A spokesman said the homes were built on government-owned land.
The four structures were built "without permits on state-owned land designated for agriculture,"
They were built "near an archaeological site with the risk of endangering it,"
...the four structures were uninhabited and that the house owners had been warned to stop building, but had refused.
Again - this is all based on your perspective. I realize I just plucked certain quotes out, so it's slanted the way I want to see it. But, that's really no different than the writer ignoring these facts.
It seems we can slant this to look like they violated law.
Again, as I've said before - I don't pretend to know all the goings on a third of the globe away. But, I do know that copying what a particular writer opines (and this is an OPINION piece and not a NEWS piece) is not proof of your case.
the part you quoted is complete and utter bullshit. those are the excuses that were given, but that land is slated for settlement expansion. would they really demolish these homes and built settlements, which are houses and large apartment buildings in the vicinity of this same archaelogic site?? does that really honestly pass the smell test to you?
they are violating international law. the settlements are ILLEGAL, and so is expanding them.
and as far as the article, where does the writer put his spin on things? he interviewed a guy that owned the home, and people involved in the israeli government and quoted them.
seriously, you guys are grasping at straws because you can not refute the facts and refuse to look into things a little more for yourselves. i can't blame you, i don't like reading about daily injustices either...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the part you quoted is complete and utter bullshit. those are the excuses that were given, but that land is slated for settlement expansion. would they really demolish these homes and built settlements, which are houses and large apartment buildings in the vicinity of this same archaelogic site?? does that really honestly pass the smell test to you?
they are violating international law. the settlements are ILLEGAL, and so is expanding them.
and as far as the article, where does the writer put his spin on things? he interviewed a guy that owned the home, and people involved in the israeli government and quoted them.
seriously, you guys are grasping at straws because you can not refute the facts and refuse to look into things a little more for yourselves. i can't blame you, i don't like reading about daily injustices either...
So, the section you don't agree with is bullshit. But this part is gospel:
In August, a report by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees said that Israeli demolitions in the West Bank rose "alarmingly" in the first half of 2011, with 356 structures demolished in the first six months of this year, compared with 431 for the whole of 2010.
The UN.... Ha! It rose "alarmingly." It can't just rise. It has to rise "alarmingly." And, yet you consider yourself the more discerning reader. Again - you equally cannot refute what the Israeli spokesman is saying other than - it's bullshit. So, why is that anymore than the UN (I can't stop laughing when folks quote the UN).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The whole world IS the US, Byrnzie. I know it's hard for haters like you to swallow, but we're BOSS, and always will be....
Your beliefs are old-world European anti-semitism, born out of jealousy for a highly intelligent group of people that have successfully navigated the pitfalls of European socialist's experiments...
June 5 1944 was as close as you ever got to a Jew-free world, Byrnzie.
And sorry, but there will never be a Palestine. Ever. (IMO)
Liberals, Israel and Disaster
By James Lewis
Liberals start from false premises. False premises always lead to false conclusions. Being stuck with delusional belief systems, they keep running into brick walls, getting bloody noses, and being surprised every time it happens. Then they fix up their false beliefs -- mostly by blaming any adults in the vicinity -- and go back to their delusions, having learned nothing.
Only to run into another brick wall. (Repeat from the top.)
This is the stuff of the Keystone Kops comedy, but it's funny only until one of them gets into the White House. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton (who had four chances to get bin Laden handed over without a shot being fired). And now we have the most mentally stuck hero of them all, Barack Hussein Obama.
Israel shares every delusional disorder of the West -- like radical left-wingers. The left is a cultic delusion both here and there, because they deny reality, make up their own, and then try to steer the supertanker of state using imaginary maps.
The one advantage Israel has in this mind game is more brick walls to bump into. Where it matters, Israelis are constantly focusing on reality. That's why the U.S. and Israel have the only two armed forces in the world that are effective: practice, practice, practice. War is the most disillusioning experience in the world, literally dis-illusioning -- its kills illusions and delusions starting with the first contact with the enemy. Peace is wonderful, but you can just see what's happened to American in times of peace -- we drift away from reality until some rent-a-mob of certifiable morons on Wall Street go out to stop capitalism, which has paid for every single diaper they've ever soiled. These people are not just ignorant. They are perverse. But then, kids of the very wealthy have been that way since the Roman Empire.
To Obama's cult-inside-a-cult, Israel is a problem, not a solution. This puts Obama at odds with the existence of Israel, which returned persecuted Jews in Europe and the Arab world (about a million refugees) to their ancestral homeland. You can't sink the refugee ship and pretend to love the drowning people. But that's the iron logic of the Obama left.
It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.
Now, liberals always bring disaster. It's one of those fundamental truths of life. They think they have good intentions, and they think that's all they need. No farmer, hunter, ditch-digger, gardener, or politician in history has ever survived that way. Liberals survive because capitalist farmers, engineers, and even media protect them from reality and dis-illusionment. It's only in their private lives that they confront reality and become amazingly conservative. It's a miracle.
