That's really hurtful. They are just kids, not soldiers. They have nothing to do with anything. Israel is lucky? One is American is America lucky? I wish you could see how SOME of the Palestinians put their children in harms way, using them as shields, and shooting from behind them. Pushing out elderly men on wheel chairs waving white flags then opening fire with machine guns. Stock pilling weapons in hospitals and residential areas. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to defend a country against an enemy like that. Strapping bombs to vests and putting them on children.
You're absolutely fucking lying. Stop already. You're doing more harm for your cause then good.
Ya just kids. How many Palestinian teenagers are in Israeli prisons? You know??? U seem to think you know so tell me. How many are from the ages of 10-17. But they're Palestinians so they dnt count. They're not humans right? I mean shit, Israel treats them like animals caged up in one big ass open prison.
Again, why when an Israeli kills or murders innocent children (the bomb they dropped on that school couple years ago) I dnt see any of you that support Israel condeming the action? It's complete silence when it happens. Yet when 3 Israeli teenagers are abducted, it's all over the front pages? Why? Dnt bother answering, I already know the answer. Grow some fucken balls and question your country. (I'm taking it you're Israeli) grow some fucken balls and stand up and say, that shit is wrong. I've met a lot of cool people from Israel who have balls and say shits wrong over there. I've got 2 friends who've served in the idf who've said shits wrong. Most of the young idf soldiers want nothing to do with this conflict, actually hate the fact that this shits going on. But the people who sit behind a computer (myself inuded) have no problem with the conflict as long as they're not directly involved. Come on man, doesn't make you a self-hater if you dnt read from the governments transcripts. I just can't believe that people have ZERO problem with what's happening to the Palestinians in THEIR own country. This isn't about religion, it's about humanity and what we do to our own brothers and sisters. Amazing, WWII wasn't even that long ago. What was the famous quote? Never again? Ya rite, never again to them but everyone else is fair fucken game.
Edit-you mentioned 1 American, ok, I'll give you 1 American, Rachel Corrie. Ever heard of her. I have and so have many.
Why did Israel atack in 1967? Was it out of no where, or was it in response to something ? Was it an act if war or was it a ore emptive strike to defend the country from something coming based on Israeli intelligence?
Why don't we see what the Israeli leadership themselves said about it?
'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"(Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"(Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war"(Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories"(Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war.
I hope you understand the checkpoints and blockades are something new. They haven't been in place since 1967, they were set up recently to protect Israeli citizens.
They were set up at the beginning of the 1990's. 1991 to be precise, although restrictions on the movement of Palestinians have been in place since the 1950's.
http://www.jmcc.org/fastfactspag.aspx?tname=44 'It was only after Israel's establishment in 1948 that movement restrictions became a means of land confiscation. In 1950, the new Israeli government instituted military rule over Palestinian citizens of the state, including common martial law powers that regulated freedom of speech, movement, and assembly...
...Israel dispatched the Israel military's Frontier Corps (the precursor to today’s Border Police) to patrol border areas. These regulations and troop deployment further tightened the state’s hold on Palestinian villages depopulated during and after the 1948 War. These practices also paved way for settlement by new waves of Jewish immigrants.
Thus, approximately 1,500 residents of Palestinian villages inside the new Israeli border were removed from their homes and barred from returning. This change was facilitated by the Absentee Property Law of 1950, which meant that even “present absentees” could have their land confiscated by the state. Under this law, 40 percent of Arab land was confiscated from Palestinians who were living inside the new Israeli borders at the time. Areas where Palestinians lived were designated “closed areas,” and residents were restricted from leaving without a military permit. Jews living nearby, on the other hand, enjoyed freedom of movement.
One of the most important means of controlling the movement of the Palestinian population - and thereby their access to and ownership of the land under the law - was the military checkpoint system.'
Jews and Arabs have been at odds for 2000 years. Maybe the reason this statement was made is because the person believed the Arabs would always hate the Jews , based on the 2000 year history if violence, not because if "ethnic cleansing" but because if safety and peace.
Jews and Arabs lived perfectly well together for 1000 years until the Zionists moved in with their ideas of racial superiority and a divine right to occupy all of the land between the river and the sea.
And the illegal settlements aren't being built "because of safety and peace", they're being built as part of a concerted land grab.
I was surprised no one mentioned this but 3 teenagers, not soldiers ir settlers or anything, just 3 kids on their way home from school were kidnaped by Hammas. The terrorist group voted into power by the Palestinians who's mission statement is clearly defined , to wipe the Jewish nation off the map. They are just kids and one is American here is a link
Another issue I want to add is this notion of ethnic cleansing. Look at a map from 50 years ago that shows Jewish population in mid east countries. Jews lived in Iraq, Iran, Israel, Turkey , Lebanon, and Syria. Then look at it 25 years ago and then 5 years ago . The numbers drop significantly, because its not safe. While in Israel today there ate almost as many Israeli arabs as Jewish Israelis.
This is bullshit. Just the latest IDF.com/Hasbara talking point that you've obediently regurgitated.
As Jonathan Cook points out: "Many, if not most, Arab Jews left their homelands voluntarily, unlike Palestinians, to begin a new life in Israel. Even where tensions forced Jews to flee, such as in Iraq, it is hard to know who was always behind the ethnic strife. There is strong evidence that Israel’s Mossad spy agency waged false-flag operations in Arab states to fuel the fear and hostility needed to drive Arab Jews towards Israel."
