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)   Israeli court rules Israel not at fault in 2003 killing by Israeli military of non-Israeli activist Rachel Corrie   (jpost.com) divider line 265
    More: Followup, Rachel Corrie, Israelis, IDF, bulldozers, diplomacies, court ruling  
•       •       •

2949 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Aug 2012 at 6:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-30 04:14:02 AM  

liam76: I am wondering why you think they felt that strongly for "one land" when some 40% of the zionists were good with the Uganda proposal?


The early zionists didn't feel any particular ties with Palestine. They just wanted a land for jews, and I don't blame them. Palestine, Argentine, and Uganda were the leading three candidates. IIRC they settled on Palestine because that would let them play the "historical ties" card. The sephardim / mizrahim that lived there were a convenient alibi. Pity they didn't chose Argentine, because it was already cleansed of its natives, and it was the second most popular candidate. Even today, it has a disproportionately large jewish population.
 
2012-08-30 04:15:05 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Also, the jews that had lived there for the past two thousand years were sephardim.


Correction: Mizrahim. The sephardim came after 1492.
 
2012-08-30 06:51:23 AM  

Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: liam76: Uncle Tractor: However, you seem to be against the single-state solution, and the two-state solution is no longer possible. What would you suggest instead? Ethnic cleansing? Palestinian bantustans?

A two state solution is far more liekly to work than a single state solution.


Ain't gonna' happen. "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" was the Zionist motto long before Hitler copied it. They're not going to abandon it now.

I am wondering who you think that leader was?


Ben Gurion, as it happened.

The Nazis didn't think Hitler was immortal, did they? Likewise the Zios remained flexible


Zionists were worshipping Ben Gurion on par with Hitler and before Hitler? Your insantiy gets more and more whacke dotu every day.

Amos Quito: The goal was a racist State for Xews - various locations were considered - Canada, Iraq, Libya, Australia... GALVESTON - which kind of shoots down your excuse that the Xios had valid claim to the land as it was the ancestral homeland of the Jews, doesn't it liam76?

Or was Galveston part of the "Promised Land"?

Keep lying, lad. It's fun to watch


I didn't say they had a valid claim due to ti being an "ancestral home". I point out the pockets of jews who always lived there as an example of peopel like tractor's double standard as to what makes land jewish or arab.

And the goal was a state where they wouldn;t be persecuted, but to you a land where jews aren't persecuted must be racist.



Uncle Tractor: You might have had a point if there had been any land left for the arabs, but that's not the case. No, Gaza and some bantustans on the WB is not enough for a palestinian state.


So there is some arbitrary square mileage amount that is required to form a state that you won't elaborate on?

Odd that you want to call them "bantustans" yet if you check out the UN HDI the standard of living there is better than many neighboring arab countries. Are those places composed entierly of bantustans?

Uncle Tractor: Yeah. In 1946. In 1850, before the first aliyah? Zero.


In 1850, they were much smaller, due to massacres at the hand of Palestenians after ther fall of Ottoman rule, but they were still there. Odd that you think Arabs wiping out jews makes land legitamately arab. Actually no odd, perfectly rational given your attitude towards jews.

Uncle Tractor: Again, you're confusing private ownership with demographics. Also, the jews that had lived there for the past two thousand years were sephardim. The zionists who came in search of living space were ashkenazim. Those are two different peoples.


No I am not confusing it. I am pointing out that on virtually every apsect of this you have a double standard. I am not even talking about land they bought in the 20's an onward. (and yes when you deny a group the ability to buy land, or have a voice whent hey do buy that land you are racist agains tthat group, but we have been down that route and you are fine doing that to jews).

So when it is Arab land they can allow in as many arabs from other places as they like, when it is jewish land they can't have other jews move there?



Uncle Tractor: Your constant direct / indirect accusations of anti-semitism are childish, and will always be childish.


What else am I supposed to think about a guy who dismisses a civil war that will largely kill jews as no problem?


Uncle Tractor: liam76: I am wondering why you think they felt that strongly for "one land" when some 40% of the zionists were good with the Uganda proposal?

