With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[a_unique_person]

I posted it because it fit with the topic. I did find it on LGF. It's gratifying that I seem to have turned you into a fan.



Oh, I get what you're trying to say.

The author produces a bizarre translation of kiddush hashem. Literally it would translate to "Blessing the name of God." This would normally be accomplished by living life by God’s commandments, or by performing a singular act of public courage, honesty, risk or integrity. Dying as a martyr can also do it, but you don’t seek this kind of martyrdom, and historically it refers to Jews who died during the Inquisition rather than endure forced conversions, or who were killed in the holocaust.

In the context of this story, kiddush hashem these girls in no way risk their lives, so the dying as a martyr translation is absurd. They are, however, performing a public act that requires courage and risk.



So this was a little version of your "parody" of Skeptics thread on the UN forces. Typical.

I don't believe most Jews would see it as these do, then again, I don't see that most Muslims are as you portray them either.

It's hardly a parody, and what I did to Skeptic was to point out to him the absurdity of his post, by using his own words, it was not a parody, but a juxtapostion. Parody implies humour, there was no humour intended.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think the solution is as simple as that. What is wanted, Peace, is simple and clear, the solution is not here yet after too many years.

And the solution never will be here as long as policy is guided by those who advocate fantasy and denial. Firing rockets into busses loaded with children is not maintaining a cease fire, and there is no reason to pretend it is.

A lasting peace will require effort by both sides.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't believe most Jews would see it as these do, then again, I don't see that most Muslims are as you portray them either.

This doesn't even make sense.

The girls are planning non-violent protest of their removal from their homes. Your clumsy attempt to make a parallel with suicide-terror failed.

 

[a_unique_person]

Whatever. The similarities are that you're both selective about the evidence you look at.

I think that makes you and him similar then, doesn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

I think you really need to poke a stick in your eye to avoid seeing a lot of information in order to maintain the opinions you do. At some point one has to wonder why it’s so important to you to cover your eyes and plug your ears and avoid learning of anything that hints at an Arab contribution to the conflict, yet glom onto anything that suggests Israeli responsibility. My personal theory is you’re a hard-core bigot who can’t help himself. I think you honestly believe everything you say, but something in your brain just acts as a filter and you’re just incapable of absorbing and processing information that might lead you to sympathize with the Israeli/Jewish position. Honestly, if you read Irving, this filter in your head would probably cause you to identify with him and his work.

All I have done is argue the same point, for god knows how long now. That, apparently is, not acceptable to you. From what I can discern from your argument, I have to argue your point every now and then.

 

[zenith-nadir]

This doesn't even make sense. The girls are planning non-violent protest of their removal from their homes. Your clumsy attempt to make a parallel with suicide-terror failed.

Forget it Mycroft. That is how bizzare a_u_p's position really is. He is now actually trying to draw some sort of parallel or equivalency between a road-blocking campaign by a handful of Israeli girls and terrorism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hizbollah....

just once say something that is not consistant with being a hopeless apologist for one side in this conflict. Just once and I'll review my opinion........just once. find a single miniscule fault with any israeli action....just once.

There are lots of mistakes Israel makes the fool. Israel is made up of humans just like you and me who are imperfect and capable of bad decisions. It's government is a democracy which is made up of many decision makers - each with their own agenda. No government in the world does everything perfectly or correctly and no one always agrees with their own government 100% of the time.

Where you and I differ is I cannot accept that the only answer the Palestinians have is terrorism. In the 20's Palestinians rioted against jews, in the 30s-40's their leader conspired with Hitler to kill jews, in the 50s, 60's - before the occupation!!! - it was terrorism, in the 70s it was terrorism, in the 80s it was terrorism, in the 90s it was terrorism and now in the 21st century it is still terrorism. I DISLIKE TERRORISTS and dictatorships more than I dislike Israel the fool. I take the Israeli side in the debate because there is nothing on earth that can make me take the side of the same people who have spent the past 80 years killing jews and using TERRORISM. Sorry but that is my position.

 

[a_unique_person]

I DISLIKE TERRORISTS and dictatorships more than I dislike Israel the fool. I take the Israeli side in the debate because there is nothing on earth that can make me take the side of the same people who have spent the past 80 years killing jews and using TERRORISM. Sorry but that is my position.

