Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jerusalem Post)   Hamas: "We ask the Israeli Knesset to please keep the IDF Radio Station on the air in the name of freedom of expression". Yeah, you read that right   (jpost.com) divider line 157
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

1797 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2011 at 3:53 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-22 11:26:48 AM  

liam76:

Palestine never owned that land, as they didn't accept the partition plan.


So it's still under British mandate, then?
 
2011-06-22 11:27:09 AM  
So it's dishonest then. I thought so.
 
2011-06-22 11:33:46 AM  

Zagloba: liam76: I never said it was the same, I am saying the anger over having to move 50 miles (the farthest any palestenians was forced to move) doesn't justify a cult mentality where you teach kids it is good to die killing jews.

You read it here, folks, dispossession of hundreds of thousands of people, exiling them into a foreign country who doesn't want them and to whom they have no ties nor allegiance, is just fine as long as they aren't relocated more than 50 miles in the process.

/Seriously, fark the politics of the Israel/Palestine situation. There are no honorable actors there. But anyone who defends the situation of regular Palestinian jackoffs as anything other than rank human rights abuses deserves to get their house bulldozed and their cash crops burned.


Moving Palestenians from one part of what is Israel into Gaza or the west bank isn't exiling them into a foreign country.

Israel didn't "exile" hundreds of thousands of people.

It was wrong for Israel to boot out the people that they did in 1948, but weighed againt the very real fear that they would be overrun if they didn't and when it happened, I can't get that upset.

Shatner's Bassoon: You're talking about the guy who describes the IRA as the 'good' kind of terrorists. I'd call it a day and move on.


If someone said that getting one leg amputated isn't as bad as getting two legs amputated does that mean getting one leg amputated is a "good" amputation?

/probably not worth my time, you will just keep lying and pretending I said they were good.
 
2011-06-22 11:37:15 AM  

liam76: Farker T: liam76: LectertheChef: Makes sense, after all, the IDF awardedservice medals to terrorists.

Hmmmh service medals for a group that did some farked up stuff 30+ yrs ago or electing a terrorist group to run the govt.

Tough call on which is worse.


Your selective ignorance is the worst.

Is Lehi still around? Are they elected to run Israel?

Selective ignorance is when people flip out on Israel for awarding ribbons to a group in the 80's for stuff they did in the 40's that is considered terrorism but don't bat an eye about palestine electing a group that commits acts of terrorism today. or in other words, what you and LectertheChef are doing.


It's amusing to me that you continue to make excuses for Israel, a nation founded on terrorism. Hell, they made Hamas what it is today, by backing them in a power struggle between Hamas and the PLO. A nation who had no problems whatsoever attacking a U.S. Naval vessel in international waters, unprovoked. And you, as well as many others, defend them. Often times, defenders of Israel seem to care more about that country than their own.
 
2011-06-22 11:40:23 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76:

Palestine never owned that land, as they didn't accept the partition plan.

So it's still under British mandate, then?


Britain washed their hands of it.

If they had accepted the UN partition plan they would have recognized borders, they didn't. Since they don't you can't say Israel took their land, at least in the context it being some bar for acceptence in the UN.
 
2011-06-22 11:46:46 AM  

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76:

Palestine never owned that land, as they didn't accept the partition plan.

So it's still under British mandate, then?

Britain washed their hands of it.

If they had accepted the UN partition plan they would have recognized borders, they didn't. Since they don't you can't say Israel took their land, at least in the context it being some bar for acceptence in the UN.


I surely can say that Israel has taken land that they have no more legitimate legal claim to than does China.
 
2011-06-22 11:52:10 AM  

LectertheChef: It's amusing to me that you continue to make excuses for Israel, a nation founded on terrorism.


Just as much as the US was atthe time.

LectertheChef: Hell, they made Hamas what it is today, by backing them in a power struggle between Hamas and the PLO.


They helped a religious charity group that was building mosques and schools.

