Moment of truth for leftists (except scumlord because he likes The Zohan)

arybvtcw0eolkf

biko wrote: »

This thread is about to be wrapped up.

Can you leave it open for awhile and just issue a warning re. off topic posting and posts inciting hatred please.

There is some good discussion in it if one can wade through the BS hatred stuff.

Wibbs

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

Your a gluten for punishment - she's eating you alive, and your making it easier with each & every post you make.

Sorry to see you drop the capital lettering - you were amusing in your hysterics.

I agree M, their points are all over the place, but the simple fact is that the state of Israel and it's growth was and still is an act of religious and ethnic plantation since the 1940's. The Irish have an issue with that and a bitter history of that. A history that is still going on to some degree. Of all nations in Europe no wonder we tend towards sympathy for the Palestinian cause. I would too, even though I consider miliatant Islam a far bigger danger to the world than militant Judaism

The Israeli

Overheal -
Here are the main points as I see them:
1) The Palestinians have to acknowledge the right if the Israeli state to exist. They still refuse to do so.
2) The retreat would be the final Israeli move, therefore the Palestinians would have to accept that they will not be able to return to the places of 48 and declare that they will not have any further land claims from Israel .
3) The Palestinian armed forces would have to be fully committed to maintaining peaceful borders with Israel and do everything they can to prevent if terror attacks from taking place.
4) Peace education and public announcement that their historic conflict with Israel is over.
To be certain and to build trust this process should take several years and will give time for Israel to evacuate the settlements.

Nodin –
"
The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 1946 (sic) Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.
The amended version
. . .Warning phone calls had been made to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.
The hotel was not evacuated, and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. The entire western wing was destroyed, and to the Irgun’s regret 92 persons were killed.
"

Well, it was a LOT of time ago. Also, the organization expressed its sorrow and also we do learn about them at schools but they aren't presented as the ultimate role models. They are presented as people that helped to establish the Israeli state but we don't have special celebrations or some ritual for them.

Also, have you forgot your fight against the Brits that had led to your independence?
You have used the tactics that would be considered as terror in now days, and you are still very proud of those actions.

The main reasons that are failing the current negotiations are:

The Palestinians are to be blamed for-

1) The Palestinians don't agree to put the "right of return" on the table at the moment.

2) They don't agree to discuss on any territory that Israel holds in Western Jerusalem which houses many thousands of Israelis. Not even to discuss?

This is a major problem because Jerusalem is very important to Jews and it's the Israeli capital, therefor it should be open for negotiations, no doubt.

Things had changed since 67. You can't unroll everything back. As you can't unroll back to 48, or back to 800 BC. The Palestinians have to accept the implications of their actions in 48, and the actions of the Arab nations which they had actively supported.

The Israelis are to be blamed for:

After a period of six months during which Israel had frozen any construction in the territories, Israel renewed it and decided not to freeze it again for now.

---

I've attended school between 1990 to 2001 and I can assure you that I haven't absorbed and hatred towards the Palestinians. You were talking about the 50-70.. Very relevant, and also I haven't seen those textbooks.

Noam Chomsky is a known Jewish person that criticizes Israel regularly. So what? The fact that he is Jewish doesn't make him to be a prove for anything. He has his private opinion, which is very anti-Israeli, and that's all. He represents no one but himself and the people that hold his opinion. Don't be surprised that there are Jews that are against Israel. There are, people are people and hold many different opinions.

Mahatma Coat, sorry but as I see it from reading all your comments, is that there is no real point in discussing with you, as you don't talk or listen but only preach with anger and also you don't represent the Irish mainstream opinion but rather a Palestinian extreme one.

And about the current news: The Hamas is launching rockets on a daily bases on southern Israel.
A terror bomb exploded in Jerusalem killing one, and wounding many. Condemns please..

In Syria – more than dead 100 demonstrators. Condemns for Syria please.

Try to do this exercise: Israel killed 100 demonstrators. I wonder what fuzz it would have made..

Zebra3

By 1948, jews only owned 6% of the land in Palestine.

If Israel wants to keep all its land, it can pay for it and damages.

No to land theft.

The Israeli

Look again at the UN partition plan

Nodin

The Israeli wrote: »

Nodin –
"
The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat (.........)as terror in now days, and you are still very proud of those actions. ..

I'm not condemning it, I'm pointing out that criticising Abbas for 'celebrating' terrorism is rather hypocritical.

As for 'role models' - Irgun veterans are recognised by a medal from the state as are the even more extreme Lehi.

The Israeli wrote: »

The Palestinians are to be blamed for-

1) The Palestinians don't agree to put the "right of return" on the table at the moment...

The Palestinian Authority's anger over the leak of confidential documents about the stricken Middle East peace process is likely to be matched by outrage among many Palestinians at the revelation that their negotiators privately agreed that a token number of refugees, just 10,000, would be allowed to return to Israel.

