History of Palestine

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dilly1

"presentation of evidence"

Might I suggest a remedial reading class? YOU presented the evidence for me. Try reading it again, with that in mind.

I bet it still gets lost on you.

What evidence have you presented? Islamic scripture,,,,,, oh please

You choose to ignore my logical perception of history.

OK, young grasshopper - try to keep up with me. You seem unable to follow the conversation, and if you can't catch up, then the conversation is over. Let's walk backwards through it.

You ask what evidence I have presented, as if I had claimed to have presented evidence somewhere. I made no such claim, nor have I presented evidence. YOU have presented the evidence to support my point that you seem unable to separate the spiritual and the secular.

Nowhere have I presented Islamic "scripture" as evidence of any sort - I DIDI, however suggest that you go to it as the primary source to answer your questions concerning how anyone knew how Muslims treated Jews "back in the day". It's not a presentation of evidence, it's a suggestion that you do some reading, and see just what the Muslims "back in the day" had to say about the matter THEMSELVES, writing it at the time of occurrence.

As far as your "logical perception of history" goes, I believe I will trust the histories written at the time over your "logical perceptions", which tend not to display all that much logic.

Young grasshopper!! Awesome,,lol

Stop it already with the separation crap! Jesus!. Its ok Leo we won't agree. To me judaism is everything compressed. They are unique and jews know it. You want to dissect everything. That's your prerogative

I'm still laughing about the "young grasshopper". I'm seriously considering changing dilly1. It sounds native american. Lol

So let me get this strait,,,,You didn't present muslim sources but you instead suggested it?? WOW ,, have you ever tried "Eharmony"? You need some company pronto!

All I do is read. The problem here is you believe everything you read literally. What you should do is gather as much gnosis as possible and then make a logical perception without being so subjective.


In your case You're a typical Hellenistic Christian(Anti-Objective).


Send more insect names,,,,oh and your sweet memos.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ur missing the point bro. You have been divided and conquered. You use the term "jew" quite loosely. |f i were to do so i would be called a jew hater.

It's not the Jews causing the problems, it's the Zionists.

History of Palestine has been raped.

BS u all say, please leave this post up.

I apply the word "Jew" specifically as a religious term. I find it incomprehensible to try to extend it to a physical race, although I have had the unfortunate experience of having met some folks who do that, rather vociferously and strenuously, in a most unpleasant manner.

They use other, less pleasant, terms interchangeably with it, but it all means the same thing to them.

Applying the term "Jew" to a race is like speaking of the "Baptist Race". What race are Methodists?

Zionists neither concern nor scare me even a little bit. I've met REAL dangers. "Zionists" can't manage to break the Top 10.

Those same folks I mentioned above? They use terms like "Zionist" and "ZOG" when they are in mixed company, and realize the other "less charitable" terms they use will earn them an ass kicking. It all means the same thing, and I have no use for those sorts.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Ur missing the point bro. You have been divided and conquered. You use the term "jew" quite loosely. |f i were to do so i would be called a jew hater.

It's not the Jews causing the problems, it's the Zionists.

History of Palestine has been raped.

BS u all say, please leave this post up.

I apply the word "Jew" specifically as a religious term. I find it incomprehensible to try to extend it to a physical race, although I have had the unfortunate experience of having met some folks who do that, rather vociferously and strenuously, in a most unpleasant manner.

They use other, less pleasant, terms interchangeably with it, but it all means the same thing to them.

Applying the term "Jew" to a race is like speaking of the "Baptist Race". What race are Methodists?

Zionists neither concern nor scare me even a little bit. I've met REAL dangers. "Zionists" can't manage to break the Top 10.

Those same folks I mentioned above? They use terms like "Zionist" and "ZOG" when they are in mixed company, and realize the other "less charitable" terms they use will earn them an ass kicking. It all means the same thing, and I have no use for those sorts.

You find it incomprehensible extending the Jew word with a physical race?? That's right Hermit Gerard,,, there are so many black jews in this world. In fact there are more black jews than black christian and black muslims.

Really,,Its ok to step outside your bubble. Life isn't that harsh.


You talk about Zionist as if its a rival gang giving a hoot about special'ol you. Like your so important. You are insignificant like the rest of us. We are nothing to the Zionist elite. If they wanted you dead,you would be dead.

"Zionist don't scare me",,,oh please,,,,,you wouldn't know where to begin in knowing who are the Zionist .

**(Watch everyone Leo will now return to his bubble and try to learn everything about the Zjews)

Who's in your top 10? Young grasshoppers?


"Those same folks I mentioned above" ,," ass kicking" ?? What?

Here you go again Gerard. You love to predict hypotheticals. Again typical Helenistic Christian.

Originally posted by dilly1

For the love of Hedes,,,who cares if it 610 or 622 or 632ad. I still made my point.

Did you? What was it?

You actually think you're educating me.

No, I really don't. I'm old enough to know that some folks are just plain uneducateable.

Aahhh ,,, Metaphysics, the world of fantasy. Its not that I am disallowing a religion to anyone. lol...jews are the snobs of the world. You don't want to accept that. You literally blindly believe holy scripture(from wherever) as a description of what happened in history.

I don't believe I've stated anywhere my faith in "holy scripture". If have, this would be a good place to point that post out to me.

"Snobs of the world"? "Racially predisposed to vice".. etc, etc. I get it, I get it - you hate Jews. Is there a chance of getting beyond that? If we can't get beyond it, can you at least leave it out of a post here and there, and discuss something of impact?

Originally posted by dilly1

Stop it already with the separation crap! Jesus!. Its ok Leo we won't agree. To me judaism is everything compressed. They are unique and jews know it.

Yes, I know. This ain't my first rodeo with people of those sorts of "thoughts".

I'm still laughing about the "young grasshopper". I'm seriously considering changing dilly1. It sounds native american. Lol

There is a stream in the mountains of Virginia named "Dilly Branch". Your moniker at first reminded me of that place. It's not "native american". It was named after a woman named Dilly who lived on the banks of that stream around the time of the Civil War. She was an African Slave, not a "native american".

Nice of them to name a landmark after a slave, wasn't it?

All I do is read.

Imagine that - all that reading, and no absorption!

The problem here is you believe everything you read literally. What you should do is gather as much gnosis as possible and then make a logical perception without being so subjective.

You seem to not have a firm grasp on the difference between "subjective" and "objective". Your own internal "logical perceptions", without logical foundation, are "subjective". reading and understanding the primary sources written at the time is "objective" - you have an external object to study, rather than internally making it up as you go along subjectively.

In your case You're a typical Hellenistic Christian(Anti-Objective).

I am neither a Hellene nor a Christian (nor a Jew, Muslim, or Animist for that matter), although I can read ancient Greek - but being able to read their language doesn't make me one.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dilly1

For the love of Hedes,,,who cares if it 610 or 622 or 632ad. I still made my point.

Did you? What was it?

You actually think you're educating me.

No, I really don't. I'm old enough to know that some folks are just plain uneducateable.

Aahhh ,,, Metaphysics, the world of fantasy. Its not that I am disallowing a religion to anyone. lol...jews are the snobs of the world. You don't want to accept that. You literally blindly believe holy scripture(from wherever) as a description of what happened in history.

I don't believe I've stated anywhere my faith in "holy scripture". If have have, this would be a good place to point that post out to me.

"Snobs of the world"? "Racially predisposed to vice".. etc, etc. I get it, I get it - you hate Jews. Is there a chance of getting beyond that? If we can't get beyond it, can you at least leave it out of a post here and there, and discuss something of impact?

I don't hate jews nor like any stereotypical group. My likes are based on a personal level. Kind of like what we are