LectertheChef: A nation who had no problems whatsoever attacking a U.S. Naval vessel in international waters, unprovoked


What is the logic behind this one? If they attacked it for any reason other than a mistake, why not finish the job?

If you can come up with a single reason why attacking but not sinking the Liberty could have made sense you might have a goodpint here. If not I would recommend you stay off stormfront, and maybe take the tinfoil hat off.
 
2011-06-22 11:53:09 AM  

liam76: Farker T: liam76: Selective ignorance is when people flip out on Israel for awarding ribbons to a group in the 80's for stuff they did in the 40's that is considered terrorism but don't bat an eye about palestine electing a group that commits acts of terrorism today. or in other words, what you and LectertheChef are doing.

Selective ignorance is when people flip out over the murderous policies racism, expansionism and ethnic supremacism that the Nazis committed in the 1930's and 40's, but don't bat an eye about what the Zionist-cum-Israelis have been doing since even before WWII, and continue to do TODAY.


Xionist76: What is hilarious about you continually brining up the Nazi's is you will go out of your way to explain how the jews in general and zionists in particular aren't innocent of what happened during the holocaust. You will go into great detail about how they pushed to Nazi's to take the actions they did yet every bad thing Israel does is because it is run by evil jews, not in reaction to actual attacks or real risks.

You will look at Israel where all people can vote, hold office and have the same rights and say it is worse or as bad as nazi germany where jews had no rights.

You will look at Israel who kicked some people out of their home during war and wouldn't allow them or the peopel who fled back and say it is worse or as bad as nazi germany where the wrong people weren't allowed to flee but were forced into industrial death camps where they were slaughtered by the millions.

and after that you will try and say others have selective ignorance? You are a farking joke. It would be funny if there weren;t so many peopel who think like you.



I don't have time to toy with you at the moment, Xionist76, but I would appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.

Mmmkay?
 
2011-06-22 11:59:20 AM  
I'm kind of surprised that Israel hasn't poisoned the water supply or used some undetectable means to kill off the Palestinians for some more lebensraum.
 
2011-06-22 12:08:43 PM  

liam76: LectertheChef: A nation who had no problems whatsoever attacking a U.S. Naval vessel in international waters, unprovoked

What is the logic behind this one? If they attacked it for any reason other than a mistake, why not finish the job?

If you can come up with a single reason why attacking but not sinking the Liberty could have made sense you might have a goodpint here. If not I would recommend you stay off stormfront, and maybe take the tinfoil hat off.



The fact that the Liberty didn't sink was NOT for lack of effort by Izzy, who attacked with rockets, napalm, strafing and TORPEDOES in an effort to sink the ship and murder all hands - the idea being to blame Egypt, invoking the wrath of the US.

sydwalker.info


The fact that she didn't sink was Izzy's FAIL.

Izzy was trying like hell to blame the attack on Egypt, and damn near succeeded in getting the US to NUKE Cairo with this false-flag op.

Those that are interested can watch this BBC documentary on the Liberty incident (new window).

I suggest that you refrain from watching, Xionist76, as it may make it more difficult for you to feign ignorance in the future.
 
2011-06-22 12:08:49 PM  
James F. Campbell
I'm kind of surprised that Israel hasn't poisoned the water supply or used some undetectable means to kill off the Palestinians for some more lebensraum.


The anti-semitism is very strong in this thread......why is that?
 
2011-06-22 12:10:02 PM  

James F. Campbell: I'm kind of surprised that Israel hasn't poisoned the water supply or used some undetectable means to kill off the Palestinians for some more lebensraum.



If you have ideas, I'm sure Izzy would be all ears.
 
