<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11478816\x26blogName\x3dWinds+of+Change+in+the+Middle+East?\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-1649184724542363484', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Friday, March 25, 2005

Blaming the Palestinians for it all: 5 decades of "Israeli" policy

On this topic, Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall is spot-on. The book talks about decades of provocative "Israeli" policy intended to bring about full-scale war and the possibility of expanding "Israel's" borders. What we see today with "Israel's" plans to expand "settlements" in the West Bank (and here we were talking about how nice those "Israelis" were to give up the land when they "didn't have to") is part of the on-going "Israeli" policy of provocation and following it, alleged "retaliation".

There is an interesting article on Ha'aretz about exactly that. The author of the article, Daniel Levy, says:
The framing of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as part of a process of disengaging from - rather than reengaging - the PA, has created a perception among Palestinians that violence succeeded where negotiations failed. The current round of so-called Israeli confidence-building measures was described recently by one senior, internationally-respected PA minister as "nickel-and-diming" Abu Mazen to death. It took more than six weeks to agree to hand over sleepy Jericho (when were we actually in Jericho?) and Tul Karm, which is now surrounded on "only" three and a half sides by fence and wall. A popular joke doing the rounds in Ramallah is that the Jericho checkpoint was moved - all of 200 meters down the road.
On "Ma'aleh Adumim" and the Purim closures, Levy says:
Israeli inertia on these fronts is in stark contrast to the government's hyper-activity elsewhere. Every settlement expansion or tender for new neighborhoods between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem is ammunition for Hamas. So is every closure, like the one imposed to "celebrate" Purim, or every kilometer of separation barrier built on confiscated Palestinian land.
So the next time anyone (and this post is aimed at Anne & co. at Boker Tov too) argues that the Palestinians just don't want peace, I suggest that they look at what the "Israelis" have done to deserve (yes, I did say deserve) what they're getting. After all, if the "Israeli" citizens are suffering because of their government's mistakes, why not revolt? At the end of the day, it is always easy to blame the Palestinians for it all. That is what the "Israelis" have always done, and that is what they will do until they learn from their mistakes. And until they do learn, they will continue to suffer, because they blindly support imposing suffering on others.

Where are the "Israeli" organisations, groups, etc. that support a just peace (i.e. not a peace that is on the "Israeli" government's terms, but a mutual one), return of the refugees, an end to apartheid, discrimination, racism? Where are those "peace-loving", "open-minded" "Israelis"? Or are they busy trying to find appropriate labels for "minority groups" in the so-called peace-loving country of theirs? "Ethiopian Jews"? "Israeli Arabs"?

Comments:
Setllement activity has been frozen since the peace agreement, there has been no expansion, only withdrawl.

" So is every closure, like the one imposed to "celebrate" Purim"

After all of the terrorist threats Israel has recieved, the actions taken during Purim are/were necessary. Militants love to attack on holidays, especially one that gathers crowds of civilians. Better safe than sorry.

"if the "Israeli" citizens are suffering because of their government's mistakes, why not revolt?"

LMAO! Revolt?! There are so many things wrong with that statement...
 
"Setllement activity has been frozen since the peace agreement, there has been no expansion, only withdrawl."

Sasson's report and aerial photos beg to differ.

"After all of the terrorist threats Israel has recieved, the actions taken during Purim are/were necessary."

After all of the land theft, mass-murder, and ethnic cleansing Palestinains have received, the actions taken (by Palestinians) during Purim, etc. are/were necessary. Don't you think? Or the so-called "Jerusalem Pride Parade" for that matter, which is another publicity stunt aimed at cementing "Israel's" illegal occupation of Jerusalem.
 
"Sasson's report and aerial photos beg to differ."

Source?

"After all of the land theft, mass-murder, and ethnic cleansing Palestinains have received"

What land theft? The Jews purchased and settled unoccupied when they first came to mandatory Palestine.

IMass-murder? Hah. If you consider the current fatality statistics 'mass-murder', then I suppose both parties are guilty of mass-murder.

