled. Austria did not lose any territory. Italy did (the Istrian area), and the area taken from Italy was, of course, colonized by the Yugoslavs. Rumania lost Moldavia, which was heavily colonized by Russians.

...all of them bought into it?
If you are claiming that there were exceptions, then show me.

...but they never stopped building, expanding, consolidating....

They removed all the settlements from Gaza, and some very contentious settlements in the West Bank (like Gush Etzion, site of a notorious massacre in the run-up to the 1948 war).

Theres no act of the Palestinians that forces the Israeli state to build civillian housing outside its own borders.
True, and I do not approve of the settlement activities. However, I predict that as long as any act of withdrawal is met by escalated attacks, those who favor the settlements will say "See? There is no hope for peace if you give the Palestinians more ground; the only hope is to push them off as much land as possible." If you disagree with that outcome, then stop promoting actions which can only lead to it continuing.

No, they do it to maintain control over the "natives" as colonialists have always done. Should they drive some out, thats a bonus.
I don't think you really understand the settlers' mind-set. They want the land for its own sake, because it where they are originally from (if you think there ought to be some statute of limitations on that, I cannot disagree, but that is how they view it) and they believe that God wants them to go back. The natives, to them, are just an unfortunate part of the landscape (they do not view them as "natives" but rather as "recent" interlopers). They have no wish, really, to "control" them: rather, the preference is that they just not be there at all.

Now thats harsh. He has admitted to Israeli wrong doing on occassion. tThen when he gets to the Palestinians he screams "NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZEEEEESSSSS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS....." for a very long time. Its Argumentum Ad Hitlerum Ad Infinitum.
I will keep on mentioning it until you concede the very basic facts of the case.

I will keep on mentioning it until you concede the very basic facts of the case.

So you want each and every Palestinian tried at Nurnberg and then hung?

WTF are you talking about??? ALL of those nations suffered occupation. .

They weren't colonised by the West, nor was the vast bulk of their population expelled and made stateless, only to be occupied again twenty years later.....Considering the level of bonafide Nazis in the area, its a wonder you haven't complained about it, given that you seem to think a past link to national socialism is enough to justify denial of statehood.


If you are claiming that there were exceptions, then show me..

Its a given that no population will follow any one view 100%. In fact were any poll, survey etc to return such a result, or one in the region of it, then it would be taken as suspect. Yet here we have you stating and impling such levels of adherence to nazism amongst a rural semi-literate population in the middle east.


They removed all the settlements from Gaza,..
....and immediately began fresh building in the West bank, (as Gaza was deemed unviable).


I don't think you really understand the settlers' mind-set. ,..

I was referring to the IDF/Israeli Government.

They weren't colonised by the West
What are you saying, that being "colonized" is only an excuse for murder if the colonizers are Westerners? And:
Eastern Europeans don't count as the "West"? Most of the Jewish DP's who moved to Israel were from Poland and further east, likewise, except those expelled from the Arab states, so maybe the "colonization" of Palestine shouldn't count either?
The Croats who displaced the Italians of Fiume (now "Rijeka": I've been there; you don't hear any Italian there anymore, and haven't since before I was born) were awfully Westernized, I'm not sure why they don't count.
, nor was the vast bulk of their population expelled
The "bulk" of expelled Germans outnumbered the expelled Palestinians by a factor of over three to one. Where did they all go? The Germans, like the Jews or Italians or Chinese (the Chinese displacement was by far the most massive of the period) but unlike the Arabs, have all built new lives for themselves decades ago. They did not choose to keep fighting World War II for 60 more years.
and made stateless
Germany did not have a state, either, in the immediate aftermath of the war. They re-acquired sovereignty because, of course, they SURRENDERED. Palestinians set up a state, but it did not acquire international recognition because they refused to cease fire.
, only to be occupied again twenty years later.....
They CHOSE to continue the war. It is not my fault that they lost again. It's nobody's fault but their own.
Considering the level of bonafide Nazis in the area, its a wonder you haven't complained about it, given that you seem to think a past link to national socialism is enough to justify denial of statehood.
It's not "past". If it were PAST, that would be a different matter.
Its a given that no population will follow any one view 100%. In fact were any poll, survey etc to return such a result, or one in the region of it, then it would be taken as suspect. Yet here we have you stating and impling such levels of adherence to nazism amongst a rural semi-literate population in the middle east.
WTF??? Your original claim was that there were "only a few" Palestinians involved, and I said that it was "the entirety of the leadership". Where did "100% of the population" come into this? There is not 100% support for Israel among the American population, but it will not do to dismiss the Bush Administration (the equivalent of "the Mufti" here, as the official leader) as "just a few" Americans, particularly when the Democratic Party (the equivalent of Qassem and the other major political opponents of the Mufti) also shares that policy.