The early zionists didn't feel any particular ties with Palestine.


So even someone like you should be able to admit the claims Amos makes are off the deep end.
 
2012-08-30 07:14:19 AM  

Uncle Tractor: Shiat like this does lead one to that conclusion.


My neighbor just had to rip off the deck portion of his house that he enclosed, it was on land he owned but he didn't do a wetland survey. Does tha mean the ocoonty wants to remove his family fromt he area?

Also odd that you think forcing people to remove trees that, under the Oslo Accord, they didn't have permission to plant is proof that Israel wants to remove all Arabs from WB, Gaza and Israel. Despite Israeli arabs having voting rights, place on the supreme court, political parties, and offers of land swaps with Palestenians and pull-out from Gaza.

Also odd that you dismiss Palestenians celebrating people who kill Israel civlians and electing a group that has removing the jews as their goal being proof "one state" would lead to civil war.

But that isn't a double standard.
 
2012-08-30 07:18:25 AM  

liam76: Uncle Tractor: You might have had a point if there had been any land left for the arabs, but that's not the case. No, Gaza and some bantustans on the WB is not enough for a palestinian state.

So there is some arbitrary square mileage amount that is required to form a state that you won't elaborate on?


It needs to be mostly continuous, and it needs to be large enough to sustain it's own economy. An enclosed Gaza strip plus a scattering of bantustans don't fit the bill. A Palestine like that would be completely dependent on israeli handouts. That's not a sovereign state.

Odd that you want to call them "bantustans" yet if you check out the UN HDI the standard of living there is better than many neighboring arab countries.

Again: Show me how the israelis have helped improve this standard of living.

Uncle Tractor: Yeah. In 1946. In 1850, before the first aliyah? Zero.

In 1850, they were much smaller, due to massacres at the hand of Palestenians after ther fall of Ottoman rule, but they were still there. Odd that you think Arabs wiping out jews makes land legitamately arab. Actually no odd, perfectly rational given your attitude towards jews.


Again with the childish accusations of anti-semitism.

No I am not confusing it.

Yes, you are.

I am pointing out that on virtually every apsect of this you have a double standard.

...And you point out this "double-standard" by confusing private ownership with demographics. Again and again and again. Not that there was much in the way of jewish owned land before zionism; IIRC it was mostly owned by absentee landlords.

I am not even talking about land they bought in the 20's an onward. (and yes when you deny a group the ability to buy land,

...which I have never done.

or have a voice whent hey do buy that land you are racist agains tthat group, but we have been down that route and you are fine doing that to jews).

You just can't stop lying, can you? Well, Israel-apologists are rarely honest people, so ...

So when it is Arab land they can allow in as many arabs from other places as they like, when it is jewish land they can't have other jews move there?

As I've said before; there is a difference between going to a country to get a job and be part of the existing community, and going to a country in order to colonize it. Of course, this is wasted on a fundamentally dishonest person like yourself.

Uncle Tractor: Your constant direct / indirect accusations of anti-semitism are childish, and will always be childish.

What else am I supposed to think about a guy who dismisses a civil war that will largely kill jews as no problem?


The "civil war" argument was often used in defense of Apartheid SA. No wonder you use it to defend Israel. The "civil war" argument is just a bogeyman for easily frightened children.
 
2012-08-30 07:21:30 AM  

liam76: My neighbor just had to rip off the deck portion of his house that he enclosed, it was on land he owned but he didn't do a wetland survey. Does tha mean the ocoonty wants to remove his family fromt he area?

Also odd that you think forcing people to remove trees that, under the Oslo Accord, they didn't have permission to plant is proof that Israel wants to remove all Arabs from WB, Gaza and Israel. Despite Israeli arabs having voting rights, place on the supreme court, political parties, and offers of land swaps with Palestenians and pull-out from Gaza.

Also odd that you dismiss Palestenians celebrating people who kill Israel civlians and electing a group that has removing the jews as their goal being proof "one state" would lead to civil war.

But that isn't a double standard.


You want the arabs to respect the Oslo accord, but you're OK with Israel wiping it's arse with it.