You don't have to be sorry, you have your position, and I have mine. I just wonder where in that scale you place ethnic cleansing and military occupation.

 

[zenith-nadir]

You don't have to be sorry, you have your position, and I have mine.

The disconnect is your position starts the clock after 1967 to explain the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Mine does not.

I just wonder where in that scale you place ethnic cleansing and military occupation.

Israel has not ethnically cleansed Israel of ethnic minorities. Israel has not ethnically cleansed Gaza or the West Bank of ethnic minorities. So say goodbye to the ethnic cleansing rhetoric, it is stale a_u_p.

Regarding the military occupation... it has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy - specifically with Israel - and the Palestinian Authority does nothing about it. That is unless you are debating that islamist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa, Hizbollah represent the Palestinian people.

Anyhow a_u_p after ten treaties signed by the Palestinian Authority to stop the islamist groups it is unfortuantely up to Israel to protect it's own civilians - in any way possible - from the "foreign policy negotiations" as conducted by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa and Hizbollah.

Had Tasmanian terror groups been bombing Melbourne and Sydney with the approval and consent of the "Tasmanian Authority" you can bet your bottom dollar Australian troops would do something about it.

 

[Cleon]

The disconnect is your position starts the clock after 1967 to explain the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Mine does not.

Actually, I've frequently seen AUP refer to earlier causes--particularly the Zionist colonization of Palestine, with backing by European leaders (particularly the Brits).

Israel has not ethnically cleansed Israel of ethnic minorities.

Not completely, no, but it wasn't for lack of effort.

Regarding the military occupation... it has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy - specifically with Israel - and the Palestinian Authority does nothing about it.

You don't really believe this, do you? Are/were the establishment of settlements a direct result of Palestinian terrorism, too? The annexation of Jerusalem? How does one get from "terrorism" to "we'll have to establish ethnically exclusive colonies on Palestinian land?"

 

[zenith-nadir]

Actually, I've frequently seen AUP refer to earlier causes--particularly the Zionist colonization of Palestine, with backing by European leaders (particularly the Brits).

People have "colonized" this entire planet Cleon, on the backs of many races. You live in America where Native American land was colonized by Europeans. A_u_p lives in Australia where Aboriginal land was colonized by Europeans. South America was colonized by Europeans, Canada was colonized by Europeans.

Are Native Americans blowing up restaurants and buses in your city Cleon in resistance to the "European colonization" that took place 100 years ago? Are First Nation Canadians hijacking airplanes, cruise ships or killing athletes at the Olympics? Are Aborigines doing those types of things in Australia? If Native Americans did start suicide bombing restaurants in your city Cleon would you also rationalize it as "resisting European colonization"?

None of those original races had the options the Palestinians have been offered time and time again to have their own state - and that is the tragedy. The British offered them a state they refused, the UN offered them a state and they refused. For the past 15 years the world has been trying to give them a state but their leaders refuse unless they can totally reverse the "Zionist colonization of Palestine". Well the bell cannot be unrung.....sorry about that.

You don't really believe this, do you? Are/were the establishment of settlements a direct result of Palestinian terrorism, too? The annexation of Jerusalem? How does one get from "terrorism" to "we'll have to establish ethnically exclusive colonies on Palestinian land?"

When Jordan annexed Jerusalem from the British in 1948 the Arab world had 20 years to make it the Palestinian capital of planet earth and they didn't. Then in 1967 during a war Israel gained control of Jerusalem. It's really too bad you have an issue with that, but it is in safer hands now.... Anyhow your choices regarding the cough...annexation of Jerusalem...cough are; A) deal with it, B) negotiate peacefully for some of it back or C) spend the next 40 years whining about it and using it as justification for sending your kids to blow themselves up on Israeli buses.

Regarding the settlements, they are a direct result of the desire of some religious jews to peacefully settle in what was called J- u-d-e-a and Samaria for 3000 years... they have a hangup about the land in a way the Palestinians have a hangup about the land. I guess if I was a racist prick I too would have a problem with that concept, but I am not. On the other hand the settlement policy is partially motivated by the desire to replace the people trying to kill jews since the 1920s with people who will not try to kill jews. So in answer to your first question the answer is "yes", one of the reasons for the establishment of settlements is Arab aggression and Palestinian terrorism.