2011-06-22 12:10:41 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State at the time of the incident, wrote:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.[52]"

Retired naval Lieutenant Commander James Ennes, a junior officer (and off-going Officer of the Deck) on Liberty's bridge at the time of the attack, authored a book titled Assault on the Liberty (Random House, 1980; Ballantine Books 1986; Reintree Press 2004) describing the incident during the Six Day War in June 1967 and claiming, among other things, it was deliberate. Ennes and Joe Meadors, another survivor of the attack, run a website[53] about the incident. Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,[54] to which survivors and other former crew members belong. Other survivors run several additional websites. Citing Ennes's book, Lenczowski notes: Liberty's personnel received firm orders not to say anything to anybody about the attack, and the naval inquiry was conducted in such a way as to earn it the name of "coverup".[41]

In 2002, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, senior counsel for the Court of Inquiry, claimed that the Court of Inquiry's findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship it knew to be American. In 2004, in response to the publication of Jay Cristol's book The Liberty Incident, which Boston claimed was an "insidious attempt to whitewash the facts" he prepared and signed an affidavit[55] in which he claimed that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that he and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate. On the issue Boston wrote, in part:

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous bastards.' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident."

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[62][dead link] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book "History of the Mossad" states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[63] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that by moving troops to the Golan Heights. Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[64]

Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to "attack and destroy" the ship "may appear puzzling", the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, "Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 AM, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 AM, that is, four hours later, Israel's minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, "gave the order to go into action against Syria."[65] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it "might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria's Golan Heights" and, in the sense of Ennes's accusations, provides "a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack."[66]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow."[67]

At least two rescue attempts were launched from U.S. aircraft carriers nearby but were recalled, according to the Liberty's senior Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander David Lewis. Lewis made an audio recording and later wrote about a meeting 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis requested in his cabins: "He told me that since I was the senior Liberty survivor on board he wanted to tell me in confidence what had actually transpired. He told me that upon receipt of our SOS, aircraft were launched to come to our assistance and then Washington was notified. He said that the Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) had ordered that the aircraft be returned to the carrier, which was done. RADM Geis then said that he speculated that Washington may have suspected that the aircraft carried nuclear weapons so he put together another flight of conventional aircraft that had no capability of carrying nuclear weapons. These he launched to assist us and again notified Washington of his actions. Again McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. He requested confirmation of the order being unable to believe that Washington would let us sink. This time President Johnson ordered the recall with the comment that he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies."
 
2011-06-22 12:11:07 PM  

karnal: James F. Campbell
I'm kind of surprised that Israel hasn't poisoned the water supply or used some undetectable means to kill off the Palestinians for some more lebensraum.

The anti-semitism is very strong in this thread......why is that?



The SEMITISM is also very strong in this thread.

Chicken or egg?
 
2011-06-22 12:15:30 PM  

Farker T: Xionist76: What is hilarious about you continually brining up the Nazi's is you will go out of your way to explain how the jews in general and zionists in particular aren't innocent of what happened during the holocaust. You will go into great detail about how they pushed to Nazi's to take the actions they did yet every bad thing Israel does is because it is run by evil jews, not in reaction to actual attacks or real risks.


I am not going to sort through all your garbage, but you used the" jews in general and zionists in particular" when defending germanies actions before. I think it was one of your rants about a headline declaring that "judea declares war on germany" meant that all jews were against germany.

As to the second bolded parts, are you now claiming that during the 48, 67 and six day war there were no actual attacks? Or that rockets attacks never happened? Or maybe you are saying since the built the wall that suicide attacks haven't gone down? I am really curious about that one.
 
2011-06-22 12:18:25 PM  

Farker T: The fact that she didn't sink was Izzy's FAIL.


They had it surrounded with torpedo boats.

If it was a conspiracy that isn't something you half ass.

this is what I love abotu people like you.

you give the jews credit for controlling all the bansk and starting allt hew ars but at the same time don;t think they ahve the abilities in their own country to sink a practically unarmed ship.
 
2011-06-22 12:18:53 PM  
Ah, Fark.

Where everyone is either a paid Mossad shill or an anti-semite Nazi.

The wonderful land of hyperbole.
 
2011-06-22 12:19:29 PM  
117 comments (that I didn't read) and no pics of hot IDF chicks? WTF Fark?
 