As for ethnic cleansing, that's laughable. 4,000 dead in 4 years of non-stop urban zone warfare certainly does not constitute an ethnic cleansing. About >35% of the Palestinian casualties have been unarmed non-combatants, while 80% of the Israelis killed have been unarmed non-combatants. Palestinian militants have killed over twice the amount of women the Israelis have, and 365 of their own people (that's more than 16 times the number of Israeli casualties the IDF is responsible for). Most Palestinians have been killed fighting the IDF, blowing themselves up or being put to death by the PA.

"which is another publicity stunt aimed at cementing "Israel's" illegal occupation of Jerusalem."

The 'occupation' is not illegal. Futhermore, every single settlement is completely legal by every standard of international law. Nice try, buddy.
 
"Source?"

First you, Anne. Cite the sources for those pics on your blog.

The Sasson report and the aerial photo report was on Ha'aretz, btw.

"What land theft?"

Come back when you get over that denial of yours. Because the only thing I will reply with when you say that is: "what holocaust?"

Ethnic cleansing, by the way, is not just about KILLING. It's about effectively (both through physical/military and financial means) eliminating a certain ethnic group from your own land for whatever purpose/reason/justification. And since the "Israelis" claim they have the "right" to "Judea" and "Samaria", then yes, they are, by their own standards, committing ethnic cleansing.

"The 'occupation' is not illegal"

The occupation is illegal. 1967 land is not up to negotiation. It belongs, rightly so, to the Arabs (that includes your beloved Golan Heights).

Article 49, 4th Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies.

The Int'l Crimianl Court: "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies..."

NICE TRY, BUDDY.
 
Here's one source:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/554131.html
 
Here's the one on the Sasson report:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/555077.html

And on Al Jazeera too.

Your turn, Anne.
 
"Ethnic cleansing, by the way, is not just about KILLING. It's about effectively (both through physical/military and financial means) eliminating a certain ethnic group from your own land for whatever purpose/reason/justification. And since the "Israelis" claim they have the "right" to "Judea" and "Samaria", then yes, they are, by their own standards, committing ethnic cleansing."

Some Israelis believe that Judea and Samaria should be part of Israel. I am not one of them. It's not fair to label all Israelis, because most support a two-state solution.

In my opinion, that land belongs to the Palestinians.

Back to ethnic cleansing...The majority of today's Palestinian refugees left Israel out of their own free will. A lot of Jews encouraged them to stay, but Arab leaders gave them an ultimatum: fight the Jews, or leave and get your land back later.

The real ethnic cleasing went down shortly after Israel's inception. Palestinians and Israelis fought against each other in a guerilla style war. The former lost, big time.

By the way, over 1 million Arabs reside in Israel today. That's around 20% of the population. Now you understand why the ethnic cleansing argument is absurd.

"Article 49, 4th Geneva Convention: The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies."

Guess what? The gov't hasn't transferred any of the Israeli population to the territories. Thus they are not in violation of article 49.
 
"Some Israelis believe that Judea and Samaria should be part of Israel. I am not one of them. It's not fair to label all Israelis"

It's fair to label them since you and yours go around labeling ALL Palestinians "terrorists".

"most support a two-state solution."

Even though "Israelis" would be getting away with A LOT if they accepted such a solution, most do not support it. And Sharon & co know it. He would not lose anything if he allowed a referendum (even if that meant going against the U.S demands, the "Israelis" have gone against U.S and int'l demands far too many times).

"In my opinion, that land belongs to the Palestinians."

Why? Because they're now there? So if they had been forced out of those lands too, they would've been yours? So that means that the Jews' homes in Germany or Nazi occupied areas never belonged to them.....

"The majority of today's Palestinian refugees left Israel out of their own free will."

That is what I call a BIG LOAD OF BULLSHIT.

The difference is, you call it a "war", I call it ethnic cleansing. That's like the neo-Nazis calling the holocaust "temporary measures" (because the Jews were the enemies, see "Judea declares war on Germany") as opposed to "holocaust". Go spew your neo-Nazi crap elsewhere.