It's just a cynical attempt to equate the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries with the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in 1948.
Though here's what Yehuda Shenav, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University has to say on the matter: "Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Arab Jews is unfounded....Arab Jews arrived to Israel under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.
The State of Israel in many cases actively precipitated Jewish emigration, sending emissaries to Arab countries in order to persuade Jews to leave. Their methods often involved violence; for example, in Egypt, where the situation of Jews deteriorated significantly in 1954 after a group of local Jews was caught carrying out acts of terrorism and sabotage at the behest of Israel. Israel publicly acknowledged responsibility for this only in 2005. Similarly, Jewish emigration from Iraq accelerated in 1951 after the bombing of a synagogue; this act was blamed at the time on Zionist agents. A claim lent credibility by the recent admission by a former member of the Iraqi Zionist underground that members of his group did employ such tactics.
1) from the deceleration of Israel after ww2, the Arab nations declared war on the state of Israel
Yeah, they did, but your cute little sound-bite leaves a lot out, such as why the Arab States declared war on the state of Israel. Also, your cute little sound bite neglects to mention that before the Arab states declared war on the state of Israel, the Israeli's had already invaded and occupied large areas of land alloted to the Palestinians under the U.N Partition plan, and had carried out ethnic cleansing and massacres, such as the massacre at Deir Yassin in which 600 unarmed men, women and children were systematically slaughtered.
2) any land that the Israel has aquired beyond the original stated borders, they have aquired not by invading a peaceful innocent population, but one that has always declared war and has acted violently towards them
This is just pure bullshit.
Let's take another example; the example of 1967. Israel attacked Egyptian and Syrian forces in 1967, not the other way around. And the land it stole during and after that war is illegally occupied territory stolen during, and after, a war of aggression. But anyway, so what? Even if your self-serving fantasy were true and the Palestinians had in fact 'acted violently towards them', how does that legitimize excuse ethnic cleansing and the theft of their land?
...and the rest of your gibberish isn't worth responding to.
1967, yes why did they do that? Maybe because the realized war was inevitable based on the Arab nations mobilizing on their borders for an attack. I guess you are right, Israel should have done nothing and saw that as a peaceful move. You are biased towards this issue. Israel has offered peace and left the territories as recent as the 2000's. It doesn't work. It's not about land, it's about ideology. Plain and simple.
So Black September, that's just gibberish?
Israel standing up for themselves because since it's foundation the Arab nations declared war on them, that's just gibberish?
Go ahead hit me with a page full of links and quotes from whateverer resources you will find, including comments taken out of text, ignoring history ect ect.
Plain and simple, the bully got beat down, and is now grounded. Maybe if they didn't mess with Israel from the foundation, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It's like you want me to be sympathetic to an old man that's been in prison for the past 50 years. It's easy to forget why he is in prison because 50 years ago isn't relevant, but 50 years ago he murdered and declared war on his neighbor. I can't sympathize for him, especially since every time he goes before a parole hearing he states how he doesn't regret it, and that he can't wait to kill his neighbor given the chance.
1967, yes why did they do that? Maybe because the realized war was inevitable based on the Arab nations mobilizing on their borders for an attack. I guess you are right, Israel should have done nothing and saw that as a peaceful move. You are biased towards this issue. Israel has offered peace and left the territories as recent as the 2000's. It doesn't work. It's not about land, it's about ideology. Plain and simple.
So Black September, that's just gibberish?
Israel standing up for themselves because since it's foundation the Arab nations declared war on them, that's just gibberish?
Go ahead hit me with a page full of links and quotes from whateverer resources you will find, including comments taken out of text, ignoring history ect ect.
It's pretty obvious that you have zero interest in the facts. Not only that, but you clearly have a problem with facts, per se, and prefer instead to wallow in personal fantasies. Why is that? Why do you have such an aversion to facts? What is it that makes you prefer personal opinions and fantasies over facts? Is it because the facts don't fit in your scheme of things?
Are you really so deluded that you think something can become 'true' just because you say it, or if you repeat it often enough? I asked you in another thread if you're egocentric. I think I know the answer to that question now.
I already addressed your gibberish above. I explained why the Arab States declared war on Israel in 1948. And I addressed your bullshit about Israel allegedly defending itself in 1967. As for the quotes being out of context, maybe you can show us how they are out of context? Or maybe you can't, because you just thought you'd say it because it sounded good?
Here they are again:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"(Prime Minister Menachem Begin,, Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Yitzhak Rabin, Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war"- 'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest (Ha'aretz)
As for Israel 'offering peace' and 'leaving the territories' as early as 2000, please give me an example. And I mean an example based in reality, and not one based on your own personal fantasies.
Plain and simple, the bully got beat down, and is now grounded. Maybe if they didn't mess with Israel from the foundation, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It's like you want me to be sympathetic to an old man that's been in prison for the past 50 years. It's easy to forget why he is in prison because 50 years ago isn't relevant, but 50 years ago he murdered and declared war on his neighbor. I can't sympathize for him, especially since every time he goes before a parole hearing he states how he doesn't regret it, and that he can't wait to kill his neighbor given the chance.
