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.

(Haaretz)   "Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with Barack Obama." ( •_•)⌐■-■ Well, that might stiffen into into a.... (⌐■_■) sticky situation   (haaretz.com) divider line 443
    More: Interesting, obama, Iran, Thomas E. Donilon, Shimon Peres, Martin Dempsey, AIPAC, Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser  
•       •       •

3987 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2012 at 1:53 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-03 08:30:29 PM

Bauer: is there such a creature as an atheist jew?

isn't that impossible, by definition?

-how does that work?

is that as wack as it sounds?

like an "atheist christian"?

so you're saying it's not just a flavor...it's a brand name?

jews are so versitile, i guess.

maybe that's where the superiority complex comes from.

how quaint.



You'd better start believing in atheist Jews...
 
2012-03-03 09:12:20 PM

Fista-Phobia: 9beers: generallyso: Fight your own goddamn war.

You'd be the guy running away if a couple of guys jumped your buddy at the bar, wouldn't you?

[t1.gstatic.com image 281x179]


If my buddy was being a total instigator, I'd probably get a couple of jabs in at him myself.
 
2012-03-03 09:38:30 PM

clowncar on fire: Fista-Phobia: 9beers: generallyso: Fight your own goddamn war.

You'd be the guy running away if a couple of guys jumped your buddy at the bar, wouldn't you?

[t1.gstatic.com image 281x179]

If my buddy was being a total instigator, I'd probably get a couple of jabs in at him myself.


How the fark is Israel instigating Iran?
 
2012-03-03 09:45:45 PM

RanDomino: There's a word for that. It's called "collective punishment". ...Okay I guess that's two words.


You don't get to join an army with the stated purpose of committing genocide and then declare that you are being "collectively punished" when that army loses. Also, if the army you signed up for refuses to compensate you when they lose the war, the victorious army is under no obligation to do so.

/why is this so hard to understand?
//it's like FARK honestly thinks robbing a bank is the most mature response to their meth dealer jacking up his prices
 
2012-03-03 09:50:59 PM

9beers: clowncar on fire: Fista-Phobia: 9beers: generallyso: Fight your own goddamn war.

You'd be the guy running away if a couple of guys jumped your buddy at the bar, wouldn't you?

[t1.gstatic.com image 281x179]

If my buddy was being a total instigator, I'd probably get a couple of jabs in at him myself.

How the fark is Israel instigating Iran?



Israel is not "instigating Iran, Israel is instigating WAR AGAINST Iran.
 
2012-03-03 10:13:37 PM

RanDomino: Tell you what- how about just the Israeli settlements built just within the last, let's say, 30ish years get handed over?


Well, if that's the question, I believe a lot of Jews and Israelis would be much more okay with that. Maybe not 30 years worth, but that might start people talking.

Lots of American Jews understand the settlements to be huge problem and think Netanyahu should have frozen them.

But that's a hugely different question than should Israel be where it is at all. Or even, should Israel be able to have defensible borders.

And after all, Israel has given back land many times, ... it's done them some good down in the Sinai, not necessarily a whole lot anywhere else.

"I'm sure the Palestinians will have no problem granting Palestinian citizenship to any Israelis who choose to stay, and maybe they won't even have to renounce their Israeli citizenship."

Ah, you're deep into Saturday night alcohol now, aren't you?
 
2012-03-03 10:22:37 PM

RanDomino: Really, the border between the West Bank and Jordan 'sets in Israel'? The border between Gaza and Egypt is 'set in Israel'?


Actually, the whole West Bank thing was supposed to be part of Israel from the beginning. The Jordanians didn't like the way the Brits set the border, so they occupied it. The Israelis eventually took it back.

As for the Egypt/Gaza border, blame that one one the Egyptians. They're the ones that built the wall, because they didn't want to help their poor oppressed Arab brothers.
 
2012-03-03 10:28:13 PM

give me doughnuts: RanDomino: Really, the border between the West Bank and Jordan 'sets in Israel'? The border between Gaza and Egypt is 'set in Israel'?

Actually, the whole West Bank thing was supposed to be part of Israel from the beginning. The Jordanians didn't like the way the Brits set the border, so they occupied it. The Israelis eventually took it back.

As for the Egypt/Gaza border, blame that one one the Egyptians. They're the ones that built the wall, because they didn't want to help their poor oppressed Arab brothers.



Jacob, meet Esau.

Esau, meet Jacob.

Play nice.
 
2012-03-03 10:33:30 PM
Tatterdemalian
You don't get to join an army with the stated purpose of committing genocide and then declare that you are being "collectively punished" when that army loses.

Okay, and now tell me about the civilians.
 
2012-03-03 10:47:26 PM

RanDomino: Tatterdemalian
You don't get to join an army with the stated purpose of committing genocide and then declare that you are being "collectively punished" when that army loses.

Okay, and now tell me about the civilians.


What about the civilians? Do you even know the meaning of the word? It doesn't mean "soldier on the losing side of a war."
 