"By the way, over 1 million Arabs reside in Israel today. That's around 20% of the population. Now you understand why the ethnic cleansing argument is absurd."

Ethnic cleansing is not about numbers. It is about the targeting of an identifiable ethnic group for one purpose or another, in one way or another. That 1 million Arabs now live in "Israel" does not mean there was no ethnic cleansing. The zionists wanted a "majority Jewish state", and they used ethnic cleansing to arrive to that aim.

"Guess what? The gov't hasn't transferred any of the Israeli population to the territories. Thus they are not in violation of article 49."

Where did all those "Israelis" come from, then? Did they move there before becoming "Israeli" citizens? If yes, how come non-"Israeli" Arabs can't move there? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's occupied or it's not.
 
The gov't hasn't transferred any of the Israeli population to the territories. Thus they are not in violation of article 49.

Here's why what you said is a LOAD OF BULLSHIT:

Israel has encouraged its citizens to settle in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip despite Article 49 that says: "The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Israel argued that allowing people to live there is not a "transfer of population," certainly not the kind of mass transfers that had happened in world history. Some settlers were returning to places where they, or their parents, had lived, Sabel said.


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Arguing against INTERNATIONAL (not JEWISH!!!) laws by bringing in the Torah.. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! You bunch are hilarious.

More:

"We entered there forcefully. It's a fact. That is why the Fourth Geneva Convention applies. This does not mean we do not have claims about a territory or parts of it that we would raise in the future in talks about the final political settlement," he maintained.

From pro-"Israeli" Washington Times

Link
 
The second quote is from an "Israeli" Law professor, btw.
 
"It's fair to label them since you and yours go around labeling ALL Palestinians "terrorists"

No, I don't. Again, this labeling has got to end.

"Even though "Israelis" would be getting away with A LOT if they accepted such a solution, most do not support it."

Source?

"And Sharon & co know it. He would not lose anything if he allowed a referendum (even if that meant going against the U.S demands, the "Israelis" have gone against U.S and int'l demands far too many times)."

Polls indicate that the majority of the country supports his pullout. The only time Israel has gone against international or US demands is when those demands are nonbinding.

"So if they had been forced out of those lands too, they would've been yours?"

Because those lands were given to them under the UN partition plan.

"That is what I call a BIG LOAD OF BULLSHIT."

Yet you offer no rebuttle.

"The difference is, you call it a "war", I call it ethnic cleansing."

That's why more than a million Arabs live in Israel. That's why Israel has granted assylum to Arab refugees. That's why Israeli Arabs hold high positions in the gov't. All in the name of ethnic cleansing, nevermind the fact that ethnic cleansing is defined as something entirely different.

"That 1 million Arabs now live in "Israel" does not mean there was no ethnic cleansing."

It completely negates the notion that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse itself of Arabs.

"The zionists wanted a "majority Jewish state", and they used ethnic cleansing to arrive to that aim."

I'd like to clarify that there never was, nor has there ever been, an ethnic cleansing imposed on the Palestinians. Jews constituted the majority of Palestine before Israel was even established.

Also, until the 1960s, there was no such thing as a 'Palestinian' - that word had always been used to refer to the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (pre-1948).

"Where did all those "Israelis" come from, then?"

They moved there on their own, they weren't transferred. Thus, as I said, there was no breech of article 49.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's occupied or it's not"

It's occupied, I never stated differently.
 
The fourth Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to Israel:

[b]srael rejects applying the 4th Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.[/b]

Even if it did:

[b]a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it.[/b]
 
No, I don't.
I said you and yours. The blog you came from belives in doing exactly that.

Source?
Why don't YOU cite YOUR "sources" first?

Polls indicate that the majority of the country supports his pullout.
So what are they going to lose if they hold the referendum? PLEASE.

The only time Israel has gone against international or US demands is when those demands are nonbinding.
LOL. Non-binding? WTF are you on? Did you know that the disengagement is UNILATERAL?