(my bold)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/palestinians-10000-refugees-return-israel

The Israeli wrote: »

2) They don't agree to discuss on any territory that Israel holds in Western Jerusalem which houses many thousands of Israelis. Not even to discuss?

You mean east Jerusalem.

Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to allow Israel to annex all but one of the settlements built in occupied East Jerusalem in the most far-reaching concessions ever made over the bitterly contested city. The offer was turned down by Israel's then foreign minister as inadequate.

Palestinian Authority leaders also privately discussed giving up part of the flashpoint Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, according to leaked documents. And they proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem – the highly sensitive issue that, along with refugee rights, sank the Camp David talks in 2000 and triggered the second Palestinian intifada.

(my bold)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestinians-israel-biggest-jerusalem-history?intcmp=239

The Israeli wrote: »

The Israelis are to be blamed for:

After a period of six months during which Israel had frozen any construction in the territories, Israel renewed it and decided not to freeze it again for now.

---

The Israelis are to be blamed for a great deal more than that, as above.

I might add that the construction freeze only covered certain categories of buildings. It was not total. You may look it up.

I've attended school between 1990 to 2001 and I can assure you that I haven't absorbed and hatred towards the Palestinians. You were talking about the 50-70.. Very relevant, and also I haven't seen those textbooks.

Anecdotes. Not helpful.

The Israeli wrote: »

Try to do this exercise: Israel killed 100 demonstrators. I wonder what fuzz it would have made..

Syria is a pariah state under UN sanctions, isn't it?

Crea

Israeli - if you want to get a look at what your government is to "blame" for please have a look at this and other articles on this website

http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=935

nacho libre

Nodin wrote: »

...the usual special pleading, in which the Palestinian is singled out as a uniquely dangerous beast. It's funny, but when the Palestinian movement was largely secular, there were excuses then too.

.

With this in mind at one stage Israel thought it better to support islamic fundamentalists because the secularists were too dangerous.

Al-Mujamma al Islami, which later became Hamas, received crucial support from Israel in the 1970s and 80s as part of Israel's efforts to weaken the secular PLO. Following "the worse the better" theory, Israel sought to make any potential leader of a Palestinian state illegitmate to the west as part of its effort build a "Greater Israel."

Back then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

You have to ask yourself does this mentality still exists among some on the right in Israel today? If so, what hope is there for a peace deal with such people in power? They'll do anything to scupper a peace deal.

Zebra3

The Israeli wrote: »

Look again at the UN partition plan

Why?

Did it legalise ethnic cleansing and land theft?

Nodin

nacho libre wrote: »

With this in mind at one stage Israel thought it better to support islamic fundamentalists because the secularists were too dangerous.

Al-Mujamma al Islami, which later became Hamas, received crucial support from Israel in the 1970s and 80s as part of Israel's efforts to weaken the secular PLO. Following "the worse the better" theory, Israel sought to make any potential leader of a Palestinian state illegitmate to the west as part of its effort build a "Greater Israel."

Back then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

You have to ask yourself does this mentality still exists among some on the right in Israel today? If so, what hope is there for a peace deal with such people in power? They'll do anything to scupper a peace deal.

While that may be true, its has to be viewed in the light of the consequences they face for their behaviour. These are, obviously, non existent. Thus without risk of penalty, theres no incentive on them to act differently. Were this to change, I think they'd suddenly become more pragmatic.

nacho libre

Nodin wrote: »

While that may be true, its has to be viewed in the light of the consequences they face for their behaviour. These are, obviously, non existent. Thus without risk of penalty, theres no incentive on them to act differently. Were this to change, I think they'd suddenly become more pragmatic.

Perhaps the less zealots ones will. Unfortunately unless the US suspends its military budget to Israel, or if Obama finally gives us "change we can believe in", by actually allowing a UN resolution condemning Israel to be passed, we're not going to find out.

Nodin

nacho libre wrote: »

Perhaps the less zealots ones will. Unfortunately unless the US suspends its military budget to Israel, or if Obama finally gives us "change we can believe in", by actually allowing a UN resolution condemning Israel to be passed, we're not going to find out.

Indeed. While Obama might do a bit more, I think it requires a shift in Congress to make that kind of change, which I can't see happening any time soon.

Zebra3

Head figures in the US military have repeatedly told Obama that the US's unconditional backing of Israel is contributing to dead Ameican soldiers in the ME.

Sooner or later this will filter through to Congress and become an issue with the American public.

Nodin

Zebra3 wrote: »

Head figures in the US military have repeatedly told Obama that the US's unconditional backing of Israel is contributing to dead Ameican soldiers in the ME.

Sooner or later this will filter through to Congress and become an issue with the American public.

My money would be on later. And time is not on the Palestinians side.