2011-06-22 12:21:17 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: liam76: Zagloba: Tatsuma: My Israel wants the IDF station cut, because they let members of an outlawed democratically elected national front-cum terrorist organization responsible for possibly a thousand dead and many more injured speak on it.

No, FTFY.

/If we're comparing body counts and eliminationist rhetoric, Likud comes off looking pretty terroristic. Just sayin'.

They are still outlawed in many countries.

Likud's official position doesn't call for removing all the arabs from Israel, West Bank and Gaza, unless something has changed. Not so much for Hamas. Also it was a Likud led govt that made peace with Egypt.

Also if you want to compare 'eliminationist rhetoric' I will say some fringe members of Likud go to far but they don;t put forth cartoons for kids using a mickey mouse knock-off that encourages kids to kill any arabs they can find.

I wonder what could have inspired this type of hatred.

I can't seem to figure this out.


There has never been a place called "Palestine".
 
2011-06-22 12:37:18 PM  

liam76: Farker T: The fact that she didn't sink was Izzy's FAIL.

They had it surrounded with torpedo boats.

If it was a conspiracy that isn't something you half ass.

this is what I love abotu people like you.

you give the jews credit for controlling all the bansk and starting allt hew ars but at the same time don;t think they ahve the abilities in their own country to sink a practically unarmed ship.



Do you think they learned their lesson?

That's it, Keep making your drunken excuses for your precious AshkeNazi homeland, Xionist76.
 
2011-06-22 12:40:10 PM  

OgreMagi: There has never been a place called "Palestine".


OgreMagi has never been called a "dumbass".
 
2011-06-22 12:42:14 PM  

Jsin82: liam76: Shakin_Haitian: I wonder what could have inspired this type of hatred.

I can't seem to figure this out

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that in 1946 it was British, not arab or jewish.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that for 1946 the shading is wrong or misleading as most of that land was empty of people.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that the change from 46-49 resulted in Palestenains declaring war and attacking Israel along with several of their muslim neighbors.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that the change from 49-67 those "Palestenain" areas were controlled by Jordan or Egypt.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that hundrerds of thousands of jews were forced out of their homes by neighboring countries yet you don't see them calling for the wiping out of the arabs who have their homes now.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that hundrerds of thousands of jews were forced out of their homes by neighboring countries yet you don't see them calling for the wiping out of the arabs who have their homes now.

If you want to post clever maps, how does this one work for you?

https://users.cs.jmu.edu/abzugcx/public/Biblical-Hebrew/Map-of-Israel-&-the-Ara b -World-plus-Iran.bmp

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that in 1946 just because it was british doesn't make the people there not arab or jewish.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that for 1946 the shading is the standard for most populace maps. Just because a portion of the United States is populated doesn't make it part of the country.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would know that the change from 47 was a UN mandate not from Palestinians declaring war and attacking Israel along with several of their muslim neighbors which didn't happen until May of 48.

If you weren't dishonest, or ignorant (I don't know which) you would see the systematic taking of land from the Palestinians is exactly what breeds this type of hate toward Isreal.

If you want to to post clever maps, how about you not post one referencing a work of fiction.


I'll take your house and you can't get mad because you're surrounded by other people of the same culture. It's only a billionth of a percent of the United States.

Are you stupid or something?
 
2011-06-22 12:46:30 PM  

Farker T: you give the jews credit for controlling all the banks and starting all the wars but at the same time don't think they have the abilities in their own country to sink a practically unarmed ship.


Do you think they learned their lesson?


Wow, so you really think they are that powerful, but can't sink a crippled ship after it is surrounded by torpedo boats?

Farker T: That's it, Keep making your drunken excuses for your precious AshkeNazi homeland, Xionist76


Come on now, you obviously don't think they are Nazi's or you would be defending them.
 
2011-06-22 12:56:41 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: I'll take your house and you can't get mad because you're surrounded by other people of the same culture. It's only a billionth of a percent of the United States.