What does all that have to do with Israel and Disaster? It's simple. Israel is believed to have 200 nuclear weapons -- doomsday weapons that are never meant to be used except as a last resort.
Barack Obama has now created the conditions where in the next year, Israel (and the rest of the Middle East) may be forced to confront the doomsday option. The Saudis are the most directly threatened by maniacal Iran, because they live next door. They have openly said that they are importing nuclear weapons from Pakistan in the face of the Iranian threat. It was Barack Hussein Obama who helped push over Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Syria's Assad, who is still fighting a vicious civil war. That's how you "organize communities" in Alinsky Cult.
In his celebrated Nobel Prize-winning quest to bring eternal love and peace to the Middle East, Obama is therefore driving every major government there to go nuclear. Read that again, please: Obama is forcing the Middle East to go nuclear precisely by his "peace" policies. Already 25,000 Arabs are reported to have died in the so-called "Arab Spring." The media are covering it up, as usual, but those are the actual facts on the ground.
If Iran is as suicidally determined to bring Shi'te Armageddon on earth, as soon as it gets enough nukes and missiles, as it seems like it's been saying at least once a day ever sing Jimmy brought Khomeini to power in 1979, there will be the first nuclear war in human history. When Golda Meir was prime minister during the 1974 Yom Kippur War, Israel seriously considered using nuclear weapons to stop the Egyptian tank divisions driving through the Sinai Desert from reaching Israel's civilian heartland. She would have done it, too.
By building up radical Muslims (who are winning the "Arab Spring" civil war), Obama is empowering the worst enemies of Israel and the West. Those radicals hate our guts, as they say every single day on MEMRI (the translation site for Muslim hate propaganda). But Israel and the West are not defenseless. When their backs are against the wall, they will certainly use weapons of mass destruction in self-defense.
Obama says he's all about bringing peace to the Middle East. In fact, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and all the other liberals, he is creating greater dangers than any Republican ever would.
They start from false premises, they end up with false beliefs, and when they're in power, they inevitably bring disaster. It's not a surprise. It just follows step-by-step from their delusional beliefs.
Obama Peace-Bringer inevitably turns into Obama War-Monger.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Liberals, Israel and Disaster
By James Lewis
Liberals start from false premises. False premises always lead to false conclusions. Being stuck with delusional belief systems, they keep running into brick walls, getting bloody noses, and being surprised every time it happens. Then they fix up their false beliefs -- mostly by blaming any adults in the vicinity -- and go back to their delusions, having learned nothing.
Only to run into another brick wall. (Repeat from the top.)
This is the stuff of the Keystone Kops comedy, but it's funny only until one of them gets into the White House. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton (who had four chances to get bin Laden handed over without a shot being fired). And now we have the most mentally stuck hero of them all, Barack Hussein Obama.
Israel shares every delusional disorder of the West -- like radical left-wingers. The left is a cultic delusion both here and there, because they deny reality, make up their own, and then try to steer the supertanker of state using imaginary maps.
The one advantage Israel has in this mind game is more brick walls to bump into. Where it matters, Israelis are constantly focusing on reality. That's why the U.S. and Israel have the only two armed forces in the world that are effective: practice, practice, practice. War is the most disillusioning experience in the world, literally dis-illusioning -- its kills illusions and delusions starting with the first contact with the enemy. Peace is wonderful, but you can just see what's happened to American in times of peace -- we drift away from reality until some rent-a-mob of certifiable morons on Wall Street go out to stop capitalism, which has paid for every single diaper they've ever soiled. These people are not just ignorant. They are perverse. But then, kids of the very wealthy have been that way since the Roman Empire.
To Obama's cult-inside-a-cult, Israel is a problem, not a solution. This puts Obama at odds with the existence of Israel, which returned persecuted Jews in Europe and the Arab world (about a million refugees) to their ancestral homeland. You can't sink the refugee ship and pretend to love the drowning people. But that's the iron logic of the Obama left.
It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.
Now, liberals always bring disaster. It's one of those fundamental truths of life. They think they have good intentions, and they think that's all they need. No farmer, hunter, ditch-digger, gardener, or politician in history has ever survived that way. Liberals survive because capitalist farmers, engineers, and even media protect them from reality and dis-illusionment. It's only in their private lives that they confront reality and become amazingly conservative. It's a miracle.
What does all that have to do with Israel and Disaster? It's simple. Israel is believed to have 200 nuclear weapons -- doomsday weapons that are never meant to be used except as a last resort.
Barack Obama has now created the conditions where in the next year, Israel (and the rest of the Middle East) may be forced to confront the doomsday option. The Saudis are the most directly threatened by maniacal Iran, because they live next door. They have openly said that they are importing nuclear weapons from Pakistan in the face of the Iranian threat. It was Barack Hussein Obama who helped push over Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Syria's Assad, who is still fighting a vicious civil war. That's how you "organize communities" in Alinsky Cult.
In his celebrated Nobel Prize-winning quest to bring eternal love and peace to the Middle East, Obama is therefore driving every major government there to go nuclear. Read that again, please: Obama is forcing the Middle East to go nuclear precisely by his "peace" policies. Already 25,000 Arabs are reported to have died in the so-called "Arab Spring." The media are covering it up, as usual, but those are the actual facts on the ground.
