General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Skeptic]

Oh, I see. So, you have no evidence of such a desire, so you try to explain away the lack of evidence by claiming the Arabs were afraid to make a peep because of the Ottoman Turks.

Funny, isn't it, how the Jews, from the 1880s, were speaking of a "national homeland" -- although originally such voices were indeed a small minority -- and were not at all afraid of being massacred by the Turks?

Isn't it also funny how the Arabs in general were so scared of the Turks they actually rose in an Arab revolt against the Ottoman empire? Yet none of those of Lawrence's famous Arab allies seems to have defined himself as a Palestinian (as opposed to an Arab), nor have those who came to welcome Gen. Allenby in Jerusalem ("Palestinian" meant a Jew living in Palestine at the time)?

But I guess you'll have to find something -- anything -- as an excuse for the utter lack of Ottoman era Palestinian nationalism.

 

[a_unique_person]

So when did the Jews invade Israel? This is the 3rd time I asked you this, you ignore it every time.

Do I have a life? Jesus.

The invasion was not your usual one, but the intent was to move there, and create a state where the Palestinians expected to assert their right of self determination. They didn't invade Israel, they invaded Palestine. They set up the armed forces eventually, even terrorist groups that are still celebrated today, ironically even using Nazi designed fighter planes for an air force.

 

[Skeptic]

The invasion was not your usual one

That's another way of saying it's not an invasion, isn't it?

In any case, you accept the Israel itself -- not the territories, but all of it -- is therefore illegitimate, right? After all, it was due to an "invasion" and the 1948 Arab attempt to wipe it off the face of the earth was merely "resistance".

Anyway, of course somehow this "resistance" -- killing Jews -- to an "unusual invasion", so legitimate in this case, somehow doesn't carry over to, say, Aboriginies shooting White Australians, or Brits shooting Muslim immigrants. I'm sure you'll find some magical difference between the two situations that show that shooting the Jews is just fine, yet shooting others is a crime; or perhaps, since you claim there is a "demographic war" going on with the Arab goal being the elimination of Israel, perhaps you also think that Jews randomly shooting Arabs because of their "unusual invasion" is also legitimate.

But, before we get to just why shooting Jewish immigrants, alone of all immigrants anywhere, is just fine, a reason that has absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism (the kind of suspicions people have about you for no reason at all, I mean, really! the nerve of some people!), I would like your explicit statement about whether Israel is legitimate at all. It seems you very strongly imply that it isn't.

 

[Arrow]

Saw this today about Obama and his view toward Israel.

"Obama to Jewish Donors: I’m Going to Weaken U.S.-Israeli Alliance, But Only a Little"

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2...eaken-u-s-israeli-alliance-but-only-a-little/

 

[The Fool]

Ma'a'riv did post an apology to the story.
This is from another source since right now I can't locate Ma'a'riv's source.
http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA.html

It says that Maariv posted an aplogy saying that they are sorry for publishing a not fully correct story.
It appears that the dog was a pregnant female dog and it did enter the Beit Hadin. The authorities there called the official city dog pound to take it away. No stoning happened.

Your friendly neighborhood translator...

I can't see an apology either. neither can I find the story anywhere outside blogland that says the source is maariv.

your link in Hebrew...does it give a source for the document?


and thanks for the translating

 

[The Fool]

dup

 

[A'isha]

Ma'a'riv did post an apology to the story.
This is from another source since right now I can't locate Ma'a'riv's source.
http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA.html

It says that Maariv posted an aplogy saying that they are sorry for publishing a not fully correct story.
It appears that the dog was a pregnant female dog and it did enter the Beit Hadin. The authorities there called the official city dog pound to take it away. No stoning happened.

Your friendly neighborhood translator...

Linked at the bottom of that page is a related article about the Rabbi who was supposed to have ordered the stoning considering a lawsuit against those that eagerly published the story (and weren't so eager to publish the later retraction). Rabbi Levin is quoted as comparing the dog-stoning story to the blood libel.

The retraction doesn't appear at Ma'ariv's online site, but if you search for "לסקול" ("stoning") at the web page, the original Ma'ariv article that started this whole thing is the first search result. . Oddly, while the article appears as a search result, clicking on it just goes to a 404 Not Found page, like the article itself was pulled down but the search engine indexer doesn't know that.

 

[The Fool]

So you think the simplest explanation is that someone, an English speaking blogger, decided to fabricate a Hebrew document but then couldn't be bothered to come up with a better English translation?

Well, that's your opinion. I disagree, but I can't say your conspiracy theory surprises me.

conspiracy theory? wow....asking for a source is suggesting a conspiracy theory now?


again...anything you start with "so you think" is rarely what I think.....