...And you whine to me about double-standards?
 
2012-08-30 07:41:34 AM  

Uncle Tractor: It needs to be mostly continuous, and it needs to be large enough to sustain it's own economy. An enclosed Gaza strip plus a scattering of bantustans don't fit the bill. A Palestine like that would be completely dependent on israeli handouts. That's not a sovereign state.


Why couldn't palestine trade with oher countries?



Uncle Tractor: Again: Show me how the israelis have helped improve this standard of living.


First off you could be consistent wiht your own logic. Look at what you said above. If they are completely dependent on Israel, how can you not attribute it to Israel?


Secondly. What changed between 67 and today? Why was there no growth or improvement from 48-67 but after 67 there was? What changed?

Uncle Tractor: Again with the childish accusations of anti-semitism.


You think wiping out jewish areas made the land arab, that is a fact. What else can I conclude?

Uncle Tractor: ...And you point out this "double-standard" by confusing private ownership with demographics. Again and again and again. Not that there was much in the way of jewish owned land before zionism; IIRC it was mostly owned by absentee landlords.


No. You are the one who is confusing it becasue you don't want to admit your double standards.

You deny the pockets of Jews that have been there for thousands of years have the right to call the land they are on "jewish land". You have said numerous time it was all Arab land. So your claims abotu it not being about "ownership" but about who has lived there is complete BS becaus eyou don't extend it to jews.


Uncle Tractor: or have a voice whent hey do buy that land you are racist agains tthat group, but we have been down that route and you are fine doing that to jews).

You just can't stop lying, can you? Well, Israel-apologists are rarely honest people, so ...


So if you are fine with jews buying land there and fine with them having a voice in the govt you must be fine wiht the state of Israel. Maybe not it's border, but the state itself.


Uncle Tractor: As I've said before; there is a difference between going to a country to get a job and be part of the existing community, and going to a country in order to colonize it. Of course, this is wasted on a fundamentally dishonest person like yourself.


Ah, here it is.

You believe they jews had a right to move there, they had a right to buy land, and they had a right to a voice in govt, but only if the voice was something you agreed with. If they want something arabs don't (equal rights, self determination) then they don't deserve their voice.

You just calle dme a liar fro saying you were against them having thier own voice and in the next breath you put limits on what that voice could be, and you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

Uncle Tractor: The "civil war" argument was often used in defense of Apartheid SA. No wonder you use it to defend Israel. The "civil war" argument is just a bogeyman for easily frightened children


How many wars did SA have against it's neighbors that support the group they were worried about the civil war with? At the height of MK violence, how many people did they kill a year?

Civil war argument is dismissed by peopel with no understanding of the polotics of the region, or peopel who have no problem if Israeli jews are killed.
 
2012-08-30 07:44:16 AM  

Uncle Tractor: liam76: My neighbor just had to rip off the deck portion of his house that he enclosed, it was on land he owned but he didn't do a wetland survey. Does tha mean the ocoonty wants to remove his family fromt he area?


But that isn't a double standard.

You want the arabs to respect the Oslo accord, but you're OK with Israel wiping it's arse with it.

...And you whine to me about double-standards?


I guess I missed the part of the Oslo accords where lobbing rockets was OK.

And again with yoru dishonesty I didn't say I expect them to follow it, I am pointing out Israel's actions aren't out of line accordingt ot he Oslo accords.

and this,

Also odd that you think forcing people to remove trees that, under the Oslo Accord, they didn't have permission to plant is proof that Israel wants to remove all Arabs from WB, Gaza and Israel. Despite Israeli arabs having voting rights, place on the supreme court, political parties, and offers of land swaps with Palestenians and pull-out from Gaza.

Also odd that you dismiss Palestenians celebrating people who kill Israel civlians and electing a group that has removing the jews as their goal being proof "one state" would lead to civil war.


is a double standard.
 
2012-08-30 06:16:24 PM  

liam76: Uncle Tractor: It needs to be mostly continuous, and it needs to be large enough to sustain it's own economy. An enclosed Gaza strip plus a scattering of bantustans don't fit the bill. A Palestine like that would be completely dependent on israeli handouts. That's not a sovereign state.