Tahuti

Nodin wrote: »

My money would be on later. And time is not on the Palestinians side.

Isn't part of the problem those bible-thumping religious fanatics (American) who believe in creationism etc., also believing that Israel is actually the Promised Land, and that it's a calculated political move in supporting Israel?

Or is that too simplistic?

Wibbs

The Israeli wrote: »

Look again at the UN partition plan

OK and I'd love to hear your reasoning about denying the land theft. 1947 UN map... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.svg
Now look at what actually happened... http://www.arendt-art.de/deutsch/palestina/BILDER/index.14.JPG And that's just to 2000. Every other week some rabid Jewish loony who believes Moses says its OK is taking more land with the full support of the IDF and you wonder why in response some rabid Islamic loony straps a bomb to a teenager and blows up a bus?

No matter what your argument or position is, the simple fact is that Israel has had a concerted policy and effort to steal land by military force from the indigenous population of the area and squeezing said population into smaller and smaller areas(ghettoes ring any bells?), while claiming historical(yea right) and moral rights, with a nice side order of culturalism at best racism at worst. They have done so against all norms of international law and censure since 1947. Do the Israeli people, some of the most intelligent population of people on earth not understand irony?

Nodin

Tahuti wrote: »

Isn't part of the problem those bible-thumping religious fanatics (American) who believe in creationism etc., also believing that Israel is actually the Promised Land, and that it's a calculated political move in supporting Israel?

Or is that too simplistic?

O no, thats certainly a factor. The irony is that a good few of them are actually anti-semetic.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Nodin wrote: »

My money would be on later. And time is not on the Palestinians side.

I'd wager a bet that its more on the Palestinian side that the Israeli's, why?.

Because like the British, and Americans etc - they (Israel) don't understand whats inside the heart of a risen people.

Palestinians are like the Irish, if it takes a thousand years so be it - their day will come.

Israel only has to lose one war on its soil and its the end of days for it.

Nodin

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

I'd wager a bet that its more on the Palestinian side that the Israeli's, why?.

Because like the British, and Americans etc - they (Israel) don't understand whats inside the heart of a risen people.

Palestinians are like the Irish, if it takes a thousand years so be it - their day will come.

Israel only has to lose one war on its soil and its the end of days for it.

There was a time when I beleived that, but as the settlements have expanded and the Palestinian efforts to fight back grew weaker, my mind changed. The gap between sides is too great. Outside of Israel shooting itself in both feet, a leg and trying to run with its bags around its ankles, I can't see the Palestinians getting anything from their own efforts.

I would, of course, like to be proven very wrong.

karma_

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

I'd wager a bet that its more on the Palestinian side that the Israeli's, why?.

Because like the British, and Americans etc - they (Israel) don't understand whats inside the heart of a risen people.

Palestinians are like the Irish, if it takes a thousand years so be it - their day will come.

Israel only has to lose one war on its soil and its the end of days for it.

There's another thing Israel have to worry about, and that's the global power shift from west to east. Can they rely on US unconditional support for ever?

Yo soy el burro

Did anyone see this story: "Israel to deploy 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system"

http://www.france24.com/en/20110325-israel-deploy-iron-dome-anti-rocket-syste

Just wait till its renamed "the pre-emptive anti-rocket system". Meaning its a new way of blowing the crap out of gaza

And for any one who thought the yanks weren't bankrolling the israeli's!!!

"In May, US President Barack Obama asked Congress to give Israel 205 million dollars to develop the system, on top of the annual three billion dollars Israel receives from Washington."

Nodin

karma_ wrote: »

There's another thing Israel have to worry about, and that's the global power shift from west to east. Can they rely on US unconditional support for ever?

No, but it won't take forever to consolidate the hold on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As regards the East, the Chinese Government are even more indifferent to who bumps off who than the American, who at least manifest the odd bit of conscience and have voters and public opinion to worry about.

Yo soy el burro

Nodin wrote: »

No, but it won't take forever to consolidate the hold on Arab East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As regards the East, the Chinese Government are even more indifferent to who bumps off who than the American, who at least manifest the odd bit of conscience and have voters and public opinion to worry about.

With 3 billion a year to buy fighter jets with (the isreali's currently have an order for 20 f-35's due for delivery in a few years time) I dont think they give two sh*ts about the chinese! Any the yanks will always back the isreali's because of their lobby groups (some of the facts on these are sicking) so has a UN veto (if you hold the un in any regard.)

Katkatim

Yo soy el burro wrote: »

Did anyone see this story: "Israel to deploy 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system"

http://www.france24.com/en/20110325-israel-deploy-iron-dome-anti-rocket-syste

Just wait till its renamed "the pre-emptive anti-rocket system". Meaning its a new way of blowing the crap out of gaza

And for any one who thought the yanks weren't bankrolling the israeli's!!!