Because those lands were given to them under the UN partition plan.
The UN Partition plan did not give only Gaza & the West Bank. It gave a VERY LARGE area west of the West Bank, a large area east of Gaza, and also connection between Gaza and the West Bank, and also the upper Galilee. AND, Jerusalem was supposed to be an int'l zone. So if you're going to cite the Partition Plan, you can't pick & choose.

That's why more than a million Arabs live in Israel.
I already posted my argument on that one.

That's why Israel has granted assylum to Arab refugees.
What? Not one refugee has been allowed to go back. Get your facts straight. NOT ONE.

That's why Israeli Arabs hold high positions in the gov't.
Your use of the word "Israeli Arab" is a good pointer of the discrimination that exists in "Israel". Who are you kidding?

It completely negates the notion that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse itself of Arabs.
You're so thick. Ethnic cleansing is defined as the forceful removal in part or whole of an ethnic group for whatever purpose.

I'd like to clarify that there never was, nor has there ever been, an ethnic cleansing imposed on the Palestinians. Jews constituted the majority of Palestine before Israel was even established.
LMAO. In 1946, only 32% of the population in Palestine was Jewish. You live in another world, mate.

Also, until the 1960s, there was no such thing as a 'Palestinian'
I see you've been educated in the spirit of Golda Meir. What I don't understand though (pardon me, I'm a British dolt) is how, if there are no "Palestinians", can the Jews crush them like "cockroaches"?

They moved there on their own, they weren't transferred.
The occupying power is responsible for anything that goes on on occupied territory. That means that if the government was not transfering them, it should have, under int'l law, not allowed those people to settle there. Those people are "Israeli" citizens and are under "Israeli" jurisdiction.

"It's occupied, I never stated differently."

Oh, my bad, so you're a "leftist "Israeli" ", eh? Oh pardon me, you just said you haven't made "aliyah" yet.. but if that land really belongs to the "children of zion", then does that not automatically (with utter disregard for int'l laws on citizenship) make you a citizen of "Israel"?
 
"srael rejects applying the 4th Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948."

What?

WTF?

Since when did "Israel" own the West Bank & Gaza? It never was within its borders (except in the mythical sense of the word, which has no bearing on int'l laws).

And, since you zionists (educated in the spirit of "Israel", I prefer to call them "Jewish dolts", inspired by "zionist") don't seem to know your English well, I will say this: transfer does not have to be forcible. It can be voluntary. In other words, if the government has decided to transfer a certain quota of the population, it can set up sign-up booths, etc. That still is transfer, and it's not forcible transfer. It's voluntary, and it's still illegal.

Owned? Hardly.
 
Btw, I know you are the same person. So don't try to underestimate my intelligence (I might be a British dolt, but I'm smarter than you). ;)
 
"The blog you came from belives in doing exactly that."

I don't write at that blog, I didn't come from that blog. I did find your site via that blog.

"LOL. Non-binding? WTF are you on? Did you know that the disengagement is UNILATERAL?"

Yes, nonbinding, meaning Israel had no legal obligation to carry out said demands.

The disengagement is unilateral, and?

"I already posted my argument on that one."

It was confuted.

"What? Not one refugee has been allowed to go back. Get your facts straight. NOT ONE."

Did I say 'refugee'?

"Your use of the word "Israeli Arab" is a good pointer of the discrimination that exists in "Israel". Who are you kidding?"

I'm afraid I don't follow. Please, elaborate.

"You're so thick. Ethnic cleansing is defined as the forceful removal in part or whole of an ethnic group for whatever purpose"

Ethnic cleansing is not the 'partial' removal of a particular group. Ethnic cleasing is defined by the american heritage lexicon as:

"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide."

you have not been able to cite a single instance in which Palestinians were forcibly removed from Israel. Moreover, Israeli-Arabs make up 20% of the current Israeli population.

"That means that if the government was not transfering them, it should have, under int'l law, not allowed those people to settle there."