2012-03-03 10:56:54 PM

RanDomino: Tatterdemalian
You don't get to join an army with the stated purpose of committing genocide and then declare that you are being "collectively punished" when that army loses.

Okay, and now tell me about the civilians.



If I may...

QUOTE:

10When you come near to a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace to it. 11And it shall be, if it make you answer of peace, and open to you, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries to you, and they shall serve you. 12And if it will make no peace with you, but will make war against you, then you shall besiege it: 13And when the LORD your God has delivered it into your hands, you shall smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shall you take to yourself; and you shall eat the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. 15Thus shall you do to all the cities which are very far off from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD your God does give you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes: 17But you shall utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD your God has commanded you: 18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done to their gods; so should you sin against the LORD your God.

--Deuteronomy 20 (KJV)


Wouldn't it be cool if no one actually believed in this shiat?
 
2012-03-03 11:33:09 PM
Tatterdemalian
What about the civilians? Do you even know the meaning of the word? It doesn't mean "soldier on the losing side of a war."

Yes, you already talked about them. What does that have to do with Palestinian Arab civilians who couldn't go back to their homes in what was now Israel after 1948? Also, what do soldiers have to do with a civilian government in Palestine?
 
2012-03-04 02:44:25 AM

9beers: generallyso: Fight your own goddamn war.

You'd be the guy running away if a couple of guys jumped your buddy at the bar, wouldn't you?


If he started it? Certainly. I don't "back up" idiots.
 
2012-03-04 03:03:48 AM

RanDomino: Tatterdemalian
What about the civilians? Do you even know the meaning of the word? It doesn't mean "soldier on the losing side of a war."

Yes, you already talked about them. What does that have to do with Palestinian Arab civilians who couldn't go back to their homes in what was now Israel after 1948? Also, what do soldiers have to do with a civilian government in Palestine?


The Palestinian Arab "civilians" joined the Arab Legion and tried to drive the Israelis into the Mediterranean. In other words, they are not "civilians" at all, but soldiers in a losing army who didn't receive the compensation the Arab Legion promised them.

The true civilians stayed in Israel, and when Israel won the war the civilians became Israeli Arab citizens with equal representation to any others. Many even served on the IDF since, fighting alongside Israeli Jews and facing kidnapping and torture at the hands of Hezbollah.
 
2012-03-04 03:29:50 AM
As someone who's been following this thread and watching the ended less back and forth about Isreal and Palestine, I'm now thoroughly confused lol. Is there a good book that comes from an unbiased point of view that explains the ownership of this region. One that, oh I donno, comes to an actual conclusion?
 
2012-03-04 03:33:41 AM

Fail in Human Form: As someone who's been following this thread and watching the ended less back and forth about Isreal and Palestine, I'm now thoroughly confused lol. Is there a good book that comes from an unbiased point of view that explains the ownership of this region. One that, oh I donno, comes to an actual conclusion?


The only conclusion is that there won't be a conclusion any time soon. People on both sides are too stupid to learn how to actually SHARE the region because, newsflash: THEY'RE PEOPLE. People are stupid. I heard a perfect quote once that sums it up nicely: no one wants the other kids peeing in their sandbox.
 
2012-03-04 03:56:01 AM
Okay, submitter, this is a flawless victory. Flame war AND new ASCII meme?

So. Much. Win.
 
2012-03-04 04:20:05 AM

Fail in Human Form: As someone who's been following this thread and watching the ended less back and forth about Isreal and Palestine, I'm now thoroughly confused lol. Is there a good book that comes from an unbiased point of view that explains the ownership of this region. One that, oh I donno, comes to an actual conclusion?


It's a good question. If you find such an unbiased explanation come back and let me know. In my opinion you simply have to absorb as much as possible and make you're own conclusion.

Most accounts are biased -and most of it found in western literature is pro-Zionist.
 
2012-03-04 05:55:11 AM

RanDomino: Really? What Jewish state existed in 1947? Or are you saying that land claims dating to the 70s CE have some non-zero amount of relevance?


I'm not saying anything about relevance, simply stating a fact that a jewish homeland existed there in the past. You asked a question.

RanDomino: There's a word for that. It's called "collective punishment". ...Okay I guess that's two words.


Then i suggest every land in history taken by warfare should be returned to the owners. Let's start with the land owned by the hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees in all the surrounding arab lands who escaped to Israel after the arabs started their war.

RanDomino: Ooh, the dreaded "neener-neener" reversal. Tell you what- how about just the Israeli settlements built just within the last, let's say, 30ish years get handed over?


That was the idea, with some restrictions, which the palestinians rejected back in 2000.

RanDomino: I'm sure the Palestinians will have no problem granting Palestinian citizenship to any Israelis who choose to stay


Then you would be very very wrong again. It's not racism when the palestinians do it right ?
 
2012-03-04 05:58:46 AM

Frederick: Zionism is to Israel as communism is to Russia or China. And as communism is beginning to give way to capitalism in China and Russia we see that those nations still exist. Zionism will eventually fade away, Israel may persist.