You edit every post you make, and you rely on quotes from other people that are taken out of context.
Look at history, offers 67 82 93 94 05 08
But of course you will not look at the real history, you take sides with an ideology that says it's okay to put a bomb on and blow yourself up in the name of Allah. Obviously you will find every reason to justify you interwebs ideology. If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest. I know you enjoy your google machine, but google will tell you whatever you want to hear.
Heck at this point I'm still waiting for you to justify black september.
Here are some more inconvenient facts relating to the 1967 war and Israel's seizure of Palestinian land:
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much' P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June [1967] war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.
[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can aquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:
Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerants should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war" R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still aquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".
D.W Bowett (1971) - "there is virtually universal acceptance of the principle...that states cannot acquire territory by resort to force...It is impossible to conceive self-defence as justifying the acquisition of title to territory. One can conceive of self-defence justifying the temporary occupation of territory but never the permanent acquisition of title and there is no system or principle of law which conceives of such a thing."
These conclusions have been reiterated in recent scholarly studies. Sharon Korman finds that the U.N Charter, as well as the league of Nations Covenant before it, "prohibit all acquisitions of territory by force, irrespective of the lawfulness of the cause of war," while John Dugard finds that " the United Nations expressly refuses to accept the argument that territory may be acquired as a result of action taken in lawful self-defence," and that "larger majorities in the General Assembly in support of this principle [prohibiting acquisition of territory by means of the lawful use of force] and the failure of any major power to veto it in the Security Council must surely provide prima facie evidence that this principle is part of the International public order, and, by implication, a peremptory norm."
Please explain how and when Israel 'offered peace'. Thanks, I'm waiting.
Meanwhile, read on...
As for Israel's 'disengagement' from Gaza, shall we see what the Israeli's had to say about that?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.
The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/08/isra-a29.html In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s evacuation of 21 Zionist settlements in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has promised to step up construction in other West Bank settlements. The provocative remarks, made to the Jerusalem Post on August 22, confirm the reality that Sharon’s “unilateral disengagement” scheme has nothing to do with alleviating the oppression of the Palestinian people, and is instead aimed at consolidating a massive Israeli land grab in the Occupied Territories.
Some of the nearly 9,000 settlers removed from Gaza have simply shifted to the West Bank. According to Haaretz, at least 212 settler families have moved to the illegally occupied Palestinian land. Sharon made clear that he does not oppose such movement: “We don’t move anyone, people can go wherever they want,” he declared.
Despite the pullout from Gaza, there will still be more Zionist settlers at the end of 2005 than there were at the start of the year, according to the Peace Now organisation. Annually, some 10,000 Israelis join the approximately 200,000 settlers already living in East Jerusalem and 250,000 in the West Bank.
So much for Israel's magnanimous gesture of 'disengaging' from Gaza! The Gaza pullout was simply a huge public relations ploy aimed at diverting attention from Israel's increased settlement expansion, and further annexation of, the West Bank.
But of course you will not look at the real history
And what 'real history' is that? The 'history' that you saw one time on Youtube? Or was that the 'history' you saw one time in a Steven Spielberg movie?
you take sides with an ideology that says it's okay to put a bomb on and blow yourself up in the name of Allah.
No, I take sides with a people who are undergoing an illegal military occupation, and who are victims of a 45 year old ethnic cleansing campaign and land-grab by a state run by racist lunatics.
If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest. I know you enjoy your google machine, but google will tell you whatever you want to hear.
1967 - Israel attacked Egypt and Syria 1982 - The Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1993 - The Oslo Accords - The settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, while Israel confiscated, all told, nearly half the land surface of the West Bank. And which ultimately led to the second Palestinian intifada. Some peace! 2005 - End of the second Intifada which was sparked by Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, and subsequent killing of Palestinian protestors, and countless war crimes. Withdrawal of settlers from Gaza and their relocation in illegal settlements in the West Bank, along with a huge overall increase in West Bank settlement expansion. 2008 - Israeli invasion of Gaza in which over 1,600 civilians were murdered, including over 400 children.
Anyway, you're the one pretending to be in possession of the 'real history', so why don't you answer my question? Provide me an example of when, and how, Israel offered peace.
O.k, because I know that you're a tad confused, and that you really don't know what you're talking about, I'll make it easier for you. I'll pick the number at the top of your list of random dates.
Provide me an example of how Israel offered peace in 1967.
1967 - Israel attacked Egypt and Syria 1982 - The Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1993 - The Oslo Accords - The settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, while Israel confiscated, all told, nearly half the land surface of the West Bank. And which ultimately led to the second Palestinian intifada. Some peace! 2005 - End of the second Intifada which was sparked by Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, and subsequent killing of Palestinian protestors, and countless war crimes. Withdrawal of settlers from Gaza and their relocation in illegal settlements in the West Bank, along with a huge overall increase in West Bank settlement expansion. 2008 - Israeli invasion of Gaza in which over 1,600 civilians were murdered, including over 400 children.
Anyway, you're the one pretending to be in possession of the 'real history', so why don't you answer my question? Provide me an example of when, and how, Israel offered peace.