What does that have to do with your map being based off of ignorance or dishonesty?

If you want to talk about "being mad, fine.

If someone took my house I would be mad because the laws of the US, the state I am a part of protect me.

If I was a palestenian who lost my home I would be mad if Israeli's kicked me out. I would also be mad if I was one of the far more numerous people who fled my house. I would be mad that arabs voted against a seperate state and went to war. I would be mad that when arab states took over Gaza and the west bank they treated me like shiat. I would be mad that when Israel took back over and the economy started to improve and the HDI rated out life as better than many of my arab neighbors that people started the 2nd intifada. i would be mad that arafat stole billions. I would be mad that after Israel pulled out of Gaza my people used it as a launch pad for rockets.
 
2011-06-22 12:57:18 PM  
Well, what do you know, an Israel thread filled with all the same crap that's in every other Israel thread. Throw in some crazy from czarangelus and it would be the same as one from two years ago.
 
2011-06-22 01:06:58 PM  

OgreMagi: There has never been a place called "Palestine".


Oh, so was Herodotus talking about a different "Palestine"? Or the Romans? Or maybe the Byzantines? Where was that one then?
 
2011-06-22 01:08:37 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Hey, Tats, quick honest question: Would you rather have the socialists like Arafat back instead of the right wing fundamentalists like Hamas? I want to know who you'd consider to be the worse of the two opponents.


I would rather have Hamas. Both Fatah and Hamas have the same goals, desires and methods, but Hamas are upfront about it while Fatah plays moderate with one hand while killing with the other.

Arkanaut: But let's face it, so is al Fatah. There aren't a lot of clean hands over there.


exactly
 
2011-06-22 01:10:53 PM  

liam76: Shakin_Haitian: I'll take your house and you can't get mad because you're surrounded by other people of the same culture. It's only a billionth of a percent of the United States.

What does that have to do with your map being based off of ignorance or dishonesty?

If you want to talk about "being mad, fine.

If someone took my house I would be mad because the laws of the US, the state I am a part of protect me.

If I was a palestenian who lost my home I would be mad if Israeli's kicked me out. I would also be mad if I was one of the far more numerous people who fled my house. I would be mad that arabs voted against a seperate state and went to war. I would be mad that when arab states took over Gaza and the west bank they treated me like shiat. I would be mad that when Israel took back over and the economy started to improve and the HDI rated out life as better than many of my arab neighbors that people started the 2nd intifada. i would be mad that arafat stole billions. I would be mad that after Israel pulled out of Gaza my people used it as a launch pad for rockets.


Iwould also be mad at Israel for a number of things but my point is that I wouldn't think it was one sided.
 
2011-06-22 01:11:20 PM  

dragonhead: Oh, so?


He meant independent country. And he's right.
 
2011-06-22 01:14:20 PM  

bottsicus: 117 comments (that I didn't read) and no pics of hot IDF chicks? WTF Fark?


Fine I'll oblige

www.bigpharaoh.org

3.bp.blogspot.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

www.snegidhi.com
 
2011-06-22 01:16:34 PM  

Tatsuma: Benevolent Misanthrope: My Israel wants the IDF station cut, because they let the muslims members of an outlawed terrorist organization responsible for possibly a thousand dead and many more injured speak on it.

ftfy


Why do you hate the IDF? Was it because they made you do lots of push ups? Did not those push ups make you strong?!!!!
 
2011-06-22 01:18:26 PM  

liam76: I would be mad that when Israel took back over and the economy started to improve and the HDI rated out life as better than many of my arab neighbors that people started the 2nd intifada.


Would you passively accept military occupation and a lack of representative government if your economic situation was improving, or would you be out demanding your rights? How much economic improve,ment would it take to buy your passive acceptance of being denied basic rights?
 
2011-06-22 01:28:33 PM  

dragonhead: OgreMagi: There has never been a place called "Palestine".