Why couldn't palestine trade with oher countries?


Because it would be completely locked in by Israel. That's why.

Uncle Tractor: Again: Show me how the israelis have helped improve this standard of living.
First off you could be consistent wiht your own logic. Look at what you said above. If they are completely dependent on Israel, how can you not attribute it to Israel?


Because there is a difference between "despite" and "because of". I'd like to see you explain how water shortages, house demolitions, sonic booms, death squads, white phosphor, destroyed orchards, "settler" terrorism, checkpoints, and a giant wall that cuts people off from everything have helped the palestinians improve their lot.

Despite all that the palestinians have managed to improve their living standards. Kinda makes me wonder what they'd be able to achieve if they got out from beneath the israeli boot.

Secondly. What changed between 67 and today? Why was there no growth or improvement from 48-67 but after 67 there was? What changed?

I dunno. What's changed since 1967? You tell me. I can't be bothered to look it up ATM.

You think wiping out jewish areas made the land arab, that is a fact.

No, I think making up 90% of the population makes that land yours. I said nothing about how that came to be. That's just you making shiat up, as usual.

What else can I conclude?

You'll conclude whatever you want, like you always do, even if you have to make shiat up to reach that conclusion.

No. You are the one who is confusing it becasue you don't want to admit your double standards.

And again with the childishness.

You deny the pockets of Jews that have been there for thousands of years have the right to call the land they are on "jewish land".

How big does that pocket have to be before it becomes "jewish land?" A village? A farm? An apartment?

You have said numerous time it was all Arab land. So your claims abotu it not being about "ownership" but about who has lived there is complete BS becaus eyou don't extend it to jews.

90% of the population was arab. That made it arab land. It's as simple as that. There was a time when 90% (at least) was jewish. That made it jewish land. Thanks to the massacres and ethnic cleansing in 1948, followed by massive immigration, the israeli population outside Gaza and the WB is 80% jewish. That makes it jewish land.

What was it I don't extend to jews again?

So if you are fine with jews buying land there and fine with them having a voice in the govt you must be fine wiht the state of Israel. Maybe not it's border, but the state itself.

What malfunction in your brain is it that prevents you from understanding the difference between moving to a country to make a new life for yourself (and family) and moving to a new country to colonize it and wrest it from the natives?

Uncle Tractor: As I've said before; there is a difference between going to a country to get a job and be part of the existing community, and going to a country in order to colonize it. Of course, this is wasted on a fundamentally dishonest person like yourself.

Ah, here it is.

You believe they jews had a right to move there, they had a right to buy land, and they had a right to a voice in govt, but only if the voice was something you agreed with.


So once again you make shiat up. As always.

If they want something arabs don't (equal rights, self determination) then they don't deserve their voice. You just calle dme a liar fro saying you were against them having thier own voice and in the next breath you put limits on what that voice could be, and you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

That there is what is known as a "straw man argument," which is just a particularly dishonest form of lying. Your lies are bad enough as they are. Don't put them in my mouth.

Civil war argument is dismissed by peopel with no understanding of the polotics of the region, or peopel who have no problem if Israeli jews are killed.

The civil war argument is used by people who can't defend their positions, just like the terrorist argument. It's just fear-mongering to keep the useful idiots in line.
 
2012-08-30 06:29:02 PM  

liam76: I guess I missed the part of the Oslo accords where lobbing rockets was OK.


It's right next to the part where it says it's OK to build colonies all over the WB.

Also odd that you think forcing people to remove trees that, under the Oslo Accord, they didn't have permission to plant is proof that Israel wants to remove all Arabs from WB, Gaza and Israel. Despite Israeli arabs having voting rights, place on the supreme court, political parties, and offers of land swaps with Palestenians and pull-out from Gaza.

The Oslo accords are stone dead. Nobody cares about them anymore. Well, except when they're used as an excuse for israeli asshattery.

As for the rights of israeli-arabs... what do you think will happen to those rights when their numbers become large enough for their votes to become politically relevant? When the arab voters of Israel can stop the israeli wrongdoings?