If Iran is as suicidally determined to bring Shi'te Armageddon on earth, as soon as it gets enough nukes and missiles, as it seems like it's been saying at least once a day ever sing Jimmy brought Khomeini to power in 1979, there will be the first nuclear war in human history. When Golda Meir was prime minister during the 1974 Yom Kippur War, Israel seriously considered using nuclear weapons to stop the Egyptian tank divisions driving through the Sinai Desert from reaching Israel's civilian heartland. She would have done it, too.
By building up radical Muslims (who are winning the "Arab Spring" civil war), Obama is empowering the worst enemies of Israel and the West. Those radicals hate our guts, as they say every single day on MEMRI (the translation site for Muslim hate propaganda). But Israel and the West are not defenseless. When their backs are against the wall, they will certainly use weapons of mass destruction in self-defense.
Obama says he's all about bringing peace to the Middle East. In fact, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and all the other liberals, he is creating greater dangers than any Republican ever would.
They start from false premises, they end up with false beliefs, and when they're in power, they inevitably bring disaster. It's not a surprise. It just follows step-by-step from their delusional beliefs.
Obama Peace-Bringer inevitably turns into Obama War-Monger.
Liberals, Israel and Disaster
By James Lewis
Liberals start from false premises. False premises always lead to false conclusions. Being stuck with delusional belief systems, they keep running into brick walls, getting bloody noses, and being surprised every time it happens. Then they fix up their false beliefs -- mostly by blaming any adults in the vicinity -- and go back to their delusions, having learned nothing.
Only to run into another brick wall. (Repeat from the top.)
This is the stuff of the Keystone Kops comedy, but it's funny only until one of them gets into the White House. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton (who had four chances to get bin Laden handed over without a shot being fired). And now we have the most mentally stuck hero of them all, Barack Hussein Obama.
Israel shares every delusional disorder of the West -- like radical left-wingers. The left is a cultic delusion both here and there, because they deny reality, make up their own, and then try to steer the supertanker of state using imaginary maps.
The one advantage Israel has in this mind game is more brick walls to bump into. Where it matters, Israelis are constantly focusing on reality. That's why the U.S. and Israel have the only two armed forces in the world that are effective: practice, practice, practice. War is the most disillusioning experience in the world, literally dis-illusioning -- its kills illusions and delusions starting with the first contact with the enemy. Peace is wonderful, but you can just see what's happened to American in times of peace -- we drift away from reality until some rent-a-mob of certifiable morons on Wall Street go out to stop capitalism, which has paid for every single diaper they've ever soiled. These people are not just ignorant. They are perverse. But then, kids of the very wealthy have been that way since the Roman Empire.
To Obama's cult-inside-a-cult, Israel is a problem, not a solution. This puts Obama at odds with the existence of Israel, which returned persecuted Jews in Europe and the Arab world (about a million refugees) to their ancestral homeland. You can't sink the refugee ship and pretend to love the drowning people. But that's the iron logic of the Obama left.
It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.
Now, liberals always bring disaster. It's one of those fundamental truths of life. They think they have good intentions, and they think that's all they need. No farmer, hunter, ditch-digger, gardener, or politician in history has ever survived that way. Liberals survive because capitalist farmers, engineers, and even media protect them from reality and dis-illusionment. It's only in their private lives that they confront reality and become amazingly conservative. It's a miracle.
What does all that have to do with Israel and Disaster? It's simple. Israel is believed to have 200 nuclear weapons -- doomsday weapons that are never meant to be used except as a last resort.
Barack Obama has now created the conditions where in the next year, Israel (and the rest of the Middle East) may be forced to confront the doomsday option. The Saudis are the most directly threatened by maniacal Iran, because they live next door. They have openly said that they are importing nuclear weapons from Pakistan in the face of the Iranian threat. It was Barack Hussein Obama who helped push over Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Syria's Assad, who is still fighting a vicious civil war. That's how you "organize communities" in Alinsky Cult.
In his celebrated Nobel Prize-winning quest to bring eternal love and peace to the Middle East, Obama is therefore driving every major government there to go nuclear. Read that again, please: Obama is forcing the Middle East to go nuclear precisely by his "peace" policies. Already 25,000 Arabs are reported to have died in the so-called "Arab Spring." The media are covering it up, as usual, but those are the actual facts on the ground.
If Iran is as suicidally determined to bring Shi'te Armageddon on earth, as soon as it gets enough nukes and missiles, as it seems like it's been saying at least once a day ever sing Jimmy brought Khomeini to power in 1979, there will be the first nuclear war in human history. When Golda Meir was prime minister during the 1974 Yom Kippur War, Israel seriously considered using nuclear weapons to stop the Egyptian tank divisions driving through the Sinai Desert from reaching Israel's civilian heartland. She would have done it, too.