 

[WildCat]

Do I have a life? Jesus.

The invasion was not your usual one, but the intent was to move there, and create a state where the Palestinians expected to assert their right of self determination. They didn't invade Israel, they invaded Palestine. They set up the armed forces eventually, even terrorist groups that are still celebrated today, ironically even using Nazi designed fighter planes for an air force.

Oh, I see... it's a unique definition of "invasion" that applies only to Jewish immigrants to British Mandate territory.

Invasion, collective punishment, genocide, war crimes, apartheid... all words that mean one thing, except when applied to Israel when it means something completely different.

The double "higher standard" for Israel again.

 

[Skeptic]

Invasion, collective punishment, genocide, war crimes, apartheid... all words that mean one thing, except when applied to Israel when it means something completely different.

When it applies to Israel, they are all synonyms for two things:

1). Jews defending themselves from others want them dead ("genocide", "War crimes", "collective punishment"), and/or

2). Jews daring to live in places others want to be Judenrein ("apartheid", "invasion").

I mean, all these poor, innocent folks want is the Jews dead (#1) and gone (#2). Is that too much to ask? Why are the Jews being so fussy about it?

 

[The Fool]

Linked at the bottom of that page is a related article about the Rabbi who was supposed to have ordered the stoning considering a lawsuit against those that eagerly published the story (and weren't so eager to publish the later retraction). Rabbi Levin is quoted as comparing the dog-stoning story to the blood libel.

The retraction doesn't appear at Ma'ariv's online site, but if you search for "לסקול" ("stoning") at the web page, the original Ma'ariv article that started this whole thing is the first search result. . Oddly, while the article appears as a search result, clicking on it just goes to a 404 Not Found page, like the article itself was pulled down but the search engine indexer doesn't know that.

This posessed dog stoning story just keeps getting more and more bizzare. I blame George Bush...

 

[yairhol]

This posessed dog stoning story just keeps getting more and more bizzare. I blame George Bush...

The Fool, it seems that Ma'a'riv retracted the whole article about the dog and pulled it out of its archive. I guess they really messed up on that story.
The links that Mycroft and I gave where you see the hardcopy version of the newspaper with the apology are genuine. At least I know that my link is definately genuine as it is a pretty big Haredim website. You can be sure that if that apology picture of the hardcopy version was faked, Ma'a'riv would have sued them.

 

[The Fool]

The Fool, it seems that Ma'a'riv retracted the whole article about the dog and pulled it out of its archive. I guess they really messed up on that story.
The links that Mycroft and I gave where you see the hardcopy version of the newspaper with the apology are genuine. At least I know that my link is definately genuine as it is a pretty big Haredim website. You can be sure that if that apology picture of the hardcopy version was faked, Ma'a'riv would have sued them.

the Ynet article says the source of the story was an orthadox website...nothing about Maariv?

but anyway....its a stupid possesed dog story.... who cares.

 

[yairhol]

the Ynet article says the source of the story was an orthadox website...nothing about Maariv?

but anyway....its a stupid possesed dog story.... who cares.

great, let's move on.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, I see... it's a unique definition of "invasion" that applies only to Jewish immigrants to British Mandate territory.

Invasion, collective punishment, genocide, war crimes, apartheid... all words that mean one thing, except when applied to Israel when it means something completely different.

The double "higher standard" for Israel again.

No.

"

• The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
• A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
• An intrusion or encroachment."

An invasion is not necessarily initially associated with an armed force. The Zionist aim was the establishment of a state where the Palestinians wanted a state. A conflict was inevitable, and Israel armed itself, including creating an air force. The concept has nothing to do with whether those involved were Jewish or not. When the aboriginals were invaded, they had no idea initially what was coming. By the time they did, it was too late. There were no grand landings with swarms of troops, and cannons being being arrayed against opposing armies. Your simplistic, and determinedly, personal attacks are repulsive.

This Jewish Israeli must be wrong about here opinion

I advocate a two-state solution for two reasons: firstly, to occupy another people is immoral, undemocratic and un-Jewish. It goes against the grain of what human beings should do to other human beings.
Secondly, the occupation is a cancer for the occupier as well. Ruling over another people against their will is inevitably going to become a malignancy within our own society.
I've probably been in every demonstration from the first one against the very first settlement that went up after the Six-Day War.
I've devoted a good portion of my adult life not only to social causes within Israel but to trying to find a way to achieve a just peace, a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.
All this comes from one source – a deep belief in the right of self-determination of the Jewish people in Israel. And I also believe it cannot be sustained unless that same right is accorded to Palestinians.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2760806.html


Israel is an occupier. What Israel is doing is " firstly, to occupy another people is immoral, undemocratic and un-Jewish. It goes against the grain of what human beings should do to other human beings."