Not relevant to the fact that the iranians (and arabs) refer to Israel as "the zionist regime". Must be hard for them emotionally to say "Israel".
 
2012-03-04 06:01:10 AM

Bauer: is there such a creature as an atheist jew?

isn't that impossible, by definition?

-how does that work?

is that as wack as it sounds?

like an "atheist christian"?

so you're saying it's not just a flavor...it's a brand name?

jews are so versitile, i guess.

maybe that's where the superiority complex comes from.

how quaint.



Maybe because being

jewish is A nationality

and a religion which

confuses some people

like yourself.


Why do you

Type like you

are suffering from

brain damage

Herr Bauer ?
 
2012-03-04 07:35:55 AM

rokesch: Oh, Tats. You so silly!


Except I don't roll on Shabbos
 
2012-03-04 10:36:24 AM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: And a totally irrelevant point it was

TTV:It was very relevant explaining the situation of the jews in Iran. Apparently it went over your head.

My point was that if the iranians really wanted to kill all jews, there would be no jews in Iran. I said nothing about how they were treated, which makes your point a red herring.

Uncle Tractor: Can we apply the same logic to the arabs' right to vote in Israel?
TTV:No

Of course not ... p

TTV:You must not be aware of the number of arabs in the israeli parliament, some openly opposed to the existence of Israel, something which would have their asses in prison in any other country in the world.

Tell me, what will happen when the demographics of Israel shift enough to make the arab vote politically relevant? Will the arabs still be allowed to vote? Will they get kicked out?

For that matter, why aren't the arabs of the WB and Gaza allowed to vote? After all, they're de facto israelis, whether they want to or not.

Uncle Tractor: However; what purpose is this iranian fig leaf supposed to serve?
TTV:Like i already explained: to make useful idiots such as yourself

A hasbara stooge like yourself shouldn't be so generous with that term.

TTV:say the exact thing you said "how can Iran want to kill jews if there are a few thousand jews happily living and breathing in iran! so there!"

And then what? You think they would let 25000 jews live just so some anons can score points in Israel threads? You're not making any sense.

Uncle Tractor: Wrong. The maps show that palestine has existed as a geographical area for a very long time.
TTV:Oh i know. but you, and many others, try to present this as if it was the country or nation of the palestinians, or should i say the ones calling themselves palestinians today and in reality this is completely farking wrong. your own maps show that area as the jewish holy land and you still fail grasp any of this, quite an achievement.

Nice strawman you have there. Too bad it's all you have.

TTV:You map, the original one, is a lie for showing the area in green as "Palestine" as if Israel was carved out of the Palestinian mythical nation but in fact it was actually the British Mandate of Palestine at the time you yourself noted on the map. get it ? this is not quantum physics, it's you failing to understand a very simple concept.

Here's the simple concept you're failing to grasp: That land was inhabited mainly by arabs. Less than 9% of the population was jewish. That makes it their land, not some terra nullius waiting for european colonization.

BTW: You should talk too loud about "lying by map." Not after posting the sanitized Camp David map. You know, the one without all those little details that made it impossible to build a viable state there.

Uncle Tractor: The current palestinians have been living in that particular region for centuries.
TTV:Wrong. Unless you consider "that particular region" as Syria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon.
Many of the so called 'palestinians' came to that region when the jewish settlers started to cultivate the shiathole, looking for work.


I have no doubt many did. That doesn't mean all did.

Uncle Tractor: The fact that the land in question has been ruled by just about everybody but the people that actually live there does not make it any less their land.
TTV:You are new to this 'History' concept and how the world works, aren't you.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that the old rules of "conquer and colonize" are no longer acceptable.

Uncle Tractor: So what? There was a palestinian region and there were people living there. That makes them palestinians
TTV:Which people and which region ? be specific. A century ago when you said 'palestinians' you were referring to the jewish inhabitants of the region. I can safely bet you didn't know that.

Palestinians refer to all the people who lived there, including the 9% who were jewish.
 
2012-03-04 10:38:42 AM

RoyBatty: And yet, somehow still, Israel is the aggressor.


Israel has always been the aggressor. That's what happens when you colonize somebody else's land.

(cue hasbara schmucks blooking about absentee land owners and so on)
 
2012-03-04 10:53:09 AM

TappingTheVein: believe what ? that you were completely wrong again in the maps department ? i think a blind roadkill can see that after i spelled it out several time now.


Posturing is not the same as being right.

Uncle Tractor: Really? in what way?
TTV:They weren't just 'mizrahim'. If you have proof for your statement by all means show it.

That's why I wrote "sephardim / mizrahim".

Uncle Tractor: The 2-3 centuries before 1947. Maybe more.
TTV:Ah so you mean turks of the Ottoman Empire then ?

Are you talking about rulers or inhabitants now?

Uncle Tractor: You don't need immigration for that (doubling of pop)
TTV:Um. yes, you do. or maybe you think the population boom happened just as the Alliyas came about and the land was being cultivated as a bizarre coincidence.