By building up radical Muslims (who are winning the "Arab Spring" civil war), Obama is empowering the worst enemies of Israel and the West. Those radicals hate our guts, as they say every single day on MEMRI (the translation site for Muslim hate propaganda). But Israel and the West are not defenseless. When their backs are against the wall, they will certainly use weapons of mass destruction in self-defense.
Obama says he's all about bringing peace to the Middle East. In fact, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and all the other liberals, he is creating greater dangers than any Republican ever would.
They start from false premises, they end up with false beliefs, and when they're in power, they inevitably bring disaster. It's not a surprise. It just follows step-by-step from their delusional beliefs.
Obama Peace-Bringer inevitably turns into Obama War-Monger.
Thank You. A breath of fresh air here on The Train.
You should now fully expect a number of posts (like the 2 above), from people here who 1) did not read the article (only the source- and then dismissed it) and 2) wouldn't understand it if they did.
Thank You. A breath of fresh air here on The Train.
You should now fully expect a number of posts (like the 2 above), from people here who 1) did not read the article (only the source- and then dismissed it) and 2) wouldn't understand it if they did.
Fuckin' good read. Thanks again.
I read it, i understood it, It's Bull Shit, Happy?
Thank You. A breath of fresh air here on The Train.
You should now fully expect a number of posts (like the 2 above), from people here who 1) did not read the article (only the source- and then dismissed it) and 2) wouldn't understand it if they did.
Fuckin' good read. Thanks again.
I read it, i understood it, It's Bull Shit, Happy?
Yes. You prove the author right. Watch out for the bricks!
Thank You. A breath of fresh air here on The Train.
You should now fully expect a number of posts (like the 2 above), from people here who 1) did not read the article (only the source- and then dismissed it) and 2) wouldn't understand it if they did.
Fuckin' good read. Thanks again.
I read it, i understood it, It's Bull Shit, Happy?
Yes. You prove the author right. Watch out for the bricks!
Someday, Maybe, you might actually meet a Brown Person, don't panic!, try not to be afraid, there not going to attack you, you might even want to get to know them. just a thought.
haha posting a link from the american stinker? why not just post something from PNAC or the heritage foundation?
Why don't you read it and stay on topic? Maybe disagree with some of the content, and offer your differing opinions?
You're all emoticons and bullshit.
i have disagreed with that content and rebutted the content in countless threads on this forum for the last 2 years. i am not going to spend the time debunking every point made for the benefit of someone who will most likely not even read it. if you are that interested in knowing the truth then do a thread search for "israel/paletine conflict" or searh the posts of some of us in this thread. it is all there.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
b]Someday, Maybe, you might actually meet a Brown Person, don't panic!, try not to be afraid, there not going to attack you, you might even want to get to know them. just a thought.
[/b]
Race card, eh?
Didn't see that coming from the left.....
And have no idea why you think that is relevant...
haha posting a link from the american stinker? why not just post something from PNAC or the heritage foundation?
Why don't you read it and stay on topic? Maybe disagree with some of the content, and offer your differing opinions?
You're all emoticons and bullshit.
i have disagreed with that content and rebutted the content in countless threads on this forum for the last 2 years. i am not going to spend the time debunking every point made for the benefit of someone who will most likely not even read it. if you are that interested in knowing the truth then do a thread search for "israel/paletine conflict" or searh the posts of some of us in this thread. it is all there.
It agree.
How many times can one OP post the same anti-semitic drivel? Its older than my grandad's wooden rubber.
b]Someday, Maybe, you might actually meet a Brown Person, don't panic!, try not to be afraid, there not going to attack you, you might even want to get to know them. just a thought.
[/b]
Race card, eh?
Didn't see that coming from the left.....
And have no idea why you think that is relevant...
How many times can one OP post the same anti-semitic drivel? Its older than my grandad's wooden rubber.
:roll:
it is not anti-semitic. you need to be really clear on that before you start hurling accusations. before you respond to me you had better make damn sure you are clear on that. it is anti-policies of the israeli government relating to the israel/palerstinian conflict. big difference there....
but keep it up, it is amusing to watch you get frustrated because of your lack of understanding....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't understand why a Palestinian state would be a threat, i mean look at what we Do to countries we veiw as a threat....
a palestinian state would be a threat to israel because it would have autonomy and sovereignty over itself.. and OMG! be a member of the UN... the thought that israel will no longer be able to oppress the palestinians to the extent they currently do is not something they even want to entertain.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No. What I said was - the way Palestine just wants this sliver of land is reminiscent of how Hitler started. I did not mean to suggest (and I think I cleared this up later in the thread) that there is a threat of gas chambers. However, if you don't believe the Palestinian leadership and its allies and friends want Israel wiped off the map, you are extremely naive.
What the Palestinians want is in no way reminiscent of what Hitler wanted. Your attempted comparison is ridiculous.
The Palestinians want land returned to them that is theirs by law. Land that is currently under foreign occupation. How is this reminiscent of Hitler wanting to steal land that he had no lawful right to?