....and immediately began fresh building in the West bank, (as Gaza was deemed unviable).
They demolished settlements in the West Bank in the immediate wake of Gaza. I don't know of any new settlements which have been started; expansions of the existing settlements have continued, although under the "road map" agreement that isn't supposed to be happening; not all of this activity is sanctioned by the government, although there are clear signs of foot-dragging when it comes to actually demolishing expansions that the government itself has ruled illegal. On another thread you were supposed to show me data substantiating your claim that settlement expansions accelerate during Palestinian truces, but this appears to be the opposite of the truth.

I was referring to the IDF/Israeli Government.
In your claim that your motives were about dominating Palestinians??? The IDF is motivated to protect Israeli citizens, regardless of whether the dangers these citizens have gotten into are largely of their own making (by no means do all IDF soldiers share any enthusiasm for the settlers). The Israeli Government, when controlled by those who actively support settlement expansion, has the same motivations as the settlers.

You keep wanting to analogize Israel/Palestine to "colonialism" in Africa, which is really a very poor analogy as far as the psychologies of the parties are concerned (certainly I agree there are parallels in terms of the imbalance of power and other aspects). No Britishers wanted to settle in Kenya because it was the ancestral home of the Anglo-Saxons. No less ideological Britishers wanted to settle in Kenya because it was so convenient for commuting to London. On the other hand, no Israelis feel that they need servants running their house to be proper gentlemen, or would think Palestinians well suited for such a role. Neither do any Israelis think they are "helping" the poor benighted Palestinians by bringing them education and the true religion. The intimacy between black and white in the colonial world, and the geographic and historical gulf between the colonies and the ruling country, are great differences between the two situations.

What are you saying, that being "colonized" is only an excuse for murder if the colonizers are Westerners?.

No, I'm saying that the more "enlightened" democracies didn't start shipping in their civiillians to usurp the inhabitatants.


Eastern Europeans don't count as the "West"?

Don't think you needed a question mark there....


The "bulk" of expelled Germans outnumbered the expelled Palestinians by a factor of over three to one. Where did they all go? The Germans, like the Jews or Italians or Chinese (the Chinese displacement was by far the most massive of the period) but unlike the Arabs, have all built new lives for themselves decades ago. They did not choose to keep fighting World War II for 60 more years.

There was still a German state, wasn't there?
And if a German moved to France and aqquired French citizenship, he's considered French, isn't he? I mean its not like theres some rule that unless you're in a certain "club" in France you aren't French and can never be in a majority in that country......


It's nobody's fault but their own..

So the 50,000 expelled by Rabin from Lydda and Al-Ramla were entirely to blame for their own fate. Ok.....so therefore any Israeli hit by any Palestinian firework is therefore entirely to blame for their own fate.


WTF??? Your original claim was that there were "only a few" Palestinians involved, and I said that it was "the entirety of the leadership". Where did "100% of the population" come into this? ..

..round about the time you stated (like the Bosnian SS, this organization was recruited and trained by the Palestinians).. Bit of a blanket statement there. Also your logic is towards collective punishment...It's nobody's fault but their own. The Palestinians could have had a recognized state in 1948, if they had just been willing to live in peace with their neighbors etc.