For instance;

Clash between Palestinian security forces

GAZA, June 2 (UPI) -- Palestinian forces from separate security agencies clashed in Gaza Thursday over recently introduces security arrangements.

Witnesses and Palestinian sources said dozens of gunmen from the military intelligence agency encircled a headquarters of Palestinian security in Gaza and opened fire at the guards sparking a gun battle.

It's ok everyone, theses people are just resisting the "Zionist colonization of Palestine".

 

[Cleon]

People have "colonized" this entire planet Cleon, on the backs of many races. You live in America where Native American land was colonized by Europeans. A_u_p lives in Australia where Aboriginal land was colonized by Europeans. South America was colonized by Europeans, Canada was colonized by Europeans.

None of which has the slightest thing to do with your claim that AUP's position "starts the clock after 1967 to explain the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank," which I was challenging.

When Jordan annexed Jerusalem from the British in 1948 the Arab world had 20 years to make it the Palestinian capital of planet earth and they didn't. Then in 1967 during a war Israel gained control of Jerusalem. It's really too bad you have an issue with that, but it is in safer hands now.... Anyhow your choices regarding the cough...annexation of Jerusalem...cough are; A) deal with it, B) negotiate peacefully for some of it back or C) spend the next 40 years whining about it and using it as justification for sending your kids to blow themselves up on Israeli buses.

None of which has the slightest thing to do with your claim that "the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy."

Regarding the settlements, they are a direct result of the desire of some religious jews to peacefully settle

Peacefully? This is a joke, right? You don't "peacefully" kick people out of their homes, "peacefully" assault their towns and villages, and "peacefully" establish colonies where only Jews are permitted. That's not peaceful in any reasonable definition of the term.

in what was called J- u-d-e-a and Samaria for 3000 years...

Oh, puh-lease...For the vast majority of that time there was very little Jewish presence there. Who, exactly, was referring to it as "Judea" and "Samaria?" Not the people who actually lived there, that's for sure.

they have a hangup about the land in a way the Palestinians have a hangup about the land. I guess if I was a racist prick I too would have a problem with that concept, but I am not. On the other hand the settlement policy is partially motivated by the desire to replace the people trying to kill jews since the 1920s with people who will not try to kill jews. So in answer to your first question the answer is "yes", one of the reasons for the establishment of settlements is Arab aggression and Palestinian terrorism.

Wow...That's an incredible dance, I have to hand it to you. It still doesn't make sense, or come close to historical reality, but it's a nice dance.

But, see, your original claim is that the military occupation "has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy." The settlements are a key part of the military occupation. The idea that settlements are being continually established and expanded renders that claim ridiculous. At best.

The military occupation has remained not because of Palestinian terrorism, but because the Israeli right wing wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza. (Hence the vehement opposition to Sharon's Gaza plan by the right wing of Likud and others.) The military occupation has nothing to do with terrorism; it's its own goal.

 

[Mycroft]

But, see, your original claim is that the military occupation "has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy."

Cleon,

The Palestinian Authority is formerly the PLO, which was itself a collection of Palestinian terrorist organizations. In this sense, it's self evident that every Palestinian policy, foreign or domestic, is dictated by Palestinian terror groups, because they're the government.

 

[Mycroft]

I think that makes you and him similar then, doesn't it?

I am rubber, you are glue...

Seriously, the difference is we acknowledge and address information you bring up. You just ignore (except for an occasional, "I don’t deny that") or minimize evidence you don’t like.

All I have done is argue the same point, for god knows how long now. That, apparently is, not acceptable to you. From what I can discern from your argument, I have to argue your point every now and then.

"Acceptable" isn’t the right word. Your opinion is what it is. I believe you have to be in serious denial and to deliberately ignore a lot of information to hold that opinion, and I believe these mental filters of yours are the result of bigotry.

Do you have to argue my points? Well, that seems to be the opinion of your buddy, who keeps badgering me to say "something that is not consistant[sic] with being a hopeless apologist." Me, I think it would be significant if you would just acknowledge and address opposing arguments instead of ignoring them, and be willing to discuss events without removing them from their context. For example:

You don't have to be sorry, you have your position, and I have mine. I just wonder where in that scale you place ethnic cleansing and military occupation.