What happens when that time comes?

Just for once in your life, try to give me an honest answer.

Also odd that you dismiss Palestenians celebrating people who kill Israel civlians and electing a group that has removing the jews as their goal being proof "one state" would lead to civil war.

is a double standard.


It's only natural to celebrate when your oppressors get hurt. Europeans did the same thing whenever germans got hurt during WWII. As for Hamas, they're just in Gaza. They'd be wiped out in a single-state election. So would the extremists on the jewish side. The moderates would be able to work together.

You're an extremist yourself, of course (or a particularly tenacious troll), so you might not be able to grok the paragraph above.
 
2012-08-30 06:35:45 PM  

liam76: Amos Quito: The goal was a racist State for Xews - various locations were considered - Canada, Iraq, Libya, Australia... GALVESTON - which kind of shoots down your excuse that the Xios had valid claim to the land as it was the ancestral homeland of the Jews, doesn't it liam76?

Or was Galveston part of the "Promised Land"?

Keep lying, lad. It's fun to watch

I didn't say they had a valid claim due to ti being an "ancestral home". I point out the pockets of jews who always lived there as an example of peopel like tractor's double standard as to what makes land jewish or arab.

And the goal was a state where they wouldn;t be persecuted, but to you a land where jews aren't persecuted must be racist.



Zionist Israel is definitively racist.

And let's look at whether your alleged goal of Zionism has been achieved: Is Israel "persecuted"?

Are the Jews of Israel safe? Because it seems to me that they have been in a constant "existential fight" from day one, that they can't point to ONE neighbor in the region without saying "they're trying to kill us!".

Some success story.

What the Zionists HAVE succeeded in doing is rounding up nearly half of the world's Jewish population into an area the size of New Jersey - and surrounded by neighboring countries teeming with enemies, old and new.

www.gearfuse.com

So what do you say, liam76? Is Zionism / Israel really "good for the Jews"?
 
2012-08-30 06:41:24 PM  

Uncle Tractor: As for the rights of israeli-arabs... what do you think will happen to those rights when their numbers become large enough for their votes to become politically relevant? When the arab voters of Israel can stop the israeli wrongdoings?

What happens when that time comes?



They'll have to take whatever steps are necessary to assure that those numbers never reach that level, because that would effectively be mean the END of the Zionist regime - the end of Israel as a "Jewish State".

Not the end of the Jews, mind you, but the end of the regime and the Zionist dream.
 
2012-08-31 12:31:27 PM  

Uncle Tractor: liam76: Uncle Tractor: It needs to be mostly continuous, and it needs to be large enough to sustain it's own economy. An enclosed Gaza strip plus a scattering of bantustans don't fit the bill. A Palestine like that would be completely dependent on israeli handouts. That's not a sovereign state.

Why couldn't palestine trade with oher countries?

Because it would be completely locked in by Israel. That's why.

Uncle Tractor: Again: Show me how the israelis have helped improve this standard of living.
First off you could be consistent wiht your own logic. Look at what you said above. If they are completely dependent on Israel, how can you not attribute it to Israel?

Because there is a difference between "despite" and "because of". I'd like to see you explain how water shortages, house demolitions, sonic booms, death squads, white phosphor, destroyed orchards, "settler" terrorism, checkpoints, and a giant wall that cuts people off from everything have helped the palestinians improve their lot.

Despite all that the palestinians have managed to improve their living standards. Kinda makes me wonder what they'd be able to achieve if they got out from beneath the israeli boot.

Secondly. What changed between 67 and today? Why was there no growth or improvement from 48-67 but after 67 there was? What changed?

I dunno. What's changed since 1967? You tell me. I can't be bothered to look it up ATM.

You think wiping out jewish areas made the land arab, that is a fact.

No, I think making up 90% of the population makes that land yours. I said nothing about how that came to be. That's just you making shiat up, as usual.

What else can I conclude?

You'll conclude whatever you want, like you always do, even if you have to make shiat up to reach that conclusion.

No. You are the one who is confusing it becasue you don't want to admit your double standards.