They demolished settlements in the West Bank in the immediate wake of Gaza. I don't know of any new settlements which have been started; expansions of the existing settlements have continued, although under the "road map" agreement that isn't supposed to be happening; not all of this activity is sanctioned by the government, although there are clear signs of foot-dragging when it comes to actually demolishing expansions that the government itself has ruled illegal. On another thread you were supposed to show me data substantiating your claim that settlement expansions accelerate during Palestinian truces, but this appears to be the opposite of the truth...

Removing a few minor settlements while announcing plans to massively expand others isn't really a concession, when the new exceeds whats been removed. The Israeli Government gives tacit approval to the majority of what goes on, otherwise it could not happen. And yes, I did show that settlements expanded greatly after Oslo.

In your claim that your motives were about dominating Palestinians??? The IDF is motivated to protect Israeli citizens, regardless of whether the dangers these citizens have gotten into are largely of their own making (by no means do all IDF soldiers share any enthusiasm for the settlers). The Israeli Government, when controlled by those who actively support settlement expansion, has the same motivations as the settlers....

And the IDF, by protecting colonists thus enables them and becomes their tool. And how do colonists often thrive when faced with hostility? Subduing the native populace.


You keep wanting to analogize Israel/Palestine to "colonialism" (....)olonies and the ruling country, are great differences between the two situations.

Yet if we bring in much of the rhetoric and argument made by the pro-israeli side, we see a marked similarity. 'there was nothing here before us'. 'these people can't rule themselves','they need a firm hand'. You yourself stated why did they go on to build up an economy, while the Palestinians would not?.

And the Boers, I might add, did have a religous edge to their view.

No, I'm saying that the more "enlightened" democracies didn't start shipping in their civiillians to usurp the inhabitatants.
So if Poles can be excused, on grounds that they are not enlightened and nothing better should be expected from the Polacks anyway, why can't you excuse the Polish Jews? It's just a bunch of easterners.
There was still a German state, wasn't there?
No, there were four "Occupation Zones". After a few years, German states were reconstituted, because, of course, the Germans had completely stopped fighting. Austria, for some reason, was not granted sovereignty again for over a decade.
And if a German moved to France and aqquired French citizenship, he's considered French, isn't he? I mean its not like theres some rule that unless you're in a certain "club" in France you aren't French and can never be in a majority in that country......
Do you know what the citizenship laws in France are like?
So the 50,000 expelled by Rabin from Lydda and Al-Ramla were entirely to blame for their own fate.
WTF??? I was talking about why they lost the war in 1967, and no other topic.
Removing a few minor settlements while announcing plans to massively expand others
Source?
And yes, I did show that settlements expanded greatly after Oslo.
You showed that the people live in the settlements have an awful lot of children, who try to sneak new trailers in because they are tired of living with their parents. You also showed that new migrants into the settlements have been steadily declining in numbers. Nothing that you claimed was substantiated by the data you exhibited.
And the Boers, I might add, did have a religous edge to their view.
South Africa is an entirely different case from the rest of Africa, since the blacks did not start immigrating there until the same time that the whites did. (The real "natives" there, the Khoisan who had lived there for ~80,000 years, are close to extinct now.)

Now thats harsh. He has admitted to Israeli wrong doing on occassion. tThen when he gets to the Palestinians he screams "NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZIS!!!NAZEEEEESSSSS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS!!NAZIS....." for a very long time. Its Argumentum Ad Hitlerum Ad Infinitum.

........Ad naseum

So if Poles can be excused, on grounds that they are not enlightened and nothing better should be expected from the Polacks anyway, why can't you excuse the Polish Jews? It's just a bunch of easterners..)

I was referring to the activities of the USSR


No, there were four "Occupation Zones". After a few years, German states were reconstituted, because, of course, the Germans had completely stopped fighting. Austria, for some reason, was not granted sovereignty again for over a decade.


Do you know what the citizenship laws in France are like?..)

I'm familiar enough with them to know that theres no law that says a certain ethnic group must stay in the majority....


WTF??? I was talking about why they lost the war in 1967, and no other topic.?..)

That would be the one that Egypt started..or Israel, according to some......though I do believe there were expulsions in 1967 as well, though not on the same scale...