As for Israel being wiped off the map, I take it you're referring to the mis-quotation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad?:
'Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
"Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous."[19][20][21]
The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map"
Anyway, as for any nation being 'wiped off the map', how do you explain the following?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [3]
So, the section you don't agree with is bullshit. But this part is gospel:
In August, a report by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees said that Israeli demolitions in the West Bank rose "alarmingly" in the first half of 2011, with 356 structures demolished in the first six months of this year, compared with 431 for the whole of 2010.
The UN.... Ha! It rose "alarmingly." It can't just rise. It has to rise "alarmingly." And, yet you consider yourself the more discerning reader. Again - you equally cannot refute what the Israeli spokesman is saying other than - it's bullshit. So, why is that anymore than the UN (I can't stop laughing when folks quote the UN).
So your whole beef here is simply that the word 'alarmingly' was used in reference to homes being demolished and whole families turfed out into the street?
Are you now going to take issue with my use of the words 'turfed out'? Is that phrase too dramatic for you to accept?
Anyway, whilst your pondering that, maybe you'd like to read this:
Amnesty International has called on the Israeli authorities to end house demolitions which leave thousands of Palestinians living in daily fear of eviction from their homes.
A new briefing, As safe as houses? Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes, reveals the extent to which Israeli forces are destroying homes and other structures in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, claiming they have been built illegally.
According to the UN, in 2009 more than 600 Palestinians – over half of them children – lost their homes after they were demolished on order from the Israeli authorities.
"Palestinians living under Israeli occupation face such tight restrictions on what they can build and where that their right to adequate housing is being violated," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
"The Israeli authorities are putting Palestinians in an impossible situation. Whatever choice they make, they face homelessness.
"The majority of people are denied building permits by Israel, even after lengthy and expensive bureaucratic and legal processes, so they have little choice but to go ahead without official permission. But as they do so, they know that these buildings may soon be flattened by Israeli bulldozers."
Demolitions are generally carried out with no warning of the date, giving no opportunity for Palestinians to salvage their possessions or find elsewhere to shelter. The UN has estimated that some 4,800 demolition orders are pending.
Under Israeli law, evicted families are not entitled to alternative housing or compensation, meaning many would face homelessness and destitution were it not for relatives, friends and charities.
While homes are often targeted, Israeli authorities have also issued demolition orders against Palestinian schools, clinics, roads, water cisterns, electricity pylons, sheds and animal shelters.
Palestinians living in the tiny village of Khirbet Tana in the Jordan valley have had to rebuild their homes twice in five years.
In 2005, Israeli authorities demolished the village school as well as a number of homes, animal sheds and water cisterns.
The villagers rebuilt their homes but on 10 January 2010, Israeli forces returned. They demolished the homes of 100 Palestinians, leaving 34 children homeless, as well as the village school for a second time. They also destroyed 12 sheep and goat pens, the main source of income for the village.
Raeda Nasasreh, a 24-year-old mother of two, told Amnesty International: "The army jeeps came at six in the morning; people saw them in the valley and started taking their belongings out of the houses.
"We didn’t have time to finish milking the ewes. They demolished everything here; by 9:30 they were finished."
In October 2009, Israeli forces destroyed the home of Rida Nimr and her husband Nimr Ali Nimr in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Jabal al-Mukabbir. Three generations of the family, including five children, were left homeless.
"Some 30 police and special forces, accompanied by three bulldozers driven by civilian contractors, arrived while the children were still sleeping. The police rapidly surrounded and closed off the area," said Rida.
"The demolition force only took a few pieces of furniture out of the house before its demolition and did not allow us to take out anything except, after pleading, a laptop belonging to our daughter Amal which she needs for her university studies."
Amnesty International has called on the Israeli authorities to immediately end all demolitions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including East Jerusalem.
The organization said the authorities should also transfer responsibility for planning and building policies and regulations to the local Palestinian communities.
In addition, the Israeli authorities must stop the construction or expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT as a first step towards removing Israeli civilians living in such settlements.
"Demolition and eviction orders do not just destroy people’s homes. They also take away their possessions and their hopes for a secure future," said Philip Luther.
Liberals, Israel and Disaster
By James Lewis
'...It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.'
Great, then Israel can 'retreat' to the 1949 armistice lines.
Or, in line with international law, and the whole of the international community, it can retreat to the 1967 lines with 'minor and mutually-agreed frontier adjustments'.
Liberals, Israel and Disaster
By James Lewis
'...It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.'
Great, then Israel can 'retreat' to the 1949 armistice lines.
Or, in line with international law, and the whole of the international community, it can retreat to the 1967 lines with 'minor and mutually-agreed frontier adjustments'.
unfortunately they will not retreat to any prior borders because there is nobody capable of enforcing those rulings. the UN can do nothing when the US vetoes everything critical of israel.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
unfortunately they will not retreat to any prior borders because there is nobody capable of enforcing those rulings. the UN can do nothing when the US vetoes everything critical of israel.