The new anti missile system is designed to take out missiles in the air, not attack targets on land. How you think it would be used to attack Gaza is intersting to hear.

Katkatim

Wibbs wrote: »

Every other week some rabid Jewish loony who believes Moses says its OK is taking more land with the full support of the IDF and you wonder why in response some rabid Islamic loony straps a bomb to a teenager and blows up a bus?

What a sad statement and what a twisted logic. How anyone can find justification for strapping a bomb on someone's child and sending them to die is beyond my understanding.

dlofnep

Katkatim wrote: »

What a sad statement and what a twisted logic. How anyone can find justification for strapping a bomb on someone's child and sending them to die is beyond my understanding.

He's not justifying it. He's explaining the motivation for such attacks.

The Israeli

Nodin and the fixed anti Israeli commenters: I think I misunderstood some of you from the start. You are not intrested in seeing the conflict from both sides. You are here to defend the Palestinian side no matter what. An answer justifying them will always come. Israeli bad actions will be underlined, Palestinian bad action will be sweeped under the carpet or not mentioned at all.
Despite of the intelliget and a polite conversation, it seems that you aren't making any effort to balance yourselves. It really looks redicules to me, that your world is so onesided. Even me, though being side in the conflict, try to see the situation from both places and I openly write about it, but you should be a neutral side by default.
Everything you say is pro palestinian and the only thing that you condemn is killing people (at least some of you).
I think that the best suited way to talk is to say: I support side A or side B and I will prove why they are right. You are neutral observers in disguise.

The anti rocket system is for defence, you anti Israeli skeptic, Yo soy el burro.

Wibbs, try to read about the lands that Jews bought in Israel before 48.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine
Wibbs, come on, now the international (the partition plan) law isn't meaningful to you when it comes against your agenda?
what about the 48 independance war which the arabs had started a day after Israel got independence? what about the fact they they tried to kick jews out of their legal land, and lost? They fled in millions from the country. They were very cruel. Israelis at that time haven't been much nicer to them during the war. It was a war for survival.
After we won, of course we took the Places the were abonded. Maybe you expect Israelis to say: He guys, you killed about 1/6 of the Jewish population, started the war and broke the law. Wanted to kick us from our legal land but hey!! no offence. Come back

Nodin

The Israeli wrote: »

Nodin and the fixed anti Israeli commenters: I think I misunderstood some of you from the start. You are not intrested in seeing the conflict from both sides. You are here to defend the Palestinian side no matter what. An answer justifying them will always come. Israeli bad actions will be underlined, Palestinian bad action will be sweeped under the carpet or not mentioned at all.
Despite of the intelliget and a polite conversation, it seems that you aren't making any effort to balance yourselves. It really looks redicules to me, that your world is so onesided. Even me, though being side in the conflict, try to see the situation from both places and I openly write about it, but you should be a neutral side by default.
Everything you say is pro palestinian and the only thing that you condemn is killing people (at least some of you).
I think that the best suited way to talk is to say: I support side A or side B and I will prove why they are right. You are neutral observers in disguise.

.................

Thats all very well and good.

Now, would you care to pick up where we left off?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71337171&postcount=357

The Israeli

I just read that. It's partly familiar to me. I promise to answer on that tommorow.

Zebra3

The Israeli wrote: »

You are not intrested in seeing the conflict from both sides.

It's not a conflict, it's an occupation.

Overheal

Yo soy el burro wrote: »

Did anyone see this story: "Israel to deploy 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system"

http://www.france24.com/en/20110325-israel-deploy-iron-dome-anti-rocket-syste

Just wait till its renamed "the pre-emptive anti-rocket system". Meaning its a new way of blowing the crap out of gaza

And for any one who thought the yanks weren't bankrolling the israeli's!!!

I know right - Because that's exactly what happened with the Patriot Missile Defense system? And you know they deployed the PDMS in Israel too, right? And there have been *so many* attacks on gaza from Patriot Missile Defense Platforms. Right?

edit: Also, looks like your article was pulled.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Nodin wrote: »

There was a time when I beleived that, but as the settlements have expanded and the Palestinian efforts to fight back grew weaker, my mind changed. The gap between sides is too great. Outside of Israel shooting itself in both feet, a leg and trying to run with its bags around its ankles, I can't see the Palestinians getting anything from their own efforts.

I would, of course, like to be proven very wrong.

Well you see their own efforts are too fragmented, and until they're a cohesive force both militarily and politically they'll always be weak, and this is Israels strength.

Wibbs

The Israeli wrote: »

Wibbs, try to read about the lands that Jews bought in Israel before 48.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

If ever one needed an example of wiki unreliability it's in that link. Even so and I quote; When purchasing land, Jewish migrants were concerned with the displacement of fellahin, agricultural laborers who cultivated the land. "In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as 'the most important asset of the native population'. Ben-Gurion said 'under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to the fellahs or worked by them'" Hmmm now let's look at the map of 1947 and look at the map of today and we can see how well that went...