Oh, so was Herodotus talking about a different "Palestine"? Or the Romans? Or maybe the Byzantines? Where was that one then?


Um Herodotus never mentioned a Palestine, it was called Yahud in his days and it was part of the Parthian Empire. The Greeks conquered it and called it Judea (Greek equivalent of Yahud). And with the Romans until 135CE it was called Judea. There was even a Treaty signed by Judah Maccabeus with Rome where Rome recognized the Kingdom of Judea as an ally. Later more would violate this treaty and make Judea a vassal Kingdom and later part of the empire. After the Second Jewish Revolt of 135CE Emperor Hadrian renamed it Syria-Palestina to spite the Jews (naming it after a Series of Greek City-States established in the 13th century BCE in the Aza corridor that were wiped out by the Chaldean's), which the Ottomans later incorporated into Syria (during the ottoman era only christians called it Palestine, the Ottomans never did). The British later made it part of Trans-Jordan (where Palestine was one sector).

This is the Hasmonean Kingdom
upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org

and this is what it was as a Roman Vassal state after 67BCE when the Romans conquered it and took away much of its land. Later it was made a full part of the Roman Empire
upload.wikimedia.org

Learn History before you spout
 
2011-06-22 01:31:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: I would be mad that when Israel took back over and the economy started to improve and the HDI rated out life as better than many of my arab neighbors that people started the 2nd intifada.

Would you passively accept military occupation and a lack of representative government if your economic situation was improving, or would you be out demanding your rights? How much economic improve,ment would it take to buy your passive acceptance of being denied basic rights?


Israel didn't prevent them from having a representative govt. As far as denial of basic rights, their own govt played a large role in that, and it isn't much differen than many neighboring arab countries.

You also assume that there is no difference between passive acceptance and actions such as suicide bombing cafes and lobbing rockets.
 
2011-06-22 01:52:22 PM  
I need a break from these threads. I couldn't even comment on the thread before I was distracted by derp abotu Arafta being a socialist and Hamas not being a terrorist group.

Salam, biatches!
 
2011-06-22 01:59:28 PM  

liam76: I need a break from these threads.


yeah the pollard thread was my first one in a while, and really I think I'm done for another 5-6 months for the most part.
 
2011-06-22 02:19:33 PM  

OgreMagi: There has never been a place called "Palestine".


Except in the Bible.

/"Do you have a flag? No flag, no country, according to the rules what I just made up."
 
2011-06-22 02:25:35 PM  

jedihirsch: dragonhead: OgreMagi: There has never been a place called "Palestine".

Oh, so was Herodotus talking about a different "Palestine"? Or the Romans? Or maybe the Byzantines? Where was that one then?

Um Herodotus never mentioned a Palestine, it was called Yahud in his days and it was part of the Parthian Empire. The Greeks conquered it and called it Judea (Greek equivalent of Yahud). And with the Romans until 135CE it was called Judea. There was even a Treaty signed by Judah Maccabeus with Rome where Rome recognized the Kingdom of Judea as an ally. Later more would violate this treaty and make Judea a vassal Kingdom and later part of the empire. After the Second Jewish Revolt of 135CE Emperor Hadrian renamed it Syria-Palestina to spite the Jews (naming it after a Series of Greek City-States established in the 13th century BCE in the Aza corridor that were wiped out by the Chaldean's), which the Ottomans later incorporated into Syria (during the ottoman era only christians called it Palestine, the Ottomans never did). The British later made it part of Trans-Jordan (where Palestine was one sector).

This is the Hasmonean Kingdom



and this is what it was as a Roman Vassal state after 67BCE when the Romans conquered it and took away much of its land. Later it was made a full part of the Roman Empire


Learn History before you spout


Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.[1][2][3][4][5]

The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Today, the term Palestine is also used to refer to either the Palestinian territories or the State of Palestine.