I'll bet he'll still find a way of twisting the facts or defending their actions. I've asked many many many times. Why when Israel does something fucked up (like dropping a bomb on a school or dropping a bomb on a UN safe house), no one whoever defends them NEVER come on here and CONDEMS the act? It's always DEAD SILENT. Just a curious question. Is it cuz Israel can do NO WRONG or is it that it's against the Palestinians and their lives ain't worth shit. Can someone please answer that for me. I'd really like to know.
You are so funny and fun to disagree with. It is pure entertainment. Never has there ever been one that will quote everything they can find in order to try and make their point. You are good at using google, google those years and you'll see Israel offered land, even removed their forces only to be shitted on each time.
I can stand here and say yes, does Israel have a fault in the the situation today? Yes, yes they do. But are the Arab nations not responsible for the Israelie occupancy today? Yes, yes they are. You wave a flag of innocent Palistinians, but you disregard how this situation came to be.
My problem with peope such as yourself, are that you find anything and everything to blame Israel. You refuse to accept any sort of responsibility or how things got to where they are at. You just take a sympathetical side and defend it to the end.
And why do you keep side stepping Black September? I mean a person such as yourself that will always quote this or that, post an article link, ect ect, I've brought up black September twice and you just disregard it. Is it because you haven't come across an article that supports your ideas?
Do you really think this is about land? Do you honestly believe that if Israel left Gaza and the West Bank that will end all conflicts? Answer that one for me please.
Oh yea I'm so confused, maybe you should take a look at unbiased historical accounts of the Six Day War. Yea, to help you out, that was 1967. Post your links! I'm waiting!
Maybe, and just maybe, it's funny. You feel like you know based on the sources and media you follow, and maybe I'm the same, but just different sources. But no matter how much we think we really know, we don't know shit because neither one of us have grown up their or lived their. It's a funny thought.
1967 - Israel attacked Egypt and Syria 1982 - The Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1993 - The Oslo Accords - The settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, while Israel confiscated, all told, nearly half the land surface of the West Bank. And which ultimately led to the second Palestinian intifada. Some peace! 2005 - End of the second Intifada which was sparked by Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, and subsequent killing of Palestinian protestors, and countless war crimes. Withdrawal of settlers from Gaza and their relocation in illegal settlements in the West Bank, along with a huge overall increase in West Bank settlement expansion. 2008 - Israeli invasion of Gaza in which over 1,600 civilians were murdered, including over 400 children.
Anyway, you're the one pretending to be in possession of the 'real history', so why don't you answer my question? Provide me an example of when, and how, Israel offered peace.
I'll bet he'll still find a way of twisting the facts or defending their actions. I've asked many many many times. Why when Israel does something fucked up (like dropping a bomb on a school or dropping a bomb on a UN safe house), no one whoever defends them NEVER come on here and CONDEMS the act? It's always DEAD SILENT. Just a curious question. Is it cuz Israel can do NO WRONG or is it that it's against the Palestinians and their lives ain't worth shit. Can someone please answer that for me. I'd really like to know.
No twisting facts. Look at the history. It amazes me how much you guys want to ignore history or why and how things happened, but at the same time cherry pick anything that supports your side. It's an ignore/accept mentality, and I don't understand it at all.
google those years and you'll see Israel offered land, even removed their forces only to be shitted on each time.
I see, so you're incapable of providing me an example. And I don't need to Google those years because I already know what happened during those years. But you don't. You don't know what you're talking about. Israel offered land in 1967? Really? Israel offered land in 1982, 93, 95, 05, and 08? No it didn't. It did nothing of the sort.
are the Arab nations not responsible for the Israelie occupancy today?
You think the Palestinians are responsible for having their land stolen from them, and for having undergone 60 years of ethnic cleansing? That's interesting. Now go ahead and explain why.
And why do you keep side stepping Black September? I mean a person such as yourself that will always quote this or that, post an article link, ect ect, I've brought up black September twice and you just disregard it. Is it because you haven't come across an article that supports your ideas?
I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinian terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
And you still haven't answered my question. I asked you to provide an example of when Israel offered peace. I didn't ask for a list of numbers. I asked for an example of when Israel offered peace. I'm still waiting.
Oh yea I'm so confused, maybe you should take a look at unbiased historical accounts of the Six Day War. Yea, to help you out, that was 1967. Post your links! I'm waiting!
Unbiased? Are the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz biased in favour of the Palestinians?
You said those quotes I posted by Israeli leaders are out of context. I asked you to prove that they're out of context. So why haven't you? Or were you just talking more shit?
Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and quit trying to be a smart arse? Can't you see that you're just making a fool of yourself? I asked you a simple question. I've asked it about five times now. I asked you to provide an example of when Israel has offered peace. So why don't you answer my question? Don't tell me to Google it. You fucking Google it. You claimed that Israel offered peace and I asked you to provide an example. If you can't back-up what you say then quit spouting shit.
No twisting facts. Look at the history. It amazes me how much you guys want to ignore history or why and how things happened, but at the same time cherry pick anything that supports your side. It's an ignore/accept mentality, and I don't understand it at all.
Except you've provided no history at all. You've just spouted a lot of horseshit. Why is that? Why do you have such a hatred of facts? Do you feel threatened by facts? Do facts constitute a threat to the fantasy world you inhabit?
You feel like you know based on the sources and media you follow, and maybe I'm the same, but just different sources.