True. And for the benefit of the morons on this board who support ethnic cleansing and Israeli racism, and yet have the audacity to accuse those of us critical of Israel's apartheid policies of being anti-semitic, here's how the numbers add up:
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3] (155 In Favour, 2 Against, 3 Abstentions)
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
unfortunately they will not retreat to any prior borders because there is nobody capable of enforcing those rulings. the UN can do nothing when the US vetoes everything critical of israel.
True. And for the benefit of the morons on this board who support ethnic cleansing and Israeli racism, and yet have the audacity to accuse those of us critical of Israel's apartheid policies of being anti-semitic, here's how the numbers add up:
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3] (155 In Favour, 2 Against, 3 Abstentions)
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
do you have anything that states WHY the US votes against it every time? it might help people better understand. i had some of that stuff but lost it all when my computer died last year and it is too much of a pain in the ass to try to find it all again.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
do you have anything that states WHY the US votes against it every time? it might help people better understand. i had some of that stuff but lost it all when my computer died last year and it is too much of a pain in the ass to try to find it all again.
a combination of factors, not the least being the strategic position of israel in the middle east. much the same reason as why hawaii is now a state of the US vis-a-vis asia. .
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
do you have anything that states WHY the US votes against it every time? it might help people better understand. i had some of that stuff but lost it all when my computer died last year and it is too much of a pain in the ass to try to find it all again.
Maybe because congress is owned by AIPAC.
As for the above votes, I can't find any statements from U.S officials on their use of the veto over the past 40 years which has blocked any chance of a peaceful settlement, but this year the U.S blocked a U.N resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and this was their justification:
"Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process...The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... settlement
Comments
they are violating international law. the settlements are ILLEGAL, and so is expanding them.
and as far as the article, where does the writer put his spin on things? he interviewed a guy that owned the home, and people involved in the israeli government and quoted them.
seriously, you guys are grasping at straws because you can not refute the facts and refuse to look into things a little more for yourselves. i can't blame you, i don't like reading about daily injustices either...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So, the section you don't agree with is bullshit. But this part is gospel:
In August, a report by the UN agency for Palestinian refugees said that Israeli demolitions in the West Bank rose "alarmingly" in the first half of 2011, with 356 structures demolished in the first six months of this year, compared with 431 for the whole of 2010.
The UN.... Ha! It rose "alarmingly." It can't just rise. It has to rise "alarmingly." And, yet you consider yourself the more discerning reader. Again - you equally cannot refute what the Israeli spokesman is saying other than - it's bullshit. So, why is that anymore than the UN (I can't stop laughing when folks quote the UN).
WOOT.
By James Lewis
Liberals start from false premises. False premises always lead to false conclusions. Being stuck with delusional belief systems, they keep running into brick walls, getting bloody noses, and being surprised every time it happens. Then they fix up their false beliefs -- mostly by blaming any adults in the vicinity -- and go back to their delusions, having learned nothing.
Only to run into another brick wall. (Repeat from the top.)
This is the stuff of the Keystone Kops comedy, but it's funny only until one of them gets into the White House. Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton (who had four chances to get bin Laden handed over without a shot being fired). And now we have the most mentally stuck hero of them all, Barack Hussein Obama.
Israel shares every delusional disorder of the West -- like radical left-wingers. The left is a cultic delusion both here and there, because they deny reality, make up their own, and then try to steer the supertanker of state using imaginary maps.
The one advantage Israel has in this mind game is more brick walls to bump into. Where it matters, Israelis are constantly focusing on reality. That's why the U.S. and Israel have the only two armed forces in the world that are effective: practice, practice, practice. War is the most disillusioning experience in the world, literally dis-illusioning -- its kills illusions and delusions starting with the first contact with the enemy. Peace is wonderful, but you can just see what's happened to American in times of peace -- we drift away from reality until some rent-a-mob of certifiable morons on Wall Street go out to stop capitalism, which has paid for every single diaper they've ever soiled. These people are not just ignorant. They are perverse. But then, kids of the very wealthy have been that way since the Roman Empire.
To Obama's cult-inside-a-cult, Israel is a problem, not a solution. This puts Obama at odds with the existence of Israel, which returned persecuted Jews in Europe and the Arab world (about a million refugees) to their ancestral homeland. You can't sink the refugee ship and pretend to love the drowning people. But that's the iron logic of the Obama left.
It was always in the cards that Obama would demand the abolition of Israel. If you don't remember that historic moment, it was because he lied about it, the way he does. When Obama "demanded" that Israel retreat to its 1967 borders, leftist low-brows around the world thought it sounded very reasonable. Everybody else realized that (a) there were no 1967 borders -- that's another Obama lie; rather, those were the 1949 ceasefire lines of the War on Independence, which the Israelis barely survived by stopping five invading Arab armies; (b) the resulting border between Israel and its deadly enemies looks like a gerrymandered Chicago ward, and is indefensible. Obama knows that. Anybody who bothers to read up on it knows it. But the vast, ignorant products of PC education, including half of American Jews, have never even thought about it.
Now, liberals always bring disaster. It's one of those fundamental truths of life. They think they have good intentions, and they think that's all they need. No farmer, hunter, ditch-digger, gardener, or politician in history has ever survived that way. Liberals survive because capitalist farmers, engineers, and even media protect them from reality and dis-illusionment. It's only in their private lives that they confront reality and become amazingly conservative. It's a miracle.