Do you really not see a connection between cultivation and population increase? Really? ...And you question my intelligence?

Uncle Tractor: es, there were native jews in Palestine. None of them were ashkenazim. IIRC the jewish palestinians made up about 9% of the population
TTV:Ashkenazi jews lived in holy jewish cities in Israel like Jerusalem dating back to the middle ages. You clearly have no farking clue about this.

Very well then, then find me some documentation of this ... but this time, please use a source that doesn't think Obama is a socialist.

Hey, you might actually have some relevant and interesting information. That'll be a first.

Uncle Tractor: No, because there is no such thing. What you've mistaken for a "strong pro-palestinian bias" is in reality a bias towards "reporting all facts" and "letting both sides have a say." I suppose you think that's a bad thing.
TTV:You really didn't know that about haaretz ? hilarious. This is common knowledge, seriously, do some reading about this.

Yeah, I suppose it's common knowledge among people dumb enough to think Obama is a socialist.

Uncle Tractor: That is not a viable state. At least three major divisions, and roads and colonies all over the place. You expect the arabs to accept that?
TTV:yes, i do. What they actually want, all of israel, is not an option sad to say.

Why do you expect them to accept that? What good would it do anyone to have a weak, non-viable palestinian state embedded within the borders of Israel? You'd end up back at square one within the year.
 
2012-03-04 10:56:39 AM
Israel is a dangerous terrorist state with nuclear weapons, I don't see why another shiatty country shouldn't be allowed to have them...
 
2012-03-04 11:01:17 AM

Bauer: is there such a creature as an atheist jew?


Yep.

isn't that impossible, by definition?

Nope.

-how does that work?

By the jew in question not believing in gods.

is that as wack as it sounds?

Nope.

like an "atheist christian"?

Nope. More like an "atheist Frenchman."

so you're saying it's not just a flavor...it's a brand name?

Huh?

jews are so versitile, i guess.

maybe that's where the superiority complex comes from.

how quaint.


You's trollin, I think, but anyway:

• Judaism is a religion.
• Jews are people who belong to the various jewish ethnicities; sephardim, betas, etc.
• Zionism is an ideology (and a highly toxic one, I might add)
• Israel is a nation (founded on zionism).

Does that clear things up?
 
2012-03-04 11:33:49 AM

Uncle Tractor: My point was that if the iranians really wanted to kill all jews, there would be no jews in Iran.


And i explained repeatedly why this statement is retarded. I won't repeat for a 5th time.

Uncle Tractor: Of course not ... p


Nice editing. You skipped the 'it doesn't compare in the slightest'

Naturally.

Uncle Tractor: Tell me, what will happen when the demographics of Israel shift enough to make the arab vote politically relevant?


I'll add the fact that you are not aware of the current electorate power of the arabs in Israel to the list of things you have no clue about.

Uncle Tractor: For that matter, why aren't the arabs of the WB and Gaza allowed to vote? After all, they're de facto israelis, whether they want to or not.


Wrong again, they are de-facto citizens of the palestinian authority and they vote in the palestinian elections.

Uncle Tractor: A hasbara stooge like yourself shouldn't be so generous with that term.


The term describes you with elegant accuracy. I would also add 'clueless' since i'm repeatedly correcting your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Uncle Tractor: And then what? You think they would let 25000 jews live just so some anons can score points in Israel threads? You're not making any sense


No i think those jews are irrelevant to their "struggle" with "the zionist regime" and they are used as a fig leaf which i already explained about 7 or 8 times.

Uncle Tractor: Nice strawman you have there. Too bad it's all you have.


All i have is a very clear explanation why you were wrong. How is this a strawman ? i present a history fact which you can go and check yourself.
I repeat: you, and many others, try to present this as if it was the country or nation of the palestinians, or should i say the ones calling themselves palestinians today and in reality this is completely farking wrong. your own maps show that area as the jewish holy land and you still fail grasp any of this.

Uncle Tractor: Here's the simple concept you're failing to grasp: That land was inhabited mainly by arabs. Less than 9% of the population was jewish. That makes it their land, not some terra nullius waiting for european colonization


What you fail to understand is that jews lived there legally on land they owned and many of the so called 'native palestinians' emigrated to what was in fact a barren shiathole at the time jewish settlers started to cultivate the land. It wasn't their land, it was the British Mandate's land and there was a solution to create an arab and jewish land there (The Partition Plan) based on population. Guess who rejected it and went to slaughter the others ?

Uncle Tractor: You should talk too loud about "lying by map."


My map is a correct description of the Camp David proposal (or one of them). Your maps prove the opposite of what you want to prove. Do you understand the difference ?

Uncle Tractor: I have no doubt many did. That doesn't mean all did.