Except you haven't provided any sources.
All you've done is post opinions. Opinions and fantasies. And so far I've countered all of your opinions and fantasies with facts and with source material. And yet you continue spouting more gibberish and talk about ' real history', e.t.c.
When are you gonna provide an example of when Israel offered peace? I've asked you repeatedly to back-up your comment, and yet you're still ducking and evading it. Why is that?
I'll bet he'll still find a way of twisting the facts or defending their actions. I've asked many many many times. Why when Israel does something fucked up (like dropping a bomb on a school or dropping a bomb on a UN safe house), no one whoever defends them NEVER come on here and CONDEMS the act? It's always DEAD SILENT. Just a curious question. Is it cuz Israel can do NO WRONG or is it that it's against the Palestinians and their lives ain't worth shit. Can someone please answer that for me. I'd really like to know.
He doesn't know anything about the Israel/Palestine issue. He's just trying to be a smart arse, like he tried being a smart arse in the Tienanmen Square thread, which is another subject he knows nothing about.
Anyone can wade into a message board spouting shit and criticizing others for backing up what they say with facts. Maybe he thinks someone reading his bullshit will be impressed?
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
That is my point exactly. You are upset about anything you think that Israel does, but anything that Palestinians have done, so what? Right, that doesn't matter, but let's just judge Israel.
You are a hypocrite. You will defend any action against Israel and dismiss it, but oh no, watch out, any action that Israel takes is just not right.
I'm not going to sit here and post links amongst links amongst links to justify my point. You've already shown your true colors and how you view the situation.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
That is just perfect, and sums up why it's pointless to try and have any conversation with you.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Just one last time. Seriously, listen to yourself.
Look at the title of the thread you started. Like seriously, you are upset about Israel terrorism but
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
I just find that hilarious. Nothing like killing some Olympians in a different country, but that's okay. That has nothing to do with anything. That was okay, cause we all know Olympians are just bad people. It's shit like that, and your mentality about it that makes me support Israel more and more. You Palestinian supporters just dismiss any wrong action that y'all have taken.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
You are upset about anything you think that Israel does, but anything that Palestinians have done, so what? Right, that doesn't matter, but let's just judge Israel.
Ah, so now you're resorting to twisting my words. I asked 'So What?' in response to your question about Black September. I asked 'What does that have to do with anything?' I.e, What does it have to do with this thread, or with this discussion? Nothing, that's what. Palestinian terrorism is a symptom of the Israeli occupation, not a cause of it. I asked you to explain why you think the Palestinians are responsible for being occupied and for having their land stolen from under their feet. You still haven't answered my question. Why do you support ethnic cleansing? Are you racist?
I'm not going to sit here and post links amongst links amongst links to justify my point. You've already shown your true colors and how you view the situation.
Nobody asked you to post links amongst links amongst links. You made the claim that Israel offered peace and land in '67, '82, 93, '95, 05, and '08. I asked you to provide one example of it offering peace but you haven't, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
That is just perfect, and sums up why it's pointless to try and have any conversation with you.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Just one last time. Seriously, listen to yourself.
My question was perfectly legitimate. You chimed into this discussion on the previous page trying to justify and excuse Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And since then you've been spouting more of the same shit. What does Black September have to do with Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing? Nothing, other than that it's a symptom of 45 years of oppression and violence. So what? What do you think about the Israeli's shooting unarmed children dead? What do you think about Israel shooting unarmed 13 year old schoolgirls dead, and women and children waving white flags? What do you think about the Israeli's bombing residential areas, dropping white phosphorous on residential areas, shooting medical personnel, bombing schools, hospitals, and U.N safe houses, bulldozing houses while the occupants are still inside, shooting peace activists dead - Tom Hurndall, Rachel Corrie - carrying out torture, using Palestinians as human shields, e.t.c.?
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Nope. That is you and how you feel about it. Don't try and justify your words. Maybe you are better off cherry picking quotes and posting links as opposed to when you actually express something in your own words.
Look at the title of the thread you started. Like seriously, you are upset about Israel terrorism but
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
I just find that hilarious. Nothing like killing some Olympians in a different country, but that's okay. That has nothing to do with anything. That was okay, cause we all know Olympians are just bad people.
Who said it was o.k? Stop fucking twisting my words. Is that the only way you can win an argument? By twisting the other persons words? Really? Who do you think you're kidding?
My question was asking what it had to do with the discussion.
It's shit like that, and your mentality about it that makes me support Israel more and more. You Palestinian supporters just dismiss any wrong action that y'all have taken.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Sorry, just one last time. Such a great quote.
You don't even realise that you're making a fool of yourself. Even a ten year old with basic English comprehension could see what my question 'So what?' was asking.
How old are you? My guess is that you're probably not much older than 10.
Comments
Ya just kids. How many Palestinian teenagers are in Israeli prisons? You know??? U seem to think you know so tell me. How many are from the ages of 10-17. But they're Palestinians so they dnt count. They're not humans right? I mean shit, Israel treats them like animals caged up in one big ass open prison.