What does all that have to do with Israel and Disaster? It's simple. Israel is believed to have 200 nuclear weapons -- doomsday weapons that are never meant to be used except as a last resort.
Barack Obama has now created the conditions where in the next year, Israel (and the rest of the Middle East) may be forced to confront the doomsday option. The Saudis are the most directly threatened by maniacal Iran, because they live next door. They have openly said that they are importing nuclear weapons from Pakistan in the face of the Iranian threat. It was Barack Hussein Obama who helped push over Mubarak, Gaddafi, and maybe Syria's Assad, who is still fighting a vicious civil war. That's how you "organize communities" in Alinsky Cult.
In his celebrated Nobel Prize-winning quest to bring eternal love and peace to the Middle East, Obama is therefore driving every major government there to go nuclear. Read that again, please: Obama is forcing the Middle East to go nuclear precisely by his "peace" policies. Already 25,000 Arabs are reported to have died in the so-called "Arab Spring." The media are covering it up, as usual, but those are the actual facts on the ground.
If Iran is as suicidally determined to bring Shi'te Armageddon on earth, as soon as it gets enough nukes and missiles, as it seems like it's been saying at least once a day ever sing Jimmy brought Khomeini to power in 1979, there will be the first nuclear war in human history. When Golda Meir was prime minister during the 1974 Yom Kippur War, Israel seriously considered using nuclear weapons to stop the Egyptian tank divisions driving through the Sinai Desert from reaching Israel's civilian heartland. She would have done it, too.
By building up radical Muslims (who are winning the "Arab Spring" civil war), Obama is empowering the worst enemies of Israel and the West. Those radicals hate our guts, as they say every single day on MEMRI (the translation site for Muslim hate propaganda). But Israel and the West are not defenseless. When their backs are against the wall, they will certainly use weapons of mass destruction in self-defense.
Obama says he's all about bringing peace to the Middle East. In fact, like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and all the other liberals, he is creating greater dangers than any Republican ever would.
They start from false premises, they end up with false beliefs, and when they're in power, they inevitably bring disaster. It's not a surprise. It just follows step-by-step from their delusional beliefs.
Obama Peace-Bringer inevitably turns into Obama War-Monger.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ ... z1dsrwTNDn
— Socrates
Fear, thats all this is
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thank You. A breath of fresh air here on The Train.
You should now fully expect a number of posts (like the 2 above), from people here who 1) did not read the article (only the source- and then dismissed it) and 2) wouldn't understand it if they did.
Fuckin' good read. Thanks again.
Why don't you read it and stay on topic? Maybe disagree with some of the content, and offer your differing opinions?
You're all emoticons and bullshit.
I read it, i understood it, It's Bull Shit, Happy?
Yes. You prove the author right. Watch out for the bricks!
Someday, Maybe, you might actually meet a Brown Person, don't panic!, try not to be afraid, there not going to attack you, you might even want to get to know them. just a thought.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It agree.
How many times can one OP post the same anti-semitic drivel? Its older than my grandad's wooden rubber.
it is not anti-semitic. you need to be really clear on that before you start hurling accusations. before you respond to me you had better make damn sure you are clear on that. it is anti-policies of the israeli government relating to the israel/palerstinian conflict. big difference there....
but keep it up, it is amusing to watch you get frustrated because of your lack of understanding....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
there is some pretty ridiculous stuff there.
http://www.americanthinker.com/james_lewis/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
a palestinian state would be a threat to israel because it would have autonomy and sovereignty over itself.. and OMG! be a member of the UN... the thought that israel will no longer be able to oppress the palestinians to the extent they currently do is not something they even want to entertain.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What the Palestinians want is in no way reminiscent of what Hitler wanted. Your attempted comparison is ridiculous.
The Palestinians want land returned to them that is theirs by law. Land that is currently under foreign occupation. How is this reminiscent of Hitler wanting to steal land that he had no lawful right to?
As for Israel being wiped off the map, I take it you're referring to the mis-quotation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... and_Israel
Translation controversy
'Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
"Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous."[19][20][21]
The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this line of reasoning.[22]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Bronner continued: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[13] This elicited a further response from Jonathan Steele, who noted that Bronner agreed that "map" or any other place noun had not been used and criticized this Wikipedia entry (as it was on June 14, 2006) for "claiming falsely" that Ethan Bronner had "concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map"
Anyway, as for any nation being 'wiped off the map', how do you explain the following?
No you don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... lution_242
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]
The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."
Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [3]
Is it really? :think:
You ever get out much?
So your whole beef here is simply that the word 'alarmingly' was used in reference to homes being demolished and whole families turfed out into the street?
Are you now going to take issue with my use of the words 'turfed out'? Is that phrase too dramatic for you to accept?