No, it just contradicted your bullshiat of "The current palestinians have been living in that particular region for centuries",

Uncle Tractor: You seem to be unaware of the fact that the old rules of "conquer and colonize" are no longer acceptable

And since it wasn't "conquer and colonize", Israel fought a defensive war and even offered the land back after they won to the original owners Egypt and Jordan, your argument here is the latest addition to your clueless list.

Uncle Tractor: Palestinians refer to all the people who lived there, including the 9% who were jewish

Nope, wrong again. It was used to specifically describe the jews. Read Joan Peter's book, "From Time Immemorial" and educate yourself.

Uncle Tractor: Israel has always been the aggressor. That's what happens when you colonize somebody else's land.


Of course! how dare they continue to exist and successfully defend themselves from arab attempts to annahilate them repeatedly. It's preposterous!
 
2012-03-04 11:44:23 AM

Uncle Tractor: RoyBatty: And yet, somehow still, Israel is the aggressor.

Israel has always been the aggressor. That's what happens when you colonize somebody else's land.

(cue hasbara schmucks blooking about absentee land owners and so on)


Oh. Fascinating. When did Israel colonize Iran? Because I was replying to your statement you think Iran is just trolling Israel.

Even in Israel itself, your new claim is ahistorical and without context.

But it would be nice if you could be intellectually honest enough to not shift the goalpost 1000 miles from one post of yours to the next.

Also, I note that by your definition, the US is always the aggressor as well.
 
2012-03-04 11:48:20 AM

Uncle Tractor: Posturing is not the same as being right.


No, proving repeatedly that you are wrong is.

Uncle Tractor: That's why I wrote "sephardim / mizrahim".


And you would be wrong again (how shocking) because they were Ashkenazim as well.

Uncle Tractor: Are you talking about rulers or inhabitants now?


I'm talking about Palestine being different sized area with different population ruled by different people. You know, not the mythical invention of the palestinian country the arabs fantasize about.

Uncle Tractor: Do you really not see a connection between cultivation and population increase? Really? ...And you question my intelligence?


I did and i pointed it out repeatedly: immigration. DO yourself a favor and read something about the period, your lack of knowledge is embarrassing.

Uncle Tractor: Very well then, then find me some documentation of this ... but this time, please use a source that doesn't think Obama is a socialist


How about the wikipedia you yourself probably used, with references ? search for 'Ashkenazi Jews lived in Jerusalem during the 11th century', google it further if you must, i won't waste time educating the clueless any further.

Uncle Tractor: Yeah, I suppose it's common knowledge among people dumb enough to think Obama is a socialist.


No, it's common knowledge to anyone who know Haaretz. Just google it or something, this is not a big secret.

Uncle Tractor: Why do you expect them to accept that?


Because the alternative is impossible. Israel is not going to be an arab country.

Uncle Tractor: What good would it do anyone to have a weak, non-viable palestinian state embedded within the borders of Israel? You'd end up back at square one within the year.


In your esteemed opinion and as i proved here repeatedly, you are beyond clueless about this subject.
,
 
2012-03-04 12:00:06 PM
YYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
 
2012-03-04 12:07:24 PM

NephilimNexus: If he started it? Certainly. I don't "back up" idiots.


You certainly are one if you think Israel started anything. Apparently you're also a coward.
 
2012-03-04 02:18:05 PM
Tatterdemalian
The Palestinian Arab "civilians" joined the Arab Legion and tried to drive the Israelis into the Mediterranean. In other words, they are not "civilians" at all, but soldiers in a losing army who didn't receive the compensation the Arab Legion promised them.

The true civilians stayed in Israel, and when Israel won the war the civilians became Israeli Arab citizens with equal representation to any others. Many even served on the IDF since, fighting alongside Israeli Jews and facing kidnapping and torture at the hands of Hezbollah.


Wow, so all ~700,000 Arabs who fled or were driven out in 1948 were members of the military, huh?


TappingTheVein
I'm not saying anything about relevance, simply stating a fact that a jewish homeland existed there in the past. You asked a question.

So, since we agree that A: no relevant Jewish state existed in 1947, and since you implied that because the Palestinian state never existed then B: the Palestinians have no right to a State today, then either Israel has no right to a State, or the Palestinians DO have the right to a State. Which would you prefer?

Then i suggest every land in history taken by warfare should be returned to the owners. Let's start with the land owned by the hundreds of thousands of jewish refugees in all the surrounding arab lands who escaped to Israel after the arabs started their war.

That was the idea, with some restrictions, which the palestinians rejected back in 2000.


Well I'm sure those "some restrictions" were probably no big deal

However, Israel would retain around 9% of Palestinian lands in exchange for 1% of Israeli land. The land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified. Additional to territorial concessions, Palestinian airspace would be controlled by Israel under Barak's offer.