Wibbs, come on, now the international (the partition plan) law isn't meaningful to you when it comes against your agenda?

I have no idea what you're talking about. All I've pointed out is the stark fact that since the UN partition, Israel has taken by force more and more land. No matter what side you are on, you simply cannot deny this.

what about the 48 independance war which the arabs had started a day after Israel got independence? what about the fact they they tried to kick jews out of their legal land, and lost? They fled in millions from the country. They were very cruel. Israelis at that time haven't been much nicer to them during the war. It was a war for survival.

Oh I agree. The surrounding Arab nations should have said "ok fairs fair, the Jews have had a lot of shít recently and deserve a homeland, so lets leave them alone". Then again those same Arabs were well used to being screwed over by the west since world war 1. They were also used to being ordered about by the west. So along come the Jews, the culturally hated enemy* imposed on them by the same western powers? It was never gonna end well.

After we won, of course we took the Places the were abonded. Maybe you expect Israelis to say: He guys, you killed about 1/6 of the Jewish population, started the war and broke the law. Wanted to kick us from our legal land but hey!! no offence. Come back

It's remarkable how many parallels the plantation of Ulster and the plantation of Israel there are. Both were "legal", both have similar rhetoric and excuses and history tweaking on both sides(your "they massacred us, therefore we did X Y and Z" = Ulster massacres of 1641), both were imposed on an unwilling population by an outside force and both delineated along religious lines. The only difference is the speed at which it happened and the efficiency of the Jews of Israel in plantation and of course the reporting of it is better. You have more eyes on you and history will not look kindly on much of it.

The biggest parallel you're going to find is peace will come very very slowly, if ever. As you saw from the date above of 1641 the crap in Ulster started a long long time ago. There's peace there now, but it's delicate and there are still a lot of bitter feelings on both sides. Look at some of the threads on the subject on this site.






*Let's face it both the Christian and Islamic faith have issues with the Jews. Without the founding of Christianity we can be pretty sure the holocaust would not have happened. Islam has as big an issue with them. Worse in many ways. Well worse in one way, Christianity is less fundamental and powerful these days. IMHO the worst curses on this world have been those three bloody desert religions. Judaism and the ones who evolved from it, Christianity and Islam. If I had a time machine I'd go back 3000 odd years and shoot Abraham in the face. We'd all have a better world today methinks.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

*Let's face it both the Christian and Islamic faith have issues with the Jews. Without the founding of Christianity we can be pretty sure the holocaust would not have happened. Islam has as big an issue with them. Worse in many ways. Well worse in one way, Christianity is less fundamental and powerful these days. IMHO the worst curses on this world have been those three bloody desert religions. Judaism and the ones who evolved from it, Christianity and Islam. If I had a time machine I'd go back 3000 odd years and shoot Abraham in the face. We'd all have a better world today methinks.

It's interesting to think about, but I imagine yet another cult (of the time) would have sprung up and maybe have taken over by now. Hell we could have nearly the same setup now with different deity names.

Zebra3

Well, The Israeli, you started a thread entitled "Moment of truth for leftists".

Congrats on a complete and utter failure of a thread which has exposed more of Israel's crimes than it has to garn support for the zionists.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

It's interesting to think about, but I imagine yet another cult (of the time) would have sprung up and maybe have taken over by now. Hell we could have nearly the same setup now with different deity names.

I dunno, this monotheist lark is rare. Most religions have loads of Gods. People seem to prefer that. Saints/trinity/mary etc. even in "One god" Christianity. Hell the Jews originally had God and his wife. Mrs God. I'd also reckon without Christianity, knowledge of Judaism would likely be miniscule. Just another weird little minority faith. The west knows of it because it nicked the Torah as a backdrop to Christianity, a Jewish "heresy", but got rid of the dafter kosher diet stuff, blood sacrifice and lopping off of bits of willies. Islam wouldn't exist at all. They nicked the Torah and the New testament, but it's more a Christian "heresy" than a Jewish one and was seen as such at the time, though they kept the kosher diet stuff, blood sacrifice and lopping off of bits of willies (and fannies depending on how you read it). Rome would probably have lasted longer too which might have been interesting. I agree we would, being human, have some other weird guff to fight over, but the middle east religions are particularly vicious and self righteous out of the box.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, this monotheist lark is rare. Most religions have loads of Gods. People seem to prefer that. Saints/trinity/mary etc. even in "One god" Christianity. Hell the Jews originally had God and his wife. Mrs God. I'd also reckon without Christianity, knowledge of Judaism would likely be miniscule. Just another weird little minority faith. The west knows of it because it nicked the Torah as a backdrop to Christianity, a Jewish "heresy", but got rid of the dafter kosher diet stuff, blood sacrifice and lopping off of bits of willies. Islam wouldn't exist at all. They nicked the Torah and the New testament, but it's more a Christian "heresy" than a Jewish one and was seen as such at the time, though they kept the kosher diet stuff, blood sacrifice and lopping off of bits of willies (and fannies depending on how you read it). Rome would probably have lasted longer too which might have been interesting. I agree we would, being human, have some other weird guff to fight over, but the middle east religions are particularly vicious and self righteous out of the box.

