General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[WildCat]

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

How did the Crown acquire it?

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.

It's not my position, it's a_u_p's position. Emigrating to another country and buying land = invasion. Thus, it is understandable that the natives wish to shoot them.

Or does this only apply to Jewish immigrants?

 

[Skeptic]

How did the Crown acquire it?

Shooting and genociding the natives.

 

[IDB87]

No.


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.

Do you have evidence that the Palestinians wanted any sort of independent national state in the area occupied by the Ottomans before the end of the first world war? When did Zionists first starting immigrating to Palestine?

When the aboriginals were invaded, they had no idea initially what was coming. By the time they did, it was too late.

What are you talking about? Zionists had been immigrating to Palestine for something like 50 years. This wasn't an overnight thing.

There were no grand landings with swarms of troops, and cannons being being arrayed against opposing armies.

Are you a Zionist who is terrified of Palestinians usurping demographic control from Jewish Israelis? Sounds like you're a bit xenophobic.

did the Palestinians have a right to self determination,

Yes, and they squandered it by going to war.

did they assert their will to have that right.

They attempted to assert their will through force of arms, yes.

 

[Skeptic]

Do you have evidence that the Palestinians wanted any sort of independent national state in the area occupied by the Ottomans before the end of the first world war? When did Zionists first starting immigrating to Palestine?

About 1880. The Arabs so hated these evil land-stealers (by paying money for it, a special kind of stealing that applies only to Jews) that immigration of Arabs *to* Palestine, to enjoy the improved conditions, had significantly increased.

Best analysis is that there were about 400,000 Arabs in Palestine in the 1890s and the population increased significantly by the 1920s.

The data, the authors conclude, cannot allow very detailed conclusions, but it DOES explode two myths: that there were no Arabs there in the 1880s, and that the Arabs were "dispossessed" by Jews buying land.

All this of course does not mean the Arabs there saw themselves as Palestinians in the 1890s, which is a whole other issue.

 

[Mycroft]

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.....

Now I'm confused. Earlier you said the "simplest" explanation, the one supported by Occam's Razor is that the Hebrew document was just made up by the blogger. You remember, because you can't find any other sources for it?

If some blogger manufacturing fake evidence isn't a conspiracy theory, what is?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Parky isn't here anymore. We can go back to "double standard. "

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Mycroft, was "double standard" the equivalent of "bat credit card"

 

[The Fool]

Now I'm confused. Earlier you said the "simplest" explanation, the one supported by Occam's Razor is that the Hebrew document was just made up by the blogger. You remember, because you can't find any other sources for it?

If some blogger manufacturing fake evidence isn't a conspiracy theory, what is?

sigh... you need to refresh yourself on the term rather than just flinging it around as a general insult.


conspiracy theory: A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.


a one blogger conspiracy theory??

and anyway....I simply said that if there is only one source for something then the simplest explanation is that its the source....if you are so keen on the "simplest explanation" stuff.

 

[The Fool]

How did the Crown acquire it?

why are you interested? You are not interested in how the people that Jews bought land off got the land.....

It's not my position, it's a_u_p's position. Emigrating to another country and buying land = invasion. Thus, it is understandable that the natives wish to shoot them.

Or does this only apply to Jewish immigrants?

sorry mate...due to your long history I simply reject by default your summary of anyones positions who you are arguing with.

If you want to claim AUP said something quote it or I simply assume by default you are fabricating, lying and/or distorting..

 

[yairhol]

The Fool, don't start with this again...
You agreed it's over with (the dog/conspiracy/fake/Maariv/whatever story).
Maariv apologized, the newspaper article is official and true, there was no faking anything. Just a story that was badly covered by the reporter.
Move on.

 

[WildCat]

why are you interested?

Oh, I already know. They actually stole it.

You are not interested in how the people that Jews bought land off got the land.....

Oh, but I am! Can you enlighten me?

sorry mate...due to your long history I simply reject by default your summary of anyones positions who you are arguing with.

If you want to claim AUP said something quote it or I simply assume by default you are fabricating, lying and/or distorting..

Do you have a_u_p on ignore? He doesn't even deny it. Poor guy is desperately trying to rationalize why it's OK to shoot immigrants you don't like by calling them "invaders", and then finding a definition of "invaders" that sounds an awful lot like the definition of "immigrants". This definition, of course, applies exclusively to Jews emigrating to British Mandate territory prior to 1948. Jews, apparently, are the only group to successfully "invade" a territory by buying land one parcel at a time over half a century without firing a shot... clever people!