Additional grounds of rejection was that the Israeli proposal planned to annex areas which would lead to a cantonization of the West Bank into three blocs. Settlement blocs, bypassed roads and annexed lands would create barriers between Nablus and Jenin with Ramallah. The Ramallah bloc would in turn be divided from Bethlehem and Hebron. A separate and smaller bloc would contain Jericho. Further, the border between West Bank and Jordan would additionally be under Israeli control.
...
Israelis asserted that allowing a right of return to Israel proper, rather than to the newly created Palestinian state, would mean an influx of Palestinians that would fundamentally alter the demographics of Israel, jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character and its existence as a whole.
...
Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border. Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces east of the Jordan River, and that it dismantle terrorist groups.
...
Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.


yeah, no big deal at all.
 
2012-03-04 04:42:59 PM

RanDomino: So, since we agree that A: no relevant Jewish state existed in 1947


What we agreed upon is that land is the homeland of the jewish people. A historic fact.

RanDomino: and since you implied that because the Palestinian state never existed then B: the Palestinians have no right to a State today


Nope, never said anything of the sort. I stated another fact that some people seem to struggle with.

RanDomino: then either Israel has no right to a State, or the Palestinians DO have the right to a State


Which ones have a state ? which ones had a chance to have a state and decided to slaughter the other guys ?
Like i said: direct your complaints to the UN assembly of 1948 voting for a jewish homeland.

And the palestinians have one country already. it's called Jordan which i'm sure you are aware was also "Palestine" and in fact the palestinian leadership entertained the idea of teaming up with their brothers in Jordan in the past. The PLO failed to take over by force after being slaughtered but that's another story.

RanDomino: Well I'm sure those "some restrictions" were probably no big deal


That's what negotiations are for. Do i need to remind you how Arafat didn't bother making a counter offer and launched the second Intifadah which he planned for beforehand ?

You seem to ignore the part about your mistake regarding the "palestinians granting Palestinian citizenship to any Israelis who choose to stay" bit. Well, like i said: it's not racism when the arabs do it, right ?
 
2012-03-04 09:06:34 PM

RanDomino: Wow, so all ~700,000 Arabs who fled or were driven out in 1948 were members of the military, huh?


Sure, go with that. Your mind can't handle any shades of gray between "ALL Arabs" and "NO Arabs," so feel free to convert the majority of Arabs into "ALL Arabs."
 
2012-03-04 11:11:40 PM
TappingTheVein
What we agreed upon is that land is the homeland of the jewish people. A historic fact.

I have no interest in ancient history and/or fairy tales. Sorry, but what happened 2000 years ago happened to strangers. Honestly, most of the human race could probably make just as credible of a claim to just about any plot of land, if vague blood relation is the only criteria.

Nope, never said anything of the sort. I stated another fact that some people seem to struggle with.

No, it's pretty clear what you were implying. Why don't you address the point directly: Can new nations ever be created?

which ones had a chance to have a state and decided to slaughter the other guys ?

Damn that Palestinian hive mind again, for it's the only thing justifying punishing people who weren't even alive 50 years ago for the acts of complete strangers.

And the palestinians have one country already. it's called Jordan

Good gravy! Are you saying Israel is occupying part of Jordan?? This could be a big problem!


Tatterdemalian
Sure, go with that. Your mind can't handle any shades of gray between "ALL Arabs" and "NO Arabs," so feel free to convert the majority of Arabs into "ALL Arabs."

Let's assume that 20,000 Palestinians actually fought. The other 680,000 Palestinian Arab civilians don't get to return... why, exactly? The Palestinians not personally involved in terrorism don't get to be citizens of any country because of... people who aren't them?
 
2012-03-05 03:09:41 AM

RanDomino: I have no interest in ancient history and/or fairy tales. Sorry, but what happened 2000 years ago happened to strangers.


And you'd be wrong since the jewish people kept a presence in Israel even in diaspora and every jewish family kept a link to the land. I'm sure you are aware of the "next year in Jerusalem" thing every jewish family says in Passover.
They may be strangers to you but they share the same ancestry, tradition, language, history, customs and nationality with me.

RanDomino: Honestly, most of the human race could probably make just as credible of a claim to just about any plot of land, if vague blood relation is the only criteria


Doesn't compare to Israel and the jewish epeople, not remotely.

RanDomino: No, it's pretty clear what you were implying. Why don't you address the point directly: Can new nations ever be created?


That's not the fact i was addressing. Read again. And your question is retarded and irrelevant to what i was saying.

RanDomino: Damn that Palestinian hive mind again, for it's the only thing justifying punishing people who weren't even alive 50 years ago for the acts of complete strangers


So you're saying actions, such as attempting to annihilate Israel, has zero consequences ? The palestinians only aided the attempted slaughter back then, the arab armies did the work, or tried too. If refusing to turn Israel into an arab country is 'punishing them', then yes, sorry to say, they are punished.

RanDomino: Good gravy! Are you saying Israel is occupying part of Jordan?


No, i'm saying Jordan is a palestinian arab nation. A fact you can go and check yourself. In fact about 70% of jordanians consider themselves palestinians.
Tell me, what is the difference between the Palestinian flag and the Jordanian flag ?