Maybe, but hinduism for example can be regarded as soft polytheism i.e. all the gods are different aspects of the same one. A lot of people would call it monotheistic. I don't know about the Norse one
I don't know if there is a particular inclination toward one or the other
It's interesting, I'd love to sit down sometime and study the different types

arybvtcw0eolkf

Zebra3 wrote: »

Well, The Israeli, you started a thread entitled "Moment of truth for leftists".

Congrats on a complete and utter failure of a thread which has exposed more of Israel's crimes than it has to garn support for the zionists.

This post, like your posts in this this thread is too stupid for words.

Zebra3

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

This post, like your posts in this this thread is too stupid for words.

How is showing the OP's original quote as a failure "too stupid for words"? :rolleyes:

Or has ther been a "moment for leftists" that I've missed?

Upset that I call those who break international law "ciminals"? Boo hoo.

nacho libre

The Israeli wrote: »

Nodin and the fixed anti Israeli commenters: I think I misunderstood some of you from the start. You are not intrested in seeing the conflict from both sides. You are here to defend the Palestinian side no matter what. An answer justifying them will always come. Israeli bad actions will be underlined, Palestinian bad action will be sweeped under the carpet or not mentioned at all.
Despite of the intelliget and a polite conversation, it seems that you aren't making any effort to balance yourselves. It really looks redicules to me, that your world is so onesided. Even me, though being side in the conflict, try to see the situation from both places and I openly write about it, but you should be a neutral side by default.
Everything you say is pro palestinian and the only thing that you condemn is killing people (at least some of you).
I think that the best suited way to talk is to say: I support side A or side B and I will prove why they are right. You are neutral observers in disguise.

A tired tactic.
Making broadstroke phantom/baseless accusation comes across as a diversionary tactic because you are not keen to answer the legitimate questions puts to you. I think you'll find most people arguing against you in this thread are just pro justice and people not having their human rights denied.

arybvtcw0eolkf

nacho libre wrote: »

I think you'll find most people arguing against you in this thread are just pro justice and people not having their human rights denied.

Its hard to talk about "pro justice & human rights" and the Palestinians in the one breath.

Extremists on both sides are as bad as each other, however I'd rather Israeli justice & human rights over Palestinian any day of the week.

Nodin

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

Its hard to talk about "pro justice & human rights" and the Palestinians in the one breath.

Extremists on both sides are as bad as each other, however I'd rather Israeli justice & human rights over Palestinian any day of the week.

...unless you were a Palestinian, in which case things would take a grim turn. It is true, though, that as far as their organisations go, they are no angels.

ScumLord

The Israeli wrote: »

Nodin and the fixed anti Israeli commenters: I think I misunderstood some of you from the start. You are not intrested in seeing the conflict from both sides. You are here to defend the Palestinian side no matter what. An answer justifying them will always come. Israeli bad actions will be underlined, Palestinian bad action will be sweeped under the carpet or not mentioned at all.

That's the problem with all human conflict. You defend the Israeli side they defend the Palestinian side and it then becomes a battle of who can outdo the other side. It's not about peace it's about winning.

Both sides are wrong, it takes two to tango and until both sides admit they are just as wrong as the other side this argument will go on and on and on.

I could quite easily argue either side of this debate with more or less the same argument. "Mammy he hit me" "No she hit me first" "but he took my bouncy ball" "She eat my biscuit"

arybvtcw0eolkf

Nodin wrote: »

...unless you were a Palestinian, in which case things would take a grim turn. It is true, though, that as far as their organisations go, they are no angels.

Don't know about that either tbh..

Leaving the settlements aside, I'm no expert on them and no Israeli I've ever spoken to has agreed with them.

But I've known enemies of Israel being imprisoned after due process (sometimes!! - in the case of Lebanon, probably never), sentenced and released at the end of their sentence - alive.

Sadly we can't say that about the enemies, or perceived enemies of the Palestinians.

old hippy

If I haven't done so before, let me recommend Joe Sacco's "Palestine"; an enlightening book on life in the area.

There are plenty of Israelis who are concerned over the treatment meted out to Palestinians - some of the soldiers who are conscripted to the IDF are known as refuseniks for their stance on the situation. And then of course; Mordechai Vanunu who blew the whistle on Israel's WMDs.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

That's the problem with all human conflict. You defend the Israeli side they defend the Palestinian side and it then becomes a battle of who can outdo the other side. It's not about peace it's about winning.

