Israel Rejects Peace

Anti-semitism is rampant among the libs of this board. Led by pigiron. What a bunch of racists.

What a load of tosh.

Firstly, Arabs are semites too, so to comment on a fight between two semite peoples is not anti-semitism....

Secondly, criticising the Israeli government isn't criticism of the Jewish religion.

Thirdly, it is you that is the racist. You fail to hold the same criteria for the Israelis that you judge the Palestinians by. Because Israel targets civilians using western weaponry, wear western uniforms and look like us, you apologise for their terrorism.

The Pals in the area in 1948 were know as jordanites. After Israel was founded they were suddenly palistanians.

No, the people were Palestinian Arabs. Jordanian Arabs lived on the shore of Jordan. Read 'Seven Pillars of Wisdom'. (provided that you can read)

The world stood back and did nothing when the arabs attacked Israel in 1948.

The world stood by whilst Israeli terrorist groups attacked local Arabs and British forces sent to protect the region after the withdrawal of the Ottoman empire. British forces were stretched across the world after WWII and couldn't cope with an Israeli terror campaign, and when they recieved no response when help was requested from the world community, they gave in to Israeli terrorism. Giving in to Israeli terrorism has caused the problems we see today. Learn some history.

You fools don't get it. Israel is not your enemy, islam is. But then in your warp world America is your enemy as well.

Islam isn't the enemy. The Israel/Palestine issue is the problem, my enemies are extremists on all sides, from Bin Laa Laa on the Muslim side to people like you on ours.

You and your ignorant racism are part of the problem, not the solution.
 
The jews terrorism was directed at the UK and that should please Anyold! LOL

Toby, it's people like you that support terrorism, provided the terrorists look like us and are attacking people that don't look like us.
 
Hamas has refused three international demands — to recognise Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous agreements. How why should Israel agree to anything when the other sides denies your right to exist?

Read most of the pro-Israeli websites, who deny Palestine the right to exist, as well as many other Muslim states in the area, as they are incorporated in 'Greater Israel'.

Many of the sites resemble the claims of Hitler's Germany for 'breathing space'.

The truth is, neither side is entirely in the right, but whilst we have racists like you and gaffer refusing to see the problem on the Israeli side, this will go on and on...
 
A selection of Israeli terrorism that formed the state....

1937-1939 The Irgun conducted a campaign of retaliatory acts of violence against civilians (in retaliation for the deaths of at least 320 Jews), resulting in the deaths of at least 250.

November 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo.

1944-1945 The killings of several suspected collaborators with the Haganah and the British mandate government during the Hunting Season.

July 26, 1946 The bombing of British headquarters at the King David Hotel, killing 91 people — 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others. Around 45 people were injured. A warning has claimed to have sent before the explosion, but the British authorities claimed they never received one.

1946 British military airfields and railways were attacked several times.

1946 The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome.

1947 The reprisal killing of two British sergeants who had been taken prisoner in response to British execution of two Irgun members in Akko prison.

September 1948, Lehi assassination of the UN mediator Count Bernadotte, whom Lehi accused of a pro-Arab stance during the cease-fire negotiations.

******************************************************************

The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun — a militant Zionist organization, classified as a terrorist organization both by the British authorities and several Jewish organizations, such as the Jewish Agency, Haganah and Histadrut.

The Irgun, dressed as Arabs, exploded a bomb at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel[1]: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured.

The attack was initially ordered by Menachem Begin, the head of the Irgun, who would later become Israeli Prime Minister.
The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
 
Last edited:
Until we recognise that there is no side in the right in this situation, that both sides have and continue to use terrorism to establish their political ends, we will never resolve the problem, nor will we defeat Islamic Jihad.
 
Gaffer said:
Anti-semitism is rampant among the libs of this board. Led by pigiron. What a bunch of racists.

The Pals in the area in 1948 were know as jordanites. After Israel was founded they were suddenly palistanians.

The world stood back and did nothing when the arabs attacked Israel in 1948.

To this day they stand back and do nothing. They only interfer when the arabs are losing again like they always do.

Check out shoebat.com a former pal terrorist.

You fools don't get it. Israel is not your enemy, islam is. But then in your warp world America is your enemy as well.
Click to expand...

Read the old testament, esp Judges. You will find that Gop did nothing on purpose and let Israel be conquered many times for their sins. Are we as men any better than God ?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I don't say that the Israelis are perfect, they are not, I don't say the Palis are, they too clearly are not. I do say lets give actual accounts, those Israelis that first created Israel were there when it began, a huge influx happened afterward, but the Jews didn't magically appear right at the moment of 1948.