Again you use the emotionally charged "ethnic cleansing" referring to the Arab refugees created by the Israeli war of independence, but taking it out of context of this war of survival and simultaneously ignoring the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on on the Arab side. Is this honest? I don’t think so. In phrasing it this way, you imply that total responsibility for the conflict lay on the Jewish side with no contribution at all from the Arab side. This, in my opinion, is the sort of denial, historical revisionism, and dishonesty that can only be the result of bigotry.

Also with the term "military occupation." We can all agree that occupation is bad, but you dishonestly ignore the Palestinian-Arab role in maintaining the conflict (and thus the occupation) and phrasing it in a way as to place all the blame for the conflict on the Israeli side.

 

[Cleon]

Cleon,

The Palestinian Authority is formerly the PLO, which was itself a collection of Palestinian terrorist organizations. In this sense, it's self evident that every Palestinian policy, foreign or domestic, is dictated by Palestinian terror groups, because they're the government.

None of which has the slightest thing to do with ZN's bizarre claim that "the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy."

 

[Mycroft]

None of which has the slightest thing to do with ZN's bizarre claim that "the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy."

Well, we've established that Palestinian policy is dictated by Palestinian terror groups, now all we have to do is establish that if Palestinian policy had been different, that Palestinian independence could have been achieved already.

 

[zenith-nadir]

None of which has the slightest thing to do with your claim that AUP's position "starts the clock after 1967 to explain the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank," which I was challenging.

Ok, I'm game....feel free to find the quotes by a_u_p which explains how the occupation came about and why it remains.

None of which has the slightest thing to do with your claim that "the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy".

One reason the IDF maintains a "military occupation" in Gaza and the West Bank is to protect Israelis from gangs of thugs who are allowed to send gunmen/bombers and launch rockets/mortars at Israel. Another reason the IDF maintains a "military occupation" in Gaza and the West Bank is to protect settlers from gangs of thugs who are allowed to send gunmen/bombers and launch rockets/mortars at settlers. Yet another reason Cleon the IDF maintains a "military occupation" in Gaza and the West Bank is that the Palestinian Authority has been unwilling to stop said gangs of thugs who are allowed to send gunmen/bombers and launch rockets/mortars at Israelis and settlers. You want the past 50+ years of thugs sending gunmen/bombers and launching rockets/mortars at Israel to dissapear and be replaced with "the IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism.".

Peacefully? This is a joke, right? You don't "peacefully" kick people out of their homes, "peacefully" assault their towns and villages,

And here we go again...You want the past 50+ years of thugs sending gunmen/bombers and launching rockets/mortars at Israel to dissapear and be replaced with "the IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism.".

...and "peacefully" establish colonies where only Jews are permitted. That's not peaceful in any reasonable definition of the term.

Before the Tunisians arrived in 1993 Cleon over 130,000 Palestinians were working in Israel or on its settlements. Palestinians were not interested in living in jewish settlements. So to use the "jewish only" card is setting up a caricature... AKA a strawman.

Oh, puh-lease...For the vast majority of that time there was very little Jewish presence there. Who, exactly, was referring to it as "Judea" and "Samaria?" Not the people who actually lived there, that's for sure.

For thousands of years the area was refered to as judea and samaria until Jordan renamed it in 1949. As far as your claim that "for the vast majority of that time there was very little Jewish presence there" I draw your attention to Hebron and Jerusalem - which happen to be two of the oldest and longest jewish-populated places on Earth.

Wow...That's an incredible dance, I have to hand it to you. It still doesn't make sense, or come close to historical reality, but it's a nice dance.

I've learn't only Cleon makes sense to Cleon.

But, see, your original claim is that the military occupation "has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy." The settlements are a key part of the military occupation. The idea that settlements are being continually established and expanded renders that claim ridiculous.

I have already explained my position on the settlements. I choose not to play semantic games so that you may ultimately revert to "the IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism.".

The military occupation has remained not because of Palestinian terrorism, but because the Israeli right wing wants to annex the West Bank and Gaza. (Hence the vehement opposition to Sharon's Gaza plan by the right wing of Likud and others.) The military occupation has nothing to do with terrorism; it's its own goal.