Both sides are wrong, it takes two to tango and until both sides admit they are just as wrong as the other side this argument will go on and on and on.

Bingo. Plus whatever side you support is more based on fluke than anything else. Sometimes it can even throw up interesting dichotomies in folks. I'm gonna pick on Makikomi* as an example of that. From my reading of your posts over the years would it be fair to say you would be more of a republican than not? More a man proud of your fellow Irish men and women and their fight to remove themselves from the yoke of the English crown? Yet because of your Jewish heritage you are more a supporter of Israel, when most republicans(indeed a majority of Irish even) would be more supportive of the Palestinians as the aforementioned are much more like the Irish of the past under crown rule and the Israeli's are much more like the planters of Ulster and elsewhere(but Ulster in particular has major parallels).

Hey I'm confused myself I grew up with Jews as mates, had rellies who saw the results first hand of the Austrian corporals madness, so would have backed Israel rather than the PLO of my peers. I still would too. Like you say given a choice between Israel a modern "western" democracy and the majority of Arab states I'd defo want to live in the former. Hell one university in Tel Aviv produces more doctoral thesis' in a year than the whole of the rest of the middle east. I really hope the various current revolutions in some of the Arab nations changes that, but I won't hold my breath.

What rankles with me is the hypocrisy and blinkered thinking in Israel. Certainly the official line. If they admited that they're intent on a Jew only Israel, more to the point a non Arab one, I'd have far more respect for them. For all their bowler hatted sash wearing insanity at least the Orange men were pretty clear about their aims. Israel is like the school bully using the weaker kids own fist to punch him in the face, all the while saying ". It's all you fault, why are you punching yourself?".





*not based on reality. He's fooking huuge, so he is. :eek:

K-9

Brooklynn Unkempt Postage wrote: »

Its hard to talk about "pro justice & human rights" and the Palestinians in the one breath.

Extremists on both sides are as bad as each other, however I'd rather Israeli justice & human rights over Palestinian any day of the week.

Reading this thread and a few Irish Republican ones here lately, remind me how much I hate extremism. Bad and all as the North is, the extremists are less and less and things are moving on.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Reading this thread and a few Irish Republican ones here lately, remind me how much I hate extremism. Bad and all as the North is, the extremists are less and less and things are moving on.

They are now. I wouldn't like to have been around in the 17th century though. Add in modern automatic weapons and it would have been "fun" up north. But yea we dont really go in for real mad extremes. Actually that goes for these two islands. We're not quite as batshít crazy as some other countries.

The Israeli

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not condemning it, I'm pointing out that criticizing Abbas for 'celebrating' terrorism is rather hypocritical.

As for 'role models' - Irgun veterans are recognized by a medal from the state as are the even more extreme Lehi.

You aren't condemning encouragement of terror?! Why?

You see, that Irgun (organization in Hebrew) existed before 1948. Things that were allowed then, are not allowed now. Irish people committed terror attacks against the British before you got your independence too. Things were more controversial in back those days, and I really hope that the world has advanced since then.

Israel can't be retroactively bad to "resistance" fighters. Also, the main organization was the Palmach, which held much higher standards towards human lives.

Nodin wrote: »

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Israeli [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Home/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

The Palestinians are to be blamed for-

1) The Palestinians don't agree to put the "right of return" on the table at the moment...

Quote:

The Palestinian Authority's anger over the leak of confidential documents about the stricken Middle East peace process is likely to be matched by outrage among many Palestinians at the revelation that their negotiators privately agreed that a token number of refugees, just 10,000, would be allowed to return to Israel.

(my bold)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-return-israel

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Israeli [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Home/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

2) They don't agree to discuss on any territory that Israel holds in Western Jerusalem which houses many thousands of Israelis. Not even to discuss?

You mean east Jerusalem.

Quote:

Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to allow Israel to annex all but one of the settlements built in occupied East Jerusalem in the most far-reaching concessions ever made over the bitterly contested city. The offer was turned down by Israel's then foreign minister as inadequate.

Palestinian Authority leaders also privately discussed giving up part of the flashpoint Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, according to leaked documents. And they proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem – the highly sensitive issue that, along with refugee rights, sank the Camp David talks in 2000 and triggered the second Palestinian intifada.

(my bold)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ory?intcmp=239

That was my biggest point in defending Israel so far. I don't intend to defend Israel in all cases also. As I have been reading I've found out that: Yes, the Palestinians were fair towards Israel with their offers to give up on and exchange territories in Jerusalem.

Though there were several very problematic points on which Israeli citizens would not probably agree: The Palestinians demand sovereignty in the old city, but are willing to leave the jews quarter and parts of the Armenian quarter. Also, they proposed a united council that will manage the holy places.