Anyway, whilst your pondering that, maybe you'd like to read this:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-upda ... 2010-06-16
Israeli authorities must stop demolitions of Palestinian homes
Demolitions are carried out without warning giving no opportunity to salvage possessions
© Amnesty International
16 June 2010
Amnesty International has called on the Israeli authorities to end house demolitions which leave thousands of Palestinians living in daily fear of eviction from their homes.
A new briefing, As safe as houses? Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes, reveals the extent to which Israeli forces are destroying homes and other structures in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, claiming they have been built illegally.
According to the UN, in 2009 more than 600 Palestinians – over half of them children – lost their homes after they were demolished on order from the Israeli authorities.
"Palestinians living under Israeli occupation face such tight restrictions on what they can build and where that their right to adequate housing is being violated," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
"The Israeli authorities are putting Palestinians in an impossible situation. Whatever choice they make, they face homelessness.
"The majority of people are denied building permits by Israel, even after lengthy and expensive bureaucratic and legal processes, so they have little choice but to go ahead without official permission. But as they do so, they know that these buildings may soon be flattened by Israeli bulldozers."
Demolitions are generally carried out with no warning of the date, giving no opportunity for Palestinians to salvage their possessions or find elsewhere to shelter. The UN has estimated that some 4,800 demolition orders are pending.
Under Israeli law, evicted families are not entitled to alternative housing or compensation, meaning many would face homelessness and destitution were it not for relatives, friends and charities.
While homes are often targeted, Israeli authorities have also issued demolition orders against Palestinian schools, clinics, roads, water cisterns, electricity pylons, sheds and animal shelters.
Palestinians living in the tiny village of Khirbet Tana in the Jordan valley have had to rebuild their homes twice in five years.
In 2005, Israeli authorities demolished the village school as well as a number of homes, animal sheds and water cisterns.
The villagers rebuilt their homes but on 10 January 2010, Israeli forces returned. They demolished the homes of 100 Palestinians, leaving 34 children homeless, as well as the village school for a second time. They also destroyed 12 sheep and goat pens, the main source of income for the village.
Raeda Nasasreh, a 24-year-old mother of two, told Amnesty International: "The army jeeps came at six in the morning; people saw them in the valley and started taking their belongings out of the houses.
"We didn’t have time to finish milking the ewes. They demolished everything here; by 9:30 they were finished."
In October 2009, Israeli forces destroyed the home of Rida Nimr and her husband Nimr Ali Nimr in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Jabal al-Mukabbir. Three generations of the family, including five children, were left homeless.
"Some 30 police and special forces, accompanied by three bulldozers driven by civilian contractors, arrived while the children were still sleeping. The police rapidly surrounded and closed off the area," said Rida.
"The demolition force only took a few pieces of furniture out of the house before its demolition and did not allow us to take out anything except, after pleading, a laptop belonging to our daughter Amal which she needs for her university studies."
Amnesty International has called on the Israeli authorities to immediately end all demolitions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), including East Jerusalem.
The organization said the authorities should also transfer responsibility for planning and building policies and regulations to the local Palestinian communities.
In addition, the Israeli authorities must stop the construction or expansion of Israeli settlements in the OPT as a first step towards removing Israeli civilians living in such settlements.
"Demolition and eviction orders do not just destroy people’s homes. They also take away their possessions and their hopes for a secure future," said Philip Luther.
I notice that you joined the message board at the same time that Usamamassan1 was banned for a month.
Interesting.
Great, then Israel can 'retreat' to the 1949 armistice lines.
Or, in line with international law, and the whole of the international community, it can retreat to the 1967 lines with 'minor and mutually-agreed frontier adjustments'.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
True. And for the benefit of the morons on this board who support ethnic cleansing and Israeli racism, and yet have the audacity to accuse those of us critical of Israel's apartheid policies of being anti-semitic, here's how the numbers add up:
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the
Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.” Here is the recorded vote on this resolution the past decade:
1997 [155-2-3] (155 In Favour, 2 Against, 3 Abstentions)
Israel, United States
1998 [154-2-3]
Israel, United States
1999 [149-3-2]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands
2000 [149-2-3]
Israel, United States
2001 [131-6-20]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Tuvalu
2002 [160-4-3]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia
2003 [160-6-5]
Israel, United States , Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Uganda
2004 [161-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2005 [156-6-9]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau
2006 [157-7-10]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2007 [161-7-5]
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2008 164-7
Israel, United States , Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
2009 [163-7]
United States, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama,
2010 [165-7-4]
Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
a combination of factors, not the least being the strategic position of israel in the middle east. much the same reason as why hawaii is now a state of the US vis-a-vis asia. .
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Maybe because congress is owned by AIPAC.
As for the above votes, I can't find any statements from U.S officials on their use of the veto over the past 40 years which has blocked any chance of a peaceful settlement, but this year the U.S blocked a U.N resolution condemning Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and this was their justification:
"Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."
The US stood alone among the 15 members of the security council in failing to condemn the resumption of settlement building that has caused a serious rift between the Israeli government and the Palestinian authority and derailed attempts to kick-start the peace process...The 14 member countries backing the Arab-drafted resolution included Britain and France.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/fe ... settlement