Incorrect. The one stipulation is that the government cannot transfer citizens into the territories. Jews are given the right to build settlements under the balfour declaration.
 
"Since when did "Israel" own the West Bank & Gaza?"

First show me where I or my source(s) claimed made that claim.

"I will say this: transfer does not have to be forcible. It can be voluntary."

That is false. Article 49 explicity specifies that "individual or mass forcible transfers" are not allowed.

"Btw, I know you are the same person. So don't try to underestimate my intelligence (I might be a British dolt, but I'm smarter than you). ;)"

I suppose you think you're slick. Actually, that wasn't my intention (I had none). If I was trying to decieve you I'd at least make an effort and change my IP, amongst other things.

I mistakenly wrote 'zionism' instead of 'zionist' when filling in my un and decided to improvise.
 
Yes, nonbinding, meaning Israel had no legal obligation to carry out said demands.
"Israel", it seems to me, has no "legal obligation" to anyone except the Torah. So much for being an "legitimate" state.

The disengagement is unilateral, and?
It means that the "Israelis" are not getting anything in return. Supposedly. (But don't believe it, they're annexing the West Bank). But technically it means they're just doing it on their own. What "legal obligation" do they have? And if they have one, how come they don't have the same legal obligations for the West Bank that they're annexing more and more every day?

Did I say 'refugee'?
Yes you did. You said: "That's why Israel has granted assylum to Arab refugees."

"The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
Yes, systematic elimination, but it doesn't say entire or partial. The argument still stands. Just because the entire race/ethnicity/group hasn't been wiped out or driven out doesn't mean there was no ethnic cleansing. If that were the case, then there would be no holocaust either.

you have not been able to cite a single instance in which Palestinians were forcibly removed from Israel.
If 1948 is not enough, 1967 should be. Not only forcibly removed from "Israel", but also from land outside "Israel" (and that includes mass murder), by a war initiated by "Israel" to expand its territories. But just as an example, Deir Yassin qualifies as an example of ethnic cleansing. In other words, if those Arabs didn't flee, they were massacred. It's called fear-mongering (not to mention that the massacre in itself was a "war" crime) to further the schedule of ethnic cleansing.

Moreover, Israeli-Arabs make up 20% of the current Israeli population.
And until you continue saying "Israeli-Arabs", I will accuse your Jewish dolt self of being a racist fuck. They are either "Israelis" (not "Israeli-Arabs") or not. Make up your goddamn mind.

The one stipulation is that the government cannot transfer citizens into the territories.
And it is doing exactly that. The government FUNDED those settlements. What are you talking about?

Jews are given the right to build settlements under the balfour declaration.
LOL. Balfour declaration, bla bla bla. Sure. And I have the right to kill you, under the umm... let's see... oh no, not the 10 commandments, the 10 commandments actually prohibit killing or coveting that which your neighbour has (something the "Israelis" seem to be rather oblivious of)!
 
That is false. Article 49 explicity specifies that "individual or mass forcible transfers" are not allowed.
Article 49 also says that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.".

Jewish source
 
"Yes you did. You said: "That's why Israel has granted assylum to Arab refugees."

Fair enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian.

"Yes, systematic elimination, but it doesn't say entire or partial."

It says 'elimination', that pretty much rules out any kind of 'partial' removal.

"If that were the case, then there would be no holocaust either."

You're comparing 6 million Jews, 6 million slavs and a handful of Gypsies to a few thousand Palestinians, for one. Two, the Holocaust was put to a halt by the allied forces, otherwise, the Germans would have successfully wiped out the Jewish population in Europe, North Africa, and probably later the Middle East.

"If 1948 is not enough, 1967 should be. Not only forcibly removed from "Israel", but also from land outside "Israel" (and that includes mass murder), by a war initiated by "Israel" to expand its territories."

We already established that Arabs left during 1947/48 on their own.

"But just as an example, Deir Yassin qualifies as an example of ethnic cleansing. In other words, if those Arabs didn't flee, they were massacred."