Here is another Jew.

Israeli victim-hood is the premise on which the public relations machine relies to warrant their military actions. On this picture, a well-meaning, peace-loving Israel offers generous treaties and truces that are rejected by fanatical, fundamentalist terrorists in favour of murdering Jews. The story line is that, finally, Israel had no choice but to invade the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas.
This story can only convince an audience that does not know the facts and these are either falsified or left out altogether by Alhadeff.
First, the central factual claim on which the entire campaign rests concerns the relentless rocket fire against Israeli citizens that finally became intolerable and the justification for large-scale air-force strikes. As Israel's own newspaper Haaretz reminds us: "Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire."
Haaretz reports Israeli ministry of defence sources who reveal that plans for the operation were made over six months ago, at the same time as Israel was beginning to negotiate the truce agreement with Hamas. Nevertheless, the media and politicians have consistently reported the official Israeli lies, re-writing history effectively as it happens.

What did he say, Israel lies? Yes, that's what he said.


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/37788.html


Or another Jew.

From this claim Israel persists in its assertion of exceptionalism and a consequent exemption from international law and basic standards of human rights

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2764992.html


It is actually Israel who is claiming the exceptional, that what would not be acceptable for other Western style democracies is acceptable for Israel because it is 'exceptional'. These are not my words. I am just passing them on to you.


My interest is just trying to nail down at the moment, did the Palestinians have a right to self determination, did they assert their will to have that right. That seems to be denied. The usual gish gallop is the response, to avoid just a simple question.

 

[a_unique_person]

When it applies to Israel, they are all synonyms for two things:

1). Jews defending themselves from others want them dead ("genocide", "War crimes", "collective punishment"), and/or

2). Jews daring to live in places others want to be Judenrein ("apartheid", "invasion").

I mean, all these poor, innocent folks want is the Jews dead (#1) and gone (#2). Is that too much to ask? Why are the Jews being so fussy about it?

It was a Jew who made Gaza Judenrein.

Despite your repeated obscene accusations, I don't want you dead. Every time you feel like making this accusation about me, I want you to refer back to this post where I explicitly deny it.

 

[WildCat]

No.


"

• The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
• A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
• An intrusion or encroachment."

Doesn't the word "immigration" fit much better?

Ad Jews are a disease now?

 

[a_unique_person]

Doesn't the word "immigration" fit much better?

Ad Jews are a disease now?

In other words, nothing to say of any substance but more diversions. For the aborginals, there was no grand day of invasion, when it became obvious what has happening to them. There was no grand signing of a treaty to say 'you lost, we won'. It was a process that took over a century. But when they look back now, they know what happened, they were invaded. A lot of immigrants came over during that time. If you want to reduce complex events to simplistic black and white, then you aren't ever going to understand much about history at all.

 

[WildCat]

In other words, nothing to say of any substance but more diversions. For the aborginals, there was no grand day of invasion, when it became obvious what has happening to them. There was no grand signing of a treaty to say 'you lost, we won'. It was a process that took over a century. But when they look back now, they know what happened, they were invaded. A lot of immigrants came over during that time. If you want to reduce complex events to simplistic black and white, then you aren't ever going to understand much about history at all.

But let's make no mistake about it: The Jews emigrating to British Mandate territory bought land from the owners when they got there. The ones objecting to this were the militant anti-semites, for whom the thought of living alongside Jews was unacceptable. No land was taken from them, as happened to the indigenous Australians.

This is not even remotely comparable to what happened in Australia.

As I stated before, by your definition of "invasion" Muslims are "invading" the UK and France, and Mexicans are "invading" the United States. Do you think an "understandable" reaction in these instances would be to shoot Muslims and Mexicans?

 

[The Fool]

But let's make no mistake about it: The Jews emigrating to British Mandate territory bought land from the owners when they got there. The ones objecting to this were the militant anti-semites, for whom the thought of living alongside Jews was unacceptable. No land was taken from them, as happened to the indigenous Australians.

This is not even remotely comparable to what happened in Australia.

Imigrants to australia bought land off the owners too.....The crown

As I stated before, by your definition of "invasion" Muslims are "invading" the UK and France, and Mexicans are "invading" the United States. Do you think an "understandable" reaction in these instances would be to shoot Muslims and Mexicans?

of course not....Muslims and Mexicans have to buy land off the owners don't they? Thats something you say is not an invasion...your position seems rather elastic.