And again with the childishness.

You deny the pockets of Jews that have been there for thousands of years have the right to call the land they are on "jewish land".

How big does that pocket have to be before it becomes "jewish land?" A village? A farm? An apartment?

You have said numerous time it was all Arab land. So your claims abotu it not being about "ownership" but about who has lived there is complete BS becaus eyou don't extend it to jews.

90% of the population was arab. That made it arab land. It's as simple as that. There was a time when 90% (at least) was jewish. That made it jewish land. Thanks to the massacres and ethnic cleansing in 1948, followed by massive immigration, the israeli population outside Gaza and the WB is 80% jewish. That makes it jewish land.

What was it I don't extend to jews again?

So if you are fine with jews buying land there and fine with them having a voice in the govt you must be fine wiht the state of Israel. Maybe not it's border, but the state itself.

What malfunction in your brain is it that prevents you from understanding the difference between moving to a country to make a new life for yourself (and family) and moving to a new country to colonize it and wrest it from the natives?

Uncle Tractor: As I've said before; there is a difference between going to a country to get a job and be part of the existing community, and going to a country in order to colonize it. Of course, this is wasted on a fundamentally dishonest person like yourself.

Ah, here it is.

You believe they jews had a right to move there, they had a right to buy land, and they had a right to a voice in govt, but only if the voice was something you agreed with.

So once again you make shiat up. As always.

If they want something arabs don't (equal rights, self determination) then they don't deserve their voice. You just calle dme a liar fro saying you were against them having thier own voice and in the next breath you put limits on what that voice could be, and you have the nerve to call me dishonest.

That there is what is known as a "straw man argument," which is just a particularly dishonest form of lying. Your lies are bad enough as they are. Don't put them in my mouth.

Civil war argument is dismissed by peopel with no understanding of the polotics of the region, or peopel who have no problem if Israeli jews are killed.

The civil war argument is used by people who can't defend their positions, just like the terrorist argument. It's just fear-mongering to keep the useful idiots in line.


I am on a phone otherwise I would have stopped the quote at your first lie. Well your first lie in this response

Once again you fail to tell the truth about basic things like geography. If Palestiniane was its own country it would share borders with countries besides Israel.
 
2012-08-31 12:39:27 PM  

Amos Quito: liam76: Amos Quito: The goal was a racist State for Xews - various locations were considered - Canada, Iraq, Libya, Australia... GALVESTON - which kind of shoots down your excuse that the Xios had valid claim to the land as it was the ancestral homeland of the Jews, doesn't it liam76?

Or was Galveston part of the "Promised Land"?

Keep lying, lad. It's fun to watch

I didn't say they had a valid claim due to ti being an "ancestral home". I point out the pockets of jews who always lived there as an example of peopel like tractor's double standard as to what makes land jewish or arab.

And the goal was a state where they wouldn;t be persecuted, but to you a land where jews aren't persecuted must be racist.


Zionist Israel is definitively racist.

And let's look at whether your alleged goal of Zionism has been achieved: Is Israel "persecuted"?

Are the Jews of Israel safe? Because it seems to me that they have been in a constant "existential fight" from day one, that they can't point to ONE neighbor in the region without saying "they're trying to kill us!".

Some success story.

What the Zionists HAVE succeeded in doing is rounding up nearly half of the world's Jewish population into an area the size of New Jersey - and surrounded by neighboring countries teeming with enemies, old and new.



So what do you say, liam76? Is Zionism / Israel really "good for the Jews"?


Is this where you ignore the historical forces that lead to Israel aside from Zionists or where you blame all those foces (WWI., WWII., pogroms, the Holocaust, etc) on Zionists?
 
2012-08-31 05:45:55 PM  

liam76: I am on a phone otherwise I would have stopped the quote at your first lie. Well your first lie in this response

Once again you fail to tell the truth about basic things like geography. If Palestiniane was its own country it would share borders with countries besides Israel.


You quoted all that text just to tell me you were on the phone? As for borders, yeah; Gaza borders to Egypt. The WB bantustans? Not so much.
 
Displayed 15 of 265 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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