If that were the case, there would be no Israeli-Arabs today. Arabs that fought against Israelis were a) killed or b) kicked out.

The War of Independence was fought guerilla style, meaning both sides were trying to wipe out each other at their support base.

"And until you continue saying "Israeli-Arabs", I will accuse your Jewish dolt self of being a racist fuck. They are either "Israelis" (not "Israeli-Arabs") or not. Make up your goddamn mind."

How would I get my point across by simply calling Israeli-Arabs 'Israelis' (eg. "Israelis constitute 20% of Israel's population")? This is the last time I'm going to say it, but you're a fucking dumbass. Okay, back to our civil debate.

"The government FUNDED those settlements. What are you talking about?"

The gov't is allowed to fund whatever they want. The point is they did not forcibly transfer anyone.

"Balfour declaration, bla bla bla"

What a convincing argument you make! I have seen the light!

"Article 49 also says that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.""

When has the Israeli government done this?
 
that doesn't necessarily mean Palestinian.
They never took any Arab refugee based on HUMANITARIAN reasons. The only "refugees" (actually, exiles because of betrayal is more like it) that "Israel" took in were the Christian members of the "SLA".

"It says 'elimination', that pretty much rules out any kind of 'partial' removal."

To eliminate means to get rid of or to remove. Removal can be partial or whole.

"You're comparing 6 million Jews, 6 million slavs and a handful of Gypsies to a few thousand Palestinians, for one."

A few thousand? First of all, there are more than "a few thousand" Palestinian refugees. I was comparing (not equating) the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the genocide of Jews and others. If the Nazis (NOT GERMANS, how would you like me to say that Jews are committing ethnic cleansing against Palestinians? Yes they are Jewish [albeit only by name, or so it seems], but they do not necessarily represent the entire group of Jews. The same goes for Germans, so don't paint all Germans with the same brush, as that would mean thta I will have to paint all Jews with the same brush) had succeeded in wiping out the Jews, then I could've argued that there was no holocaust? Wow, some logic there.

"We already established that Arabs left during 1947/48 on their own."

"We" established nothing of the sort. YOU THINK you did, only in your sick, twisted, Jewish dolt brain of yours.

If that were the case, there would be no Israeli-Arabs today.
No, that is not true. Many of those who were massacred were 1) unarmed 2) not fighting. But also hadn't FLED, as the Jews (since you claim zionism represents Jews worldwide) wanted them to. It's funny how you claim "Israel" is the homeland and spokesperson of all Jews, yet when people bash Jews because of it, you yell "anti-Semite, anti-Semite!" Either "Israel"/zionism represents all Jews, or it doesn't. Make up your goddamn mind. If it does, it means that attacking Jews is fair and square, since zionists claim zionism is inseparable from Jewish identity.

The War of Independence
Bla bla bla. Do you wank to that phrase, I wonder? I bet some of you even wank to the holocaust. You seem to have fetishised BOTH.

"How would I get my point across by simply calling Israeli-Arabs 'Israelis'"

That is not the point, dumbass. The point is, you refer to "Israeli Jews" as "Israelis", but then use "Israeli-Arabs". Why not the other way around? Why don't you use "Israeli Jews" then? Racist fuck.

The gov't is allowed to fund whatever they want. The point is they did not forcibly transfer anyone.
The government, sir, is not allowed to fund whatever they want on OCCUPIED territory. AND, read again, it does not say FORCIBLE transfer in the sentence I posted. Also, the "Israeli" government is supposed to do the following (but it does't, except when they are Jewish land-thieves): "To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." (Article 55). Ooops, another article "Israel" is in violation of.

What a convincing argument you make!
More convincing than your reliance on the Torah to argue that "Israel" belongs to Jews. Hah. Pot, meet kettle.

When has the Israeli government done this?
"transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."? Um, Gaza? West Bank? East Jerusalem? I told you, you need to stop reading "Israeli" websites.
 