Other terms for the same area include Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant.[6]

upload.wikimedia.org

/Something something history before you something
 
2011-06-22 02:39:21 PM  
Keep this handy guide for the next anti-Palestine Fark thread:

1. There never was a country named Palestine
2. The entire area was completely empty land
3. Palestinians were all nomadic, and didn't own land
4. Besides, the Jewish settlers bought all the land that nobody owned
5. It's completely fair to seize more land if somebody challenges your first land seizures
6. No Palestinians were driven out of their homes, all 700,000 of them just spontaneously ran away
7. but but but Native Americans
8. Tatsuma's favorite: might makes right, and if cowardly Palestinians can't beat the IDF in direct military combat they should just STFU and DIAF
9. Other Arab nations don't want Palestinian refugees so sorry I can't figure this one out

and of course:

10. ANTISEMITISM!!!
 
2011-06-22 03:11:10 PM  

liam76: It was wrong for Israel to boot out the people that they did in 1948, but weighed againt the very real fear that they would be overrun if they didn't and when it happened, I can't get that upset.


You are such a douche. You can somehow go back and sift through a hundred years of wrong-doings on every side and determine that despite a tit-for-tat going back that far that one side is pretty much justified all the way.
 
2011-06-22 03:18:52 PM  
The jews who immigrated to palestine in the 40s were the worst kind, they were belligerent and forced the arabs to act violently,need proof?

the bombing of a hotel by jewish extremists which killed a UN representative, count bernadette

this forced the british to act harshly against the jewish militants
 
2011-06-22 03:33:08 PM  

Smackledorfer: liam76: It was wrong for Israel to boot out the people that they did in 1948, but weighed againt the very real fear that they would be overrun if they didn't and when it happened, I can't get that upset.

You are such a douche. You can somehow go back and sift through a hundred years of wrong-doings on every side and determine that despite a tit-for-tat going back that far that one side is pretty much justified all the way.


You are such a douche. You can somehow go back to a comment about a specifice period in 1948 and apply that to hundred years of wrong-doings on every side and pretend I think one side is justified all the way.

UN came out with a plan. Israel said ok, Arabs and Palestine said no. Israel said we are our own state Palestine and all their arab neighbors attack. One side is justified in that case.
 
2011-06-22 03:41:19 PM  
There are a bunch of people in this thread saying both sides are heavily in the wrong and completely without moral highground, and then there is you you has repeatedly, and on virtually every specific instance you've cared to weigh in on, picked Israel and said what they did wasn't a big deal, won't upset you, etc etc.

Even in a post in which you are trying to prove that you don't always support Israel, you picked a situation where you completely support Israel. How absurd.
 
2011-06-22 04:34:07 PM  

Smackledorfer: There are a bunch of people in this thread saying both sides are heavily in the wrong and completely without moral highground, and then there is you you has repeatedly, and on virtually every specific instance you've cared to weigh in on, picked Israel and said what they did wasn't a big deal, won't upset you, etc etc.

Even in a post in which you are trying to prove that you don't always support Israel, you picked a situation where you completely support Israel. How absurd.


You took a post about a specific event and tried to make it appear as if I always agree with them.

In my response I even mentioned wrongdoings on every side. Yet you ignored that and once again pretend I always think they are right.

I could point to threads where I have disagreed with israel. I could point to posts in this thtead where I disagree with them (settlements), but you will continue to believe what you want, so why bother.
 
2011-06-22 04:55:08 PM  

Tatsuma: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Hey, Tats, quick honest question: Would you rather have the socialists like Arafat back instead of the right wing fundamentalists like Hamas? I want to know who you'd consider to be the worse of the two opponents.

I would rather have Hamas. Both Fatah and Hamas have the same goals, desires and methods, but Hamas are upfront about it while Fatah plays moderate with one hand while killing with the other.

Arkanaut: But let's face it, so is al Fatah. There aren't a lot of clean hands over there.

exactly


Huh. I thought Fatah would be the lesser of the two in your mind just because they promoted a secular political agenda. I think fundamentalists like Hamas would be a much more frightening opponent. But hey, that's me.
 