You seem to be having difficulties addressing parts of my posts. let's start with:

RanDomino: Again, if Zionists didn't want to be surrounded by Arabs they could have moved to any number of perfectly good places around the world

Like where ? be specific. Any of these other places have a large jewish population ? any of them the historic homeland of the jewish people ?

You seem to ignore the part about your mistake regarding the "palestinians granting Palestinian citizenship to any Israelis who choose to stay" bit. Well, like i said: it's not racism when the arabs do it, right ?
 
2012-03-05 03:23:10 AM

TappingTheVein: I'm sure you are aware of the "next year in Jerusalem"


That's an interesting (and new to me in *this* context) reference.
 
2012-03-05 03:33:31 AM
TappingTheVein
So you're saying actions, such as attempting to annihilate Israel, has zero consequences ?

For people who weren't actually involved? Duh?

The palestinians only aided the attempted slaughter back then

except for all the ones who were just trying to be farmers, or shopkeepers, or go to school, or raise families, or...

Like where ? be specific. Any of these other places have a large jewish population ? any of them the historic homeland of the jewish people ?

The Levant would have failed both of those tests pre-Zionism, since, again, I don't consider land claims from 2000 years ago to be in any way valid. Look, that predates the splitting of Rome into East and West, Muslim conquest, and Crusades, and to some extent Turks and Mongols. If the Jews claim that land on a 'historical' basis, then you're going to have to split it with a couple hundred million people. And if a 2000 year old claim is valid, why not a 20,000 year old one? Or a 200,000 year old one? Considering that everyone who walked out of Africa did so through the region, that's probably 80%+ of the human race you'd have to be splitting it with. And you can't even share with 10 million!

You seem to ignore the part about your mistake regarding the "palestinians granting Palestinian citizenship to any Israelis who choose to stay" bit. Well, like i said: it's not racism when the arabs do it, right ?

Meh.
 
2012-03-05 04:05:33 AM

RanDomino: For people who weren't actually involved? Duh?


I'm not talking about individual people, i'm talking about the situation in general.
The current situation is a result of repeated attempts to destroy Israel, not to mention a direct result to the arab refusal to the Partition Plan.
In the real world such actions have consequences just like the fact that the palestinians consider all of Israel, sea to river, as "arab palestine" has consequences.

RanDomino: except for all the ones who were just trying to be farmers, or shopkeepers, or go to school, or raise families, or


And those who didn't fight stayed in their homes and are now Israeli citizens.

RanDomino: The Levant would have failed both of those tests pre-Zionism, since, again, I don't consider land claims from 2000 years ago to be in any way valid


Because you choose to ignore the facts i presented in the previous post about jews and Israel.

RanDomino: If the Jews claim that land on a 'historical' basis, then you're going to have to split it with a couple hundred million people


The claim isn't just historic, i already cleared that up but that's interesting. Why haven't all those nations came and demanded the land on this basis ?

RanDomino: Considering that everyone who walked out of Africa did so through the region, that's probably 80%+ of the human race you'd have to be splitting it with. And you can't even share with 10 million!


This is beyond irrelevant to the specific situation of the jews and Israel, i won't bother repeating all of this again.

RanDomino: Meh.


Hard for you to admit that you were wrong ? to recognize the racism of the palestinians ?
 
2012-03-05 05:21:19 AM

TappingTheVein: Uncle Tractor: My point was that if the iranians really wanted to kill all jews, there would be no jews in Iran.

TTV:And i explained repeatedly why this statement is retarded. I won't repeat for a 5th time.

Good, because your explanation was worthless.

Uncle Tractor: Of course not ... p
TTV:Nice editing. You skipped the 'it doesn't compare in the slightest'

Why do you expect me to comment on your double standards?

Uncle Tractor: For that matter, why aren't the arabs of the WB and Gaza allowed to vote? After all, they're de facto israelis, whether they want to or not.
TTV:Wrong again, they are de-facto citizens of the palestinian authority and they vote in the palestinian elections.

Then why is Israel building on their land? You can't have it both ways. Either the palestinians are de facto israelis and get to vote in israeli elections, or Israel should get the fark back within the 67 borders and take their colonists with them. I do't expect a hasbara stooge like you to accept this, of course.

Uncle Tractor: And then what? You think they would let 25000 jews live just so some anons can score points in Israel threads? You're not making any sense
TTV:No i think those jews are irrelevant to their "struggle" with "the zionist regime" and they are used as a fig leaf which i already explained about 7 or 8 times.

Apparently, you think words / bluster speaks louder than action (or non-action, as in "not killing 25000 iranian jews").

your own maps show that area as the jewish holy land and you still fail grasp any of this.

...and the point sailed over your head.

Uncle Tractor: Here's the simple concept you're failing to grasp: That land was inhabited mainly by arabs. Less than 9% of the population was jewish. That makes it their land, not some terra nullius waiting for european colonization
TTV:What you fail to understand is that jews lived there legally on land they owned and many of the so called 'native palestinians' emigrated to what was in fact a barren shiathole at the time jewish settlers started to cultivate the land. It wasn't their land, it was the British Mandate's land

The land belonged to the people who lived there. Most of them were arabs. Less than 9% were jews. All of them were native palestinians. None of them were european zionists.