"They never took any Arab refugee based on HUMANITARIAN reasons. The only "refugees" (actually, exiles because of betrayal is more like it) that "Israel" took in were the Christian members of the "SLA"."

You can believe what you want, but that's not true.

"Removal can be partial or whole."

"Elimination" is not partial by any standard.

"A few thousand? First of all, there are more than "a few thousand" Palestinian refugees."

How

"I was comparing (not equating) the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to the genocide of Jews and others."

Any kind of comparison of the Jews and their Nazi antagonizers is absurd and meant to be offensive. There is absolutely no comparison to be made.

"how would you like me to say that Jews are committing ethnic cleansing against Palestinians?"

Jew and Israeli are not interchangeable, but when one is discussing Nazi Germany, one is allowed to refer to Nazis as 'Germans' (i.e. the German Army).

And again, no Jew has committed any such act.

"The same goes for Germans, so don't paint all Germans with the same brush"

I think I know that. However, who stopped the Holocaust while the Germans did NOTHING?

"YOU THINK you did, only in your sick, twisted, Jewish dolt brain of yours."

Yet you have offered nothing in the way of refuting my supposedly outrageous claim. I'm disappointed in your argument, most anti-Zionists I've debated with were willing to concede this. You have no defense besides your stubbornness.

'Dolt' isn't an adjective, btw.

"No, that is not true."

Why? You can repeat that all day, but without backing it up you have no case.

"Many of those who were massacred were 1) unarmed 2) not fighting."

A fringe minority on both sides.

"But also hadn't FLED, as the Jews (since you claim zionism represents Jews worldwide) wanted them to."

Wrong. They were persuaded to stay in 148, and later in 1967 (by Moshe Dayan).

"Jews (since you claim zionism represents Jews worldwide)"

That's incorrect. I simply stated that most Jews are Zionists.

"It's funny how you claim "Israel" is the homeland and spokesperson of all Jews, yet when people bash Jews because of it, you yell "anti-Semite, anti-Semite!"

Irrelevant and untrue.

"Bla bla bla. Do you wank to that phrase, I wonder? I bet some of you even wank to the holocaust. You seem to have fetishised BOTH."

Are you able to debate without the use of vulgarity and insult?

"That is not the point, dumbass. The point is, you refer to "Israeli Jews" as "Israelis", but then use "Israeli-Arabs". Why not the other way around? Why don't you use "Israeli Jews" then? Racist fuck"

That is the point. 80% of Israel is Jewish, thus when people refer to Israelis, they generally mean Jewish-Israelis. Anyway, I used 'Israeli-Arab' because it was necessary to make the distinction. Do you understand?

"The government, sir, is not allowed to fund whatever they want on OCCUPIED territory."

Where does it say that funding settlements is prohibited?

"Ooops, another article "Israel" is in violation of."

Israel is not in violation of the fourth geneva convetion for the simple fact that it has no legal obligation to. It doesn't apply.

"re convincing than your reliance on the Torah to argue that "Israel" belongs to Jews. Hah. Pot, meet kettle."

Where have I cited Torah during our discourse? Leave Judaism out of this, kofer.

"Um, Gaza? West Bank? East Jerusalem?"

But the government didn't forcibly transfer Israeli civilians to those areas, so what's your point?

"I told you, you need to stop reading "Israeli" websites."

Don't label a source unless you're prepared to debate it. Anyway, I'm not. Unless wikipedia is an Israeli site?
 
You can believe what you want, but that's not true.
I am waiting for proof from you. ;)

"Elimination" is not partial by any standard.
Of course it can be.

Any kind of comparison of the Jews and their Nazi antagonizers is absurd and meant to be offensive. There is absolutely no comparison to be made.
Bla bla bla. What are you going to do, eh? I will compare it to whatever I want. You and your kind are the biggest Nazis after the Hitlerites. There. Now go bang your head against the wall. Or better yet, report me to your beloved ADL (I call it the Defamation League but I'll call it the ADL just for your sensitive self).