Again, why when an Israeli kills or murders innocent children (the bomb they dropped on that school couple years ago) I dnt see any of you that support Israel condeming the action? It's complete silence when it happens. Yet when 3 Israeli teenagers are abducted, it's all over the front pages? Why? Dnt bother answering, I already know the answer. Grow some fucken balls and question your country. (I'm taking it you're Israeli) grow some fucken balls and stand up and say, that shit is wrong. I've met a lot of cool people from Israel who have balls and say shits wrong over there. I've got 2 friends who've served in the idf who've said shits wrong. Most of the young idf soldiers want nothing to do with this conflict, actually hate the fact that this shits going on. But the people who sit behind a computer (myself inuded) have no problem with the conflict as long as they're not directly involved. Come on man, doesn't make you a self-hater if you dnt read from the governments transcripts. I just can't believe that people have ZERO problem with what's happening to the Palestinians in THEIR own country. This isn't about religion, it's about humanity and what we do to our own brothers and sisters. Amazing, WWII wasn't even that long ago. What was the famous quote? Never again? Ya rite, never again to them but everyone else is fair fucken game.
Edit-you mentioned 1 American, ok, I'll give you 1 American, Rachel Corrie. Ever heard of her. I have and so have many.
'Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership: "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19
March 1972). Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).
After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war.
They were set up at the beginning of the 1990's. 1991 to be precise, although restrictions on the movement of Palestinians have been in place since the 1950's.
http://www.jmcc.org/fastfactspag.aspx?tname=44
'It was only after Israel's establishment in 1948 that movement restrictions became a means of land confiscation. In 1950, the new Israeli government instituted military rule over Palestinian citizens of the state, including common martial law powers that regulated freedom of speech, movement, and assembly...
...Israel dispatched the Israel military's Frontier Corps (the precursor to today’s Border Police) to patrol border areas. These regulations and troop deployment further tightened the state’s hold on Palestinian villages depopulated during and after the 1948 War. These practices also paved way for settlement by new waves of Jewish immigrants.
Thus, approximately 1,500 residents of Palestinian villages inside the new Israeli border were removed from their homes and barred from returning. This change was facilitated by the Absentee Property Law of 1950, which meant that even “present absentees” could have their land confiscated by the state. Under this law, 40 percent of Arab land was confiscated from Palestinians who were living inside the new Israeli borders at the time. Areas where Palestinians lived were designated “closed areas,” and residents were restricted from leaving without a military permit. Jews living nearby, on the other hand, enjoyed freedom of movement.
One of the most important means of controlling the movement of the Palestinian population - and thereby their access to and ownership of the land under the law - was the military checkpoint system.' Jews and Arabs lived perfectly well together for 1000 years until the Zionists moved in with their ideas of racial superiority and a divine right to occupy all of the land between the river and the sea.
And the illegal settlements aren't being built "because of safety and peace", they're being built as part of a concerted land grab. What evidence is there that Hamas kidnapped these teenagers? None whatsoever.
This is bullshit. Just the latest IDF.com/Hasbara talking point that you've obediently regurgitated.
As Jonathan Cook points out: "Many, if not most, Arab Jews left their homelands voluntarily, unlike Palestinians, to begin a new life in Israel. Even where tensions forced Jews to flee, such as in Iraq, it is hard to know who was always behind the ethnic strife. There is strong evidence that Israel’s Mossad spy agency waged false-flag operations in Arab states to fuel the fear and hostility needed to drive Arab Jews towards Israel."
It's just a cynical attempt to equate the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab countries with the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their lands in 1948.
Though here's what Yehuda Shenav, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University has to say on the matter:
"Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Arab Jews is unfounded....Arab Jews arrived to Israel under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some arrived of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.
The State of Israel in many cases actively precipitated Jewish emigration, sending emissaries to Arab countries in order to persuade Jews to leave. Their methods often involved violence; for example, in Egypt, where the situation of Jews deteriorated significantly in 1954 after a group of local Jews was caught carrying out acts of terrorism and sabotage at the behest of Israel. Israel publicly acknowledged responsibility for this only in 2005. Similarly, Jewish emigration from Iraq accelerated in 1951 after the bombing of a synagogue; this act was blamed at the time on Zionist agents. A claim lent credibility by the recent admission by a former member of the Iraqi Zionist underground that members of his group did employ such tactics.
So Black September, that's just gibberish?
Israel standing up for themselves because since it's foundation the Arab nations declared war on them, that's just gibberish?
Go ahead hit me with a page full of links and quotes from whateverer resources you will find, including comments taken out of text, ignoring history ect ect.
Are you really so deluded that you think something can become 'true' just because you say it, or if you repeat it often enough?
I asked you in another thread if you're egocentric. I think I know the answer to that question now.
I already addressed your gibberish above. I explained why the Arab States declared war on Israel in 1948. And I addressed your bullshit about Israel allegedly defending itself in 1967. As for the quotes being out of context, maybe you can show us how they are out of context? Or maybe you can't, because you just thought you'd say it because it sounded good?
Here they are again:
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (Prime Minister Menachem Begin,, Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Yitzhak Rabin, Le Monde, 29 February 1968).
"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" - 'General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest (Ha'aretz)
As for Israel 'offering peace' and 'leaving the territories' as early as 2000, please give me an example. And I mean an example based in reality, and not one based on your own personal fantasies.
I think you may be confusing the Moving Train with the Mickey Mouse Club. Here you go: http://disneyjunior.com/mickey-mouse-clubhouse Enjoy!