The vast majority of the palestinians were arabs. That made it arab land. Not european. Not zionist.

My map is a correct description of the Camp David proposal (or one of them). Your maps prove the opposite of what you want to prove.

Your map showed the Camp David proposal minus the details that made it worthless. Mine showed those details. In what way does that prove the opposite of what I wanted to prove? For that matter, what do you think I was trying to prove? I'm not sure you got even that right.

Uncle Tractor: I have no doubt many did. That doesn't mean all did.
TTV: No, it just contradicted your bullshiat of "The current palestinians have been living in that particular region for centuries",

So the presence of *some* immigrants mean that the historical presence of the majority is null and void? Interesting.

Uncle Tractor: You seem to be unaware of the fact that the old rules of "conquer and colonize" are no longer acceptable
TTV: And since it wasn't "conquer and colonize",

That's an outright lie. Plain and simple.

Uncle Tractor: Israel has always been the aggressor. That's what happens when you colonize somebody else's land.
TTV: Of course! how dare they continue to exist and successfully defend themselves from arab attempts to annahilate them repeatedly. It's preposterous!

Yeah, and the germans were only defending themselves from aggressive invaders back in the 1940s ... Please ...
 
2012-03-05 05:44:09 AM
Several years ago when I delved into the Israel/Palestine controversy I had no opinions and no dog in the race -so to speak. I looked for impartial sources to explain the issues and found none. So I read what I could find always considering the source and did my best to remain neutral.

The one common denominator I encountered were the comments following news articles -mostly from western media- and this more than anything shaped my opinions.

It is my assertion that one side in the controversy is more inclined to ad-hominum attacks, argue with irrationality, eschew objectivity and display a blind adherence to their views despite overwhelming evidence or logic contrary to their opinion.

To anyone on the fence regarding the issue I ask you to consider the arguers along with the argument.
 
2012-03-05 05:47:29 AM
TappingTheVein:Uncle Tractor: Are you talking about rulers or inhabitants now?
TTV: I'm talking about Palestine being different sized area with different population ruled by different people. You know, not the mythical invention of the palestinian country the arabs fantasize about.

That's just a strawman. *Your* strawman.

Uncle Tractor: Do you really not see a connection between cultivation and population increase? Really? ...And you question my intelligence?
TTV: I did and i pointed it out repeatedly: immigration.

In other words; you can't see how increased food production would lead to an increased population. You've got your hasbara "truth" and you're sticking to it.

Uncle Tractor: Very well then, then find me some documentation of this ... but this time, please use a source that doesn't think Obama is a socialist
TTV: How about the wikipedia you yourself probably used, with references ? search for 'Ashkenazi Jews lived in Jerusalem during the 11th century', google it further if you must, i won't waste time educating the clueless any further.

You mean this?

------
According to 16th century mystic Rabbi Elijah of Chelm, Ashkenazi Jews lived in Jerusalem during the 11th century. The story is told that a German-speaking Palestinian Jew saved the life of a young German man surnamed Dolberger. So when the knights of the First Crusade came to siege Jerusalem, one of Dolberger's family members who was among them rescued Jews in Palestine and carried them back to Worms to repay the favor.[29] Further evidence of German communities in the holy city comes in the form of halakhic questions sent from Germany to Jerusalem during the second half of the 11th century.
------

That's it? That's all you've got? You do know that the year 1100 was 900 years ago, right? You were also aware that when I wrote about the jewish portion of the native palestinians being Sephardim / MIzrahim, I was writing about the mid-1800s, right? That's 700 years after the 1100s. A 700-year gap.

And it gets better: according to *your* source, the text quoted above, the ashkenazim you're blooking about were *rescued* from Palestine and taken back to Worms (in Germany). In other words, *your* source supports my claim of an ashkenazim population of zero.

You really shouldn't question other people's intelligence or knowledge.

Uncle Tractor: Yeah, I suppose it's common knowledge among people dumb enough to think Obama is a socialist.
TTV: No, it's common knowledge to anyone who know Haaretz.

Only among people who think Obama is a socialist. I'm sure Orly Taitz agrees with you, though.

Uncle Tractor: Why do you expect them to accept that?
TTV: Because the alternative is impossible. Israel is not going to be an arab country.

Too late for that, I'm afraid. The israeli "living space" policies on the WB have made the two-state solution impossible. It's imply not going to happen. The only alternative is the single-state solution -- and that is not a jewish state.

All that remains is for the arab palestinians to claim their rights as israeli citizens.

Uncle Tractor: What good would it do anyone to have a weak, non-viable palestinian state embedded within the borders of Israel? You'd end up back at square one within the year.
TTV: In your esteemed opinion and as i proved here repeatedly, you are beyond clueless about this subject.
,


So, no real answer. Just another petulant ad hominem. Well, that's all you're good for.
 
Displayed 43 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report