Look, I'm very liberal, and I think that this offer is nice on paper. In reality, I'm not sure if it can hold because it leaves both sides bind to each other and it's enough to throw a match to set everything on fire again. Also there is a huge problem of protecting the Israeli places, and you can be sure that some people would like to harm.

In my opinion, the most realistic solution is a complete separation in borders. It's the most stable one, but we can't agree upon one like that.

Regarding the rest of the territories there wasn't much of a real progress. Accordingly to what I have read the Palestinian leadership suggested that some settlements would be transferred to Palestine and their citizens would become Palestinian citizens. Well, this won't work. Israel would not be able to guarantee their security. Who are the people that would like to become Palestinian citizens.. Totally impractical. The direction of that solution should be lands exchange and giving ups of both sides.
If you are asking me: if so, what do you suggest? what is practical to you? how would you know that you can't give territory A but you can exchange territory B with territory C and so on?
Well I can't. I'm not a highly ranked officer in the army nor a politition. Nor anyone of you in this forum. I hope that in the high ranks sit people that over time will be able to overcome these problems.

Nodin wrote: »

Syria is a pariah state under UN sanctions, isn't it?

Well, you represent yourself as a justice fighter. You better be an all rounded one…

People are dying there. Maybe you can help to turn the attention of the world to that too..

Maybe the sanctions aren't helping to save those people….

Regarding the rest I told my opinion and what I know from absorbing the daily life in Isael. You don't have to accept it.

I would really like to comment to all, but I don't have so much spare time at the moment. I'm thankful to all the people that are really trying to understand both sides, and think about real solutions to the problem.
I don't want to mention their nick names, because it would seem to some that we are "working together". What binds us is just a desire to be reasonable, and show that both sides are right and wrong in their own ways.


And something possitive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=301G8fTOvYs

Nodin

The Israeli wrote: »

You aren't condemning encouragement of terror?! Why?

"terror" is a convenient term used to demonise the opposition. Both sides have used such tactics and still do, though in more advanced forms.

The Israeli wrote: »

You see, that Irgun (organization in Hebrew) existed before 1948. Things that were allowed then, are not allowed now.

...a lot of things happened between then and now.

The Israeli wrote: »

Irish people committed terror attacks against the British before you got your independence too.

I'm fully aware of that, and since I haven't condemned Israeli "terror", I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

The Israeli wrote: »

Things were more controversial in back those days, and I really hope that the world has advanced since then.

Not much.

The Israeli wrote: »

Israel can't be retroactively bad to "resistance" fighters. Also, the main organization was the Palmach, which held much higher standards towards human lives.

I'm not asking or expecting you or "Israel" to be "bad" to anyone. I'm pointing out that between the two sides, theres not much by way of moral high ground.

The Israeli wrote: »

That was my biggest point in defending Israel so far. I don't intend to defend Israel in all cases also. As I have been reading I've found out that: Yes, the Palestinians were fair towards Israel with their offers to give up on and exchange territories in Jerusalem.

Though there were several very problematic points on which Israeli citizens would not probably agree: The Palestinians demand sovereignty in the old city, but are willing to leave the jews quarter and parts of the Armenian quarter. Also, they proposed a united council that will manage the holy places.

Look, I'm very liberal, and I think that this offer is nice on paper. In reality, I'm not sure if it can hold because it leaves both sides bind to each other and it's enough to throw a match to set everything on fire again.

......this may come as a shock, but regardless of what kind of agreement is reached (if one is reached at all), yez are going to be stuck beside each other. In fact, its the one certainty.

The Israeli wrote: »

Also there is a huge problem of protecting the Israeli places, and you can be sure that some people would like to harm.

The only threat these days comes from the Hamas side. Abbas has essentially pacified the west bank. The IDF seem to be doing a rather thorough job themselves.

The Israeli wrote: »

In my opinion, the most realistic solution is a complete separation in borders.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The Israeli wrote: »

It's the most stable one, but we can't agree upon one like that.

Regarding the rest of the territories there wasn't much of a real progress. Accordingly to what I have read the Palestinian leadership suggested that some settlements would be transferred to Palestine and their citizens would become Palestinian citizens. Well, this won't work. Israel would not be able to guarantee their security. Who are the people that would like to become Palestinian citizens.. Totally impractical.

I'm unaware of that in the current negotiation position. If you had a source?

This shows what was offered recently.
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122114239940577.html

The Israeli wrote: »

Well, you represent yourself as a justice fighter. You better be an all rounded one…

I've never referred to myself in such terms, directly or otherwise, here or elsewhere.

There are tools available on the public profile of each user. If you wish to imply that certain parties are focussed on only one issue, I'd suggest using them and starting a thread. Otherwise you might want to drop it.