Source?.?..)

Did I not provide considerable references to this in a previous thread?


You showed that the people live in the settlements have an awful lot of children, who try to sneak new trailers in because they are tired of living with their parents..

Yes, I'm sure thats their motivation. And of course the Israeli security - which, according to you - has so effectively tackled suicide bombing, is unable to halt these trailers coming in. Or them sitting there, craftily disguised as trailers.


You also showed that new migrants into the settlements have been steadily declining in numbers. Nothing that you claimed was substantiated by the data you exhibited.

It showed quite clearly the rise in population after Oslo.


South Africa is an entirely different case from the rest of Africa, since the blacks did not start immigrating there until the same time that the whites did. (The real "natives" there, the Khoisan who had lived there for ~80,000 years, are close to extinct now.)

The Khoisan don't count as "natives"? And as far as I know, there were Xhosa in South Africa before there were Dutch......

Or we going to hear how the place was empty and worthless till "whitey" turned up?

I was referring to the activities of the USSR
The Russians weren't the only ones to colonize former German territories. And they had nothing to do with the Croats pushing out the Italians.
That would be the one that Egypt started..or Israel, according to some...
Egypt committed the first overt act of war. However, it was the Palestinians who had decided in the first place to continue refighting the war for twenty more years until they got their butts kicked again.
Did I not provide considerable references to this in a previous thread?
Your claim that the withdrawal from Gaza and Gush Etzion was accompanied by an announcement of new constructions is a totally new claim. Nothing that you said on previous threads is at all supportive of this claim.
Yes, I'm sure thats their motivation.
Yes. The reason people want to build houses is because they want to live in them, in preference to living in other people's houses. I would have thought a self-evident point.
And of course the Israeli security - which, according to you - has so effectively tackled suicide bombing, is unable to halt these trailers coming in.
I have conceded to you that there is often obvious foot-dragging about removing these things even after an official determination that they are illegal.
It showed quite clearly the rise in population after Oslo.
Yes, but the Palestinians are in a poor position to criticize anyone for having too many children (the Palestinian doubling time, at ~25 years, is among the fastest that has ever existed among any peoples anywhere).
And none of this is relevant to your claims that new constructions accelerate during Palestinian truces, or your novel claim that new constructions were announced simultaneous to the withdrawals.
The Khoisan don't count as "natives"?
They DO. I was emphasizing that they are the only people the term could properly be applied to.
And as far as I know, there were Xhosa in South Africa before there were Dutch......
Approximately simultaneous to the Dutch, rather later than the Portuguese.
Or we going to hear how the place was empty and worthless till "whitey" turned up?
It pretty much was.

Egypt committed the first overt act of war. However, it was the Palestinians who had decided in the first place to continue refighting the war for twenty more years until they got their butts kicked again..

Funny how everyone else thinks it was either Egypt or Israel. But then again, they obviously aren't as familar with the 'EVIL NAZEEE PALESTINIANS' as you.

Your claim that the withdrawal from Gaza and Gush Etzion was accompanied by an announcement of new constructions is a totally new claim. Nothing that you said on previous threads is at all supportive of this claim...

Accompanied simulatenously? No, but as plans were subsequently announced I think it fair to state that pulling out of one while expanding another is just a concentration of resources, rather than the wonderful humanitarian gesture you want the world to see it as. Would you like me to trot out the various plans that have been announced since the gaza withdrawal?


Yes. The reason people want to build houses is because they want to live in them, in preference to living in other people's houses. I would have thought a self-evident point....

And if they happen to coinidentally expand the living quarters available in an colony, well....... thats just happy coincidence.

If these trailers (and presumably extra houses) are for an existing population, why is the Israeli government selling them in London, pre-build?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/16/israel
And why does it offer tax breaks to those who move to the OT?


Yes, but the Palestinians are in a poor position to criticize anyone for having too many children (the Palestinian doubling time, at ~25 years, is among the fastest that has ever existed among any peoples anywhere).....

Why is that a problem? Are only colonists allowed a high birthrate now? The Palestinians are the ones who are the natives of the area after all......