Jew and Israeli are not interchangeable
How so, when any Jew can claim "Israeli" citizenship? They are as interchangeable as "water" and "water" are.

but when one is discussing Nazi Germany, one is allowed to refer to Nazis as 'Germans' (i.e. the German Army).
LMAO. Another one of your illogical double standards. The German Army, the Jewish army, what difference is there? If the Nazi regime was German, the "Israeli" regime is Jewish. Your point is?

And again, no Jew has committed any such act.
That's according to YOU. And neo-Nazis claim the Nazis never killed any Jews.

who stopped the Holocaust while the Germans did NOTHING?
No one did. No one stopped it. Why did the Allies not bomb the camps? Because there were Jews in them? That's a load of BS, my friend. You can keep fooling yourself that they saved your people, but they never cared. The Brits were against bringing Jews en masse to England. (So were the zionists, but that's another issue altogether).

Yet you have offered nothing in the way of refuting my supposedly outrageous claim.
There is no need to prove it. No one except you and your land-thieving kind denies it. Go mingle with your buddies the neo-Nazis. Except that they might not like you too much.. (but you never know these days, after all, the zionists and the Nazis were best friends back in the days).

'Dolt' isn't an adjective, btw.
Maybe you can teach me Hebrew (or Yiddish), but you can't teach a native English-speaker English. Either way, I forgot to put the sic, so my bad. I was only using it the way you used it (hence the bold).

Why? You can repeat that all day, but without backing it up you have no case.
I will "back it up" when you prove to me that the holocaust happened. I'm waiting. I'm not about to take your claims as legitimate "because everyone knows so" while writing up page after page of proofs so that you can dismiss it with "the Jews never did that".

Wrong. They were persuaded to stay in 148, and later in 1967 (by Moshe Dayan).
LMAO. Moshe Dayan.. hahahaha... You must really read more history than you were taught in "Israeli" schools, buddy. Moshe Dayan the same man who desperately wanted action, who wanted the Qibya massacre, etc. Moshe Dayan wanted the Arabs to stay LMAO. Thanks for the daily dose of entertainment, mate.

That's incorrect. I simply stated that most Jews are Zionists.
Does that not mean that they are legitimate targets then? ;)

Are you able to debate without the use of vulgarity and insult?
I learn from the masters.

That is the point. 80% of Israel is Jewish, thus when people refer to Israelis, they generally mean Jewish-Israelis.
The majority of Lebanese are Muslims. That does not mean that I can refer to the Muslim Lebanese as "Lebanese" and to the Christian Lebanese as "Lebanese-Christians". Get it?

Anyway, I used 'Israeli-Arab' because it was necessary to make the distinction. Do you understand?
No, I do not understand and I do not want to understand such twisted racist mentality. Quit hiding behind semantics. Admit that you're racist. (You can change).

Where does it say that funding settlements is prohibited?
Funding is logically equivalent (and leads to) transfering. In case your "Israeli"/zionist logic was incapable of arriving to that conclusion. Without that funding, no "Israeli" would've moved there initially. NONE. Moreover, the "Israeli" government did more than just fund. It sent soldiers there to protect them. That means it agreed with, encouraged, and enhanced the transfer. Anyone with an ounce of logic would know that. But keep denying. That's what your kind is good at anyway.

Israel is not in violation of the fourth geneva convetion for the simple fact that it has no legal obligation to.
No obligation to what? "Israel" has signed the convention. Therefore, it has a legal obligation to respect it. End of story.

Where have I cited Torah during our discourse? Leave Judaism out of this
OK. So tell me, why do Jews have the right to a state in Palestine (but not Uganda)? Why don't you go to Uganda?

But the government didn't forcibly transfer Israeli civilians to those areas, so what's your point?
Oh dear...... we're going in circles again (we always run that risk with zionists, don't we, they're a bit... thick-skulled). Article 49 also states that no transfers (not modified by "forcible") should be carried out to occupied areas (already posted that bit).
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Canon Camera