Yes, yes... we've heard it a hundred times before, "The military occupation has nothing to do with terrorism....the IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism.... and the Palestinian terrorism - which ironically predates the occupation - is because of the zionist/european colonialism of Palestine".

TNone of which has the slightest thing to do with ZN's bizarre claim that "the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy."

Yes, yes... we've heard it a hundred times before, "The military occupation has nothing to do with terrorism....the IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism.... and the Palestinian terrorism is because of the zionist/european colonialism of Palestine".

The Palestinian Authority is formerly the PLO, which was itself a collection of Palestinian terrorist organizations. In this sense, it's self evident that every Palestinian policy, foreign or domestic, is dictated by Palestinian terror groups, because they're the government.

The IDF maintains a military occupation in Gaza and the West Bank because of 'right wing' Israeli colonialism Mycroft not becasue the Palestinian Authority used to be a collection of Palestinian terrorist organizations.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, yes, zenith-nadir, I've heard it a hundred times before...Everything Israel does that can remotely be considered negative is obviously the Palestinians' fault.

Ah, the wonderful benefits of debating with you...

 

[Cleon]

Well, we've established that Palestinian policy is dictated by Palestinian terror groups, now all we have to do is establish that if Palestinian policy had been different, that Palestinian independence could have been achieved already.

Gotta love the "we" bit.

In any event, a military occupation is ongoing, Palestinian independence or not. And no, terrorism is not the reason for it. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Cleon]

Ok, I'm game....feel free to find the quotes by a_u_p which explains how the occupation came about and why it remains.

Your claim, bucko. If you can't justify it, don't ask others to disprove it.

One reason the IDF maintains a "military occupation" in Gaza and the West Bank is to protect Israelis from gangs of thugs

you mean the settlers? In any event, that wasn't your claim. Your claim was:

"the military occupation...has remained because Palestinian Islamist terror groups have been dictating Palestinian foreign policy"

I guess if it wasn't for those terrorists running the PA, the settlements would just disappear, right? Or the IDF would stop defending them?

Palestinians were not interested in living in jewish settlements. So to use the "jewish only" card is setting up a caricature... AKA a strawman.

Oh, puh-leaze. Palestinians are not permitted to live in the settlements, or even use their frikkin' roads. Either (try to) justify it or condemn it, but don't try to tap dance around it.

For thousands of years the area was refered to as judea and samaria until Jordan renamed it in 1949. As far as your claim that "for the vast majority of that time there was very little Jewish presence there" I draw your attention to Hebron and Jerusalem - which happen to be two of the oldest and longest jewish-populated places on Earth.

Dance, dance, dance.

I never, ever said that there was "no" Jewish presence, just very little of it. And before the Zionist project, you know what language those populations spoke on a daily basis? (Hint...It wasn't Hebrew.) So, I repeat, who exactly was referring to it as "Judea" and "Samaria?"

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Gotta love the "we" bit.

In any event, a military occupation is ongoing, Palestinian independence or not. And no, terrorism is not the reason for it. Never has been, never will be.

Terrorism is a good part of the reason it continues and hasn't been resolved during the many opportunites.

Originally posted by Cleon
I guess if it wasn't for those terrorists running the PA, the settlements would just disappear, right? Or the IDF would stop defending them?

I don't believe the settlements are the only reason for the continued conflict. If they were, Arafat would have accepted the peace deal back in 2000.

Originally posted by Cleon
Oh, puh-leaze. Palestinians are not permitted to live in the settlements, or even use their frikkin' roads. Either (try to) justify it or condemn it, but don't try to tap dance around it.

The closing of the roads is a result of violence from the Intifada, you know this, so it's dishonest to ascribe this to racism.

Further, as long as there is violent conflict, it's dishonest to claim there could not be integrated Palestinian-Jewish settlements. Which, incidentally, would go a long way towards advancing a one-state solution.

Originally posted by Cleon
I never, ever said that there was "no" Jewish presence, just very little of it. And before the Zionist project, you know what language those populations spoke on a daily basis? (Hint...It wasn't Hebrew.) So, I repeat, who exactly was referring to it as "Judea" and "Samaria?"

I don’t speak any Native American languages, yet the town I live in has a Native American name. I don’t know if the locals called it Judea or Samaria before Jordan took over, but clearly your "proof" that it wasn’t Judea or Samaria doesn’t hold water.