Never claimed they did....
Click to expand...
Except you spout the "made them leave their homes" line as if every Palestinian were forced to leave a home, that every home was taken over by a Jew that didn't live there before (otherwise why the need to make them leave?). That is propaganda. Yes some were forced to leave homes, but not all of them. The "palestinians were forced to leave their homes" line does not take this truth into account.

As I said, the Jews were not perfect, nor were the Palestinians who were offered their own nation at that time and refused.
 
Except you spout the "made them leave their homes" line as if every Palestinian were forced to leave a home, that every home was taken over by a Jew that didn't live there before (otherwise why the need to make them leave?). That is propaganda. Yes some were forced to leave homes, but not all of them. The "palestinians were forced to leave their homes" line does not take this truth into account.

No, I say that the State of Israel was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs without their consent because the international community was too weak to stand up to Israeli terrorism.

Jewish people started moving into the area when the notion of zionism was born in the late C19th. It then became a deluge of people migrating there, who, pre-WWII, were engaged in a terrorist campaign to instigate the creation of the State of Israel on land that was already occupied.

It is the difference between me and my kin moving to the US and living there amongst Americans and me and my kin moving to America and conducting a terrorist campaign until America was my own nation state.
 
As I said, the Jews were not perfect, nor were the Palestinians who were offered their own nation at that time and refused.

Mmmmn, if the scenerio that I painted above occurred, would the American people be happy with a state of the poorest land etc, if I'd terrorised my way until the UN granted most of America to me?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Except you spout the "made them leave their homes" line as if every Palestinian were forced to leave a home, that every home was taken over by a Jew that didn't live there before (otherwise why the need to make them leave?). That is propaganda. Yes some were forced to leave homes, but not all of them. The "palestinians were forced to leave their homes" line does not take this truth into account.

No, I say that the State of Israel was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs without their consent because the international community was too weak to stand up to Israeli terrorism.

Jewish people started moving into the area when the notion of zionism was born in the late C19th. It then became a deluge of people migrating there, who, pre-WWII, were engaged in a terrorist campaign to instigate the creation of the State of Israel on land that was already occupied.

It is the difference between me and my kin moving to the US and living there amongst Americans and me and my kin moving to America and conducting a terrorist campaign until America was my own nation state.
Click to expand...
LOL. No it wouldn't be the same. The Palestinians had no nation of their own either. So, taking over the US would not be the same.
 
AnyOldIron said:
As I said, the Jews were not perfect, nor were the Palestinians who were offered their own nation at that time and refused.

Mmmmn, if the scenerio that I painted above occurred, would the American people be happy with a state of the poorest land etc, if I'd terrorised my way until the UN granted most of America to me?
Click to expand...
Not equivalent, as stated in my last post. Not even close. The Palis were offered their own nation, they refused. They did not have one before. Pretending that this would be equivalent is silly.
 
LOL. No it wouldn't be the same. The Palestinians had no nation of their own either. So, taking over the US would not be the same.

Oh, so if a group of people have no formal political structure, we can take their land and create a state for other people there, without giving a toss for those already living there?

By that logic, Britain taking all those African countries was perfectly legitimate, as the Africans operated a similar tribal system to the Palestinian Arabs?

Does the state have to be formally recognised by ???? before it is safe from other nations being formed on the land.

Is this how America justifies 'Manifest (ethnic cleansing) Destiny?
 
AnyOldIron said:
LOL. No it wouldn't be the same. The Palestinians had no nation of their own either. So, taking over the US would not be the same.

Oh, so if a group of people have no formal political structure, we can take their land and create a state for other people there, without giving a toss for those already living there?

By that logic, Britain taking all those African countries was perfectly legitimate, as the Africans operated a similar tribal system to the Palestinian Arabs?

Does the state have to be formally recognised by ???? before it is safe from other nations being formed on the land.

Is this how America justifies 'Manifest (ethnic cleansing) Destiny?
Click to expand...
Once again rubbish. Great Britain had no historical stake in Africa.

You keep using bad analogies to attempt to make the Palis look better than the Jews. Neither side were all that fantastic, but saying that it is the same as this or that is simplifying the issue down to rubbish in an attempt to make one side look better than the other.
 
Once again rubbish. Great Britain had no historical stake in Africa.

The Israeli claim over Palestine is that they conquered it in biblical time under promise that their god had granted them a promised land.

What historic claim did the Americans have over the NA lands?

You keep using bad analogies to attempt to make the Palis look better than the Jews.

No I'm not. I'm attempting to rectify the rewriting of history that makes the Pals look as if they are terrorising a legitimate state, rather than terrorising an occupying state.

And you are dodging my points.