2011-06-22 04:57:14 PM  

supermanbd: The jews who immigrated to palestine in the 40s were the worst kind, they were belligerent and forced the arabs to act violently,need proof?

the bombing of a hotel by jewish extremists which killed a UN representative, count bernadette

this forced the british to act harshly against the jewish militants


So you mean the massacre of jews in the 1860's, 1890's, 1920's and 1930's (including the massacre of a Rabbinical College that killed Americans) by Arabs were connected to a bombing in the 40's. Wow I never knew Arabs could time travel. And if you are referring the the King David Hotel, it was the British Military HQ for the area, so it was a military target. By the way Arabs attacked Jewish farmer, in the north, first in the 19th century and that led to spiraling relation war that still lasts to today

Besides how were those Jews bad? They developed most of the Farming land in Israel and the West Bank that we have today. They took Deserts in the east and swamps in the north and turned it into farm land.
 
2011-06-22 05:04:06 PM  

jedihirsch: Besides how were those Jews bad? They developed most of the Farming land in Israel and the West Bank that we have today. They took Deserts in the east and swamps in the north and turned it into farm land.


And they took orchards, vineyards, pastures and homes from Arabs and turned them into Jewish orchards, vineyards, pastures and homes. And that's bad?
 
2011-06-22 05:56:49 PM  

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Huh. I thought Fatah would be the lesser of the two in your mind just because they promoted a secular political agenda. I think fundamentalists like Hamas would be a much more frightening opponent. But hey, that's me.


Fatah of today is not the Fatah of the 60s that was aligned with the USSR and the Baathists.

They are both religious faction nowadays, it's just that Fatah is more subtle about it when they talk to the rest of the world.

If you see what they publish for their own people, there are almost no differences, except that they are a bit more open to modern ideas and more nationalist.

If you will, Hamas is to Saudi Arabia what Fatah is to Iran.
 
2011-06-22 06:09:07 PM  

liam76: Lost Thought 00: liam76: jack21221: Shakin_Haitian: I wonder what could have inspired this type of hatred.

There's a bit of an analog with what European settlers did to the native Americans. Those damn terrorist savages were scalping our white women and children for no reason! Monsters!

I'm willing to bet that the Iroquois would have taken some of the same measures that the Palestinians are now taking if they had access to modern arms.

Really? The european settlers just took an area the size of rhode island?

You have to look at it in terms of percentages, not just total area covered.

I am looking at it terms of percentages. Israel takes up a small slice of land on the arab world. One of the main reasons this conflict goes on is becasue of pressure from the arab world on Palestenians.


and that is because you consider all arabs and muslims to be the same and interchangable, it does not matter that there are other arabs elsewhere who have not had their land stolen by Zionists, the Palestinians have had THEIR land taken.

by your justification it would be acceptable to drive all Jewish people out of israel because they could go to New York City. this is actually a generous example as israeli jews would face much fewer problems in new york city than palestinian arabs would face in other countries in the middle east.
 
2011-06-22 07:04:17 PM  

tyrellco: jedihirsch: Besides how were those Jews bad? They developed most of the Farming land in Israel and the West Bank that we have today. They took Deserts in the east and swamps in the north and turned it into farm land.

And they took orchards, vineyards, pastures and homes from Arabs and turned them into Jewish orchards, vineyards, pastures and homes. And that's bad?


No they bought land off of Arabs that was pre-developed, and developed uninhabitable land that they bought. Many acres of Jewish land was seized in the west bank by Jordan in 1948, and today Arabs live on them. What was lost in a war is not stolen, considering in 1948 the Arab League fired first. But they never "took" arab land outside of a declared war under international regulations regarding war. All the other land was bought under the british days. If you visit Israel, many of the Kibbutzim still have the original sale documents for you to see (with British or Ottoman government stamps). The claim that the jews stole those lands is a myth.
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report