Look at history, offers
67
82
93
94
05
08
But of course you will not look at the real history, you take sides with an ideology that says it's okay to put a bomb on and blow yourself up in the name of Allah. Obviously you will find every reason to justify you interwebs ideology. If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest. I know you enjoy your google machine, but google will tell you whatever you want to hear.
Heck at this point I'm still waiting for you to justify black september.
,"If you want to have a real conversation about the issue, stop ignoring history, and be honest."
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Norman Finkelstein - 'Knowing Too Much'
P. 205: [At the] U.N General Assembly Fifth Emergency Special Session after the June [1967] war [...] the only country in the World that maintained Israel had acted in self-defense against Egyptian aggression was Israel.
[Regardless], Prior to as well as immediately after the June 1967 war leading authorities in international law rejected the proposition that a state can aquire legal title to territory in a war of self-defence:
Ian Brownlie (1963) - "lawful belligerants should not be permitted to act ultra vires [i.e, beyond their power] by acquiring territory as a result of a lawful war"
R.Y Jennings (1963) - "the suggestion that the state that does not resort to force unlawfully, e.g., resorts to war in self-defence, may still aquire a title by conquest...is to be regarded with some suspicion. It seems to be based upon a curious assumption that provided a war is lawful in origin, it goes on being lawful to whatever lengths it may afterwards be pursued...Force used in self-defence...is undoubtedly lawful. But it must be proportionate to the threat of immediate danger, and when the threat has been averted the plea of self-defence can no longer be available...It would be a curious law of self-defence that permitted the defender in the course of his defence to seize and keep the resources and territory of the attacker".
D.W Bowett (1971) - "there is virtually universal acceptance of the principle...that states cannot acquire territory by resort to force...It is impossible to conceive self-defence as justifying the acquisition of title to territory. One can conceive of self-defence justifying the temporary occupation of territory but never the permanent acquisition of title and there is no system or principle of law which conceives of such a thing."
These conclusions have been reiterated in recent scholarly studies. Sharon Korman finds that the U.N Charter, as well as the league of Nations Covenant before it, "prohibit all acquisitions of territory by force, irrespective of the lawfulness of the cause of war," while John Dugard finds that " the United Nations expressly refuses to accept the argument that territory may be acquired as a result of action taken in lawful self-defence," and that "larger majorities in the General Assembly in support of this principle [prohibiting acquisition of territory by means of the lawful use of force] and the failure of any major power to veto it in the Security Council must surely provide prima facie evidence that this principle is part of the International public order, and, by implication, a peremptory norm."
Meanwhile, read on...
As for Israel's 'disengagement' from Gaza, shall we see what the Israeli's had to say about that?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass:
"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.
The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.
You know, the term `peace process' is a bundle of concepts and commitments. The peace process is the establishment of a Palestinian state with all the security risks that entails. The peace process is the evacuation of settlements, it's the return of refugees, it's the partition of Jerusalem. And all that has now been frozen...what I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we did."
Sharon, he said, could also argue "honestly" that the disengagement plan was "a serious move because of which, out of 240,000 settlers, 190,000 will not be moved from their place."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/top-pm-aide-gaza-plan-aims-to-freeze-the-peace-process-1.136686
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/08/isra-a29.html
In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s evacuation of 21 Zionist settlements in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has promised to step up construction in other West Bank settlements. The provocative remarks, made to the Jerusalem Post on August 22, confirm the reality that Sharon’s “unilateral disengagement” scheme has nothing to do with alleviating the oppression of the Palestinian people, and is instead aimed at consolidating a massive Israeli land grab in the Occupied Territories.
Some of the nearly 9,000 settlers removed from Gaza have simply shifted to the West Bank. According to Haaretz, at least 212 settler families have moved to the illegally occupied Palestinian land. Sharon made clear that he does not oppose such movement: “We don’t move anyone, people can go wherever they want,” he declared.
Despite the pullout from Gaza, there will still be more Zionist settlers at the end of 2005 than there were at the start of the year, according to the Peace Now organisation. Annually, some 10,000 Israelis join the approximately 200,000 settlers already living in East Jerusalem and 250,000 in the West Bank.
So much for Israel's magnanimous gesture of 'disengaging' from Gaza! The Gaza pullout was simply a huge public relations ploy aimed at diverting attention from Israel's increased settlement expansion, and further annexation of, the West Bank.
Such as?
And what 'real history' is that? The 'history' that you saw one time on Youtube? Or was that the 'history' you saw one time in a Steven Spielberg movie? No, I take sides with a people who are undergoing an illegal military occupation, and who are victims of a 45 year old ethnic cleansing campaign and land-grab by a state run by racist lunatics. Sure, I should just listen to you instead, right?
Of course you are.
1967 - Israel attacked Egypt and Syria
1982 - The Israeli invasion of Lebanon
1993 - The Oslo Accords - The settler population increased from 250,000 to 380,000 during the Oslo years, while Israel confiscated, all told, nearly half the land surface of the West Bank. And which ultimately led to the second Palestinian intifada. Some peace!
2005 - End of the second Intifada which was sparked by Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount, and subsequent killing of Palestinian protestors, and countless war crimes. Withdrawal of settlers from Gaza and their relocation in illegal settlements in the West Bank, along with a huge overall increase in West Bank settlement expansion.