Do a people have to be an 'officially recognised political entity' before they are free from other people imposing other states on them?

Do African states who used a similar tribal system to the Arabs have no right to complain if another nation imposed a state of immigrants on their land?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Once again rubbish. Great Britain had no historical stake in Africa.

The Israeli claim over Palestine is that they conquered it in biblical time under promise that their god had granted them a promised land.

What historic claim did the Americans have over the NA lands?

You keep using bad analogies to attempt to make the Palis look better than the Jews.

No I'm not. I'm attempting to rectify the rewriting of history that makes the Pals look as if they are terrorising a legitimate state, rather than terrorising an occupying state.

And you are dodging my points.

Do a people have to be an 'officially recognised political entity' before they are free from other people imposing other states on them?

Do African states who used a similar tribal system to the Arabs have no right to complain if another nation imposed a state of immigrants on their land?
Click to expand...


Do a people have to be an 'officially recognised political entity' before they are free from other people imposing other states on them?

We and our NATO allies didn't think so in Kosovo.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Once again rubbish. Great Britain had no historical stake in Africa.

The Israeli claim over Palestine is that they conquered it in biblical time under promise that their god had granted them a promised land.

What historic claim did the Americans have over the NA lands?

You keep using bad analogies to attempt to make the Palis look better than the Jews.

No I'm not. I'm attempting to rectify the rewriting of history that makes the Pals look as if they are terrorising a legitimate state, rather than terrorising an occupying state.

And you are dodging my points.

Do a people have to be an 'officially recognised political entity' before they are free from other people imposing other states on them?

Do African states who used a similar tribal system to the Arabs have no right to complain if another nation imposed a state of immigrants on their land?
Click to expand...
The point I am making is a huge difference between them. That there was no historical background for the US in North America.

You are, however, using the "mores of the time" to judge people who worked under an entirely different group of mores when referencing the US in North America. Pretending Europe took no stake here is silly beyond measure.

Also pretending that the Jews weren't constantly told of their connection to that place and attempting to dismiss it as if it didn't exist is just as silly.

Both of the groups were offered their own nation, only one took them up on the offer.

And your analogies are bad because it isn't "just as if" because of the huge differences between the two scenarios. They don't fit into the analogy. Your bad analogies are a desperate attempt to say, "Well this group was worse than that group!" and they aren't working because they are so poorly wrought.
 
Damo, you still haven't answered my question...

Do a people have to have a formal political structure before they are immune from the world community imposing another's state on them?

Who adjudicates what is a 'proper' state and thus safe?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Damo, you still haven't answered my question...

Do a people have to have a formal political structure before they are immune from the world community imposing another's state on them?

Who adjudicates what is a 'proper' state and thus safe?
Click to expand...
Once again, you press an issue that has no merit here. You created an "anology" where people came here to take over an established government and said that it was the same as people who returned to a place and worked for equality and their own ability to lead themselves and pretended that the scenarios were the same.

You are attempting to misdirect the conversation. Israeli terrorism was wrong, so is and was pali terrorism. Promising both of those nations their own land was a mistake, and it wasn't done by the "international community" it was done by people asking for their help in a war.

You keep attempting to make analogies that simply do not fit.

And I believe I have answered your misdirection (wait, I mean "question") with the fact that I think Israeli terrorism is wrong.
 
Once again, you press an issue that has no merit here.

You should be a politician.... :)

You stated that it was fine to impose the State of Israel onto the Palestinians because "the Palestinians had no nation of their own", whilst my tranposing of this to the US was wrong because the US is a state.

They operated a tribal system. Who adjudicates that the tribal system doesn't suffice as a political entity that gives them immunity from another people imposing their state on them.

I don't support Palestinian terrorism, I decry terrorism from both sides, but I support the Palestinians because they are the aggrieved party. They had no say about Israel being imposed on their land, and the world community just expects them to suck on it because the WC didn't have the balls to stand up to Israeli terrorism?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Once again, you press an issue that has no merit here.

You should be a politician.... :)

You stated that it was fine to impose the State of Israel onto the Palestinians because "the Palestinians had no nation of their own", whilst my tranposing of this to the US was wrong because the US is a state.

They operated a tribal system. Who adjudicates that the tribal system doesn't suffice as a political entity that gives them immunity from another people imposing their state on them.

I don't support Palestinian terrorism, I decry terrorism from both sides, but I support the Palestinians because they are the aggrieved party. They had no say about Israel being imposed on their land, and the world community just expects them to suck on it because the WC didn't have the balls to stand up to Israeli terrorism?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was "fine". I said the scenarios were different because of that. You add words to my posts and pretend I say them. That is the very definition of a strawman. Hence the "no merit" statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top