 

[The Fool]

Oh, I already know. They actually stole it.


Oh, but I am! Can you enlighten me?


Do you have a_u_p on ignore? He doesn't even deny it. Poor guy is desperately trying to rationalize why it's OK to shoot immigrants you don't like by calling them "invaders", and then finding a definition of "invaders" that sounds an awful lot like the definition of "immigrants". This definition, of course, applies exclusively to Jews emigrating to British Mandate territory prior to 1948. Jews, apparently, are the only group to successfully "invade" a territory by buying land one parcel at a time over half a century without firing a shot... clever people!

wave your hands a bit more....use more smoke. These two steps will probably help your goals.

once again....your "summaries" of others arguments are laughable.

 

[The Fool]

The Fool, don't start with this again...
You agreed it's over with (the dog/conspiracy/fake/Maariv/whatever story).
Maariv apologized, the newspaper article is official and true, there was no faking anything. Just a story that was badly covered by the reporter.
Move on.

happy to move on....have a chat with Mycroft. Convince him to get a new hobby.

 

[The Fool]

Oh, but I am! Can you enlighten me?

you are suddenly interested in who the land was purchased off? Are you familiar with the term "absentee landlord" (lets start slowly).

 

[Mycroft]

you are suddenly interested in who the land was purchased off? Are you familiar with the term "absentee landlord" (lets start slowly).

You have this bizarre way of never actually saying what it is you're trying to say. I guess it goes along with your other habit of complaining about how others represent you but never actually saying how they're wrong and correcting them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, I already know. They actually stole it.


Oh, but I am! Can you enlighten me?


Do you have a_u_p on ignore? He doesn't even deny it. Poor guy is desperately trying to rationalize why it's OK to shoot immigrants you don't like by calling them "invaders", and then finding a definition of "invaders" that sounds an awful lot like the definition of "immigrants". This definition, of course, applies exclusively to Jews emigrating to British Mandate territory prior to 1948. Jews, apparently, are the only group to successfully "invade" a territory by buying land one parcel at a time over half a century without firing a shot... clever people!

The aboriginals killed immigrants. The American indians killed immigrants. There are numerous examples of indigineous people killing or attacking those who considered themselves immigrants. It's not an unusual event in history. They were attacked because those immigrants were seen by the indigineous as being invaders. Once again, hardly an unknown event in history. Nothing at all to do with being Jewish or not, but self determination.

 

[Virus]

Nothing at all to do with being Jewish or not, but self determination.

How do you know? What evidence is this based on?

 

[WildCat]

The aboriginals killed immigrants. The American indians killed immigrants. There are numerous examples of indigineous people killing or attacking those who considered themselves immigrants. It's not an unusual event in history. They were attacked because those immigrants were seen by the indigineous as being invaders. Once again, hardly an unknown event in history. Nothing at all to do with being Jewish or not, but self determination.

Except there's a big difference between immigrants and actual invaders, do you know what it is? Here, I'll spell it out for you: Immigrants don't taske property at gunpoint. Immigrants enter the territory in accordance with the laws of the governing power of said territory. Immigrants buy the land they intend to live on, paying the current owners a mutually agreed upon sum without coercion.

And once again, by your own definition Muslims are "invading" France and the UK, and Mexicans are "invading" the USA. Would you find it "understandable" if groups of British, French, and Americans decided to shoot Muslims and Mexicans?

Oh wait, I forgot... your definition applies only to Jews immigrating to British Mandate territory, yes?

Or maybe you have another example of "invaders" who enter with passports in compliance with local laws and purchase land?

 

[WildCat]

you are suddenly interested in who the land was purchased off? Are you familiar with the term "absentee landlord" (lets start slowly).

How about you just say what you're hinting at?

You see, I'm an American midwesterner, we like to just get straight to the point. Maybe in Oz speaking directly to the point is considered rude or obnoxious, but I assure you I will not be offended if you just say what you mean. Deal?

 

[stokes234]

Except there's a big difference between immigrants and actual invaders, do you know what it is? Here, I'll spell it out for you: Immigrants don't taske property at gunpoint. Immigrants enter the territory in accordance with the laws of the governing power of said territory. Immigrants buy the land they intend to live on, paying the current owners a mutually agreed upon sum without coercion.

Is this really what is happening in israel/palestine? I thought the settlements were often against the wishes of people living there.