2008 - Israeli invasion of Gaza in which over 1,600 civilians were murdered, including over 400 children.
Anyway, you're the one pretending to be in possession of the 'real history', so why don't you answer my question?
Provide me an example of when, and how, Israel offered peace.
Provide me an example of how Israel offered peace in 1967.
I can stand here and say yes, does Israel have a fault in the the situation today? Yes, yes they do. But are the Arab nations not responsible for the Israelie occupancy today? Yes, yes they are. You wave a flag of innocent Palistinians, but you disregard how this situation came to be.
My problem with peope such as yourself, are that you find anything and everything to blame Israel. You refuse to accept any sort of responsibility or how things got to where they are at. You just take a sympathetical side and defend it to the end.
And why do you keep side stepping Black September? I mean a person such as yourself that will always quote this or that, post an article link, ect ect, I've brought up black September twice and you just disregard it. Is it because you haven't come across an article that supports your ideas?
Do you really think this is about land? Do you honestly believe that if Israel left Gaza and the West Bank that will end all conflicts? Answer that one for me please.
Israel offered land in 1967? Really? Israel offered land in 1982, 93, 95, 05, and 08? No it didn't. It did nothing of the sort.
You don't know what you're talking about. You think the Palestinians are responsible for having their land stolen from them, and for having undergone 60 years of ethnic cleansing? That's interesting. Now go ahead and explain why. I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinian terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
And you still haven't answered my question. I asked you to provide an example of when Israel offered peace. I didn't ask for a list of numbers. I asked for an example of when Israel offered peace. I'm still waiting. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
Do you support ethnic cleansing?
You said those quotes I posted by Israeli leaders are out of context. I asked you to prove that they're out of context. So why haven't you? Or were you just talking more shit?
Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, and quit trying to be a smart arse? Can't you see that you're just making a fool of yourself?
I asked you a simple question. I've asked it about five times now. I asked you to provide an example of when Israel has offered peace. So why don't you answer my question? Don't tell me to Google it. You fucking Google it. You claimed that Israel offered peace and I asked you to provide an example. If you can't back-up what you say then quit spouting shit.
All you've done is post opinions. Opinions and fantasies. And so far I've countered all of your opinions and fantasies with facts and with source material.
And yet you continue spouting more gibberish and talk about ' real history', e.t.c.
When are you gonna provide an example of when Israel offered peace? I've asked you repeatedly to back-up your comment, and yet you're still ducking and evading it. Why is that?
Anyone can wade into a message board spouting shit and criticizing others for backing up what they say with facts.
Maybe he thinks someone reading his bullshit will be impressed?
That is my point exactly. You are upset about anything you think that Israel does, but anything that Palestinians have done, so what? Right, that doesn't matter, but let's just judge Israel.
You are a hypocrite. You will defend any action against Israel and dismiss it, but oh no, watch out, any action that Israel takes is just not right.
I'm not going to sit here and post links amongst links amongst links to justify my point. You've already shown your true colors and how you view the situation.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
That is just perfect, and sums up why it's pointless to try and have any conversation with you.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Just one last time. Seriously, listen to yourself.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
I just find that hilarious. Nothing like killing some Olympians in a different country, but that's okay. That has nothing to do with anything. That was okay, cause we all know Olympians are just bad people. It's shit like that, and your mentality about it that makes me support Israel more and more. You Palestinian supporters just dismiss any wrong action that y'all have taken.
"I haven't side-stepped anything. Some Palestinians terrorists killed some Israeli hostages at the Olympics. So what? So what does that have to do with anything?"
Sorry, just one last time. Such a great quote.
I asked you to explain why you think the Palestinians are responsible for being occupied and for having their land stolen from under their feet. You still haven't answered my question. Why do you support ethnic cleansing? Are you racist?
What action against Israel did I defend?
Nobody asked you to post links amongst links amongst links. You made the claim that Israel offered peace and land in '67, '82, 93, '95, 05, and '08. I asked you to provide one example of it offering peace but you haven't, because you can't, because you don't know what you're talking about. My question was perfectly legitimate. You chimed into this discussion on the previous page trying to justify and excuse Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. And since then you've been spouting more of the same shit. What does Black September have to do with Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing? Nothing, other than that it's a symptom of 45 years of oppression and violence. So what?
What do you think about the Israeli's shooting unarmed children dead? What do you think about Israel shooting unarmed 13 year old schoolgirls dead, and women and children waving white flags? What do you think about the Israeli's bombing residential areas, dropping white phosphorous on residential areas, shooting medical personnel, bombing schools, hospitals, and U.N safe houses, bulldozing houses while the occupants are still inside, shooting peace activists dead - Tom Hurndall, Rachel Corrie - carrying out torture, using Palestinians as human shields, e.t.c.?
Nope. That is you and how you feel about it. Don't try and justify your words. Maybe you are better off cherry picking quotes and posting links as opposed to when you actually express something in your own words.
My question was asking what it had to do with the discussion. You don't even realise that you're making a fool of yourself. Even a ten year old with basic English comprehension could see what my question 'So what?' was asking.
How old are you? My guess is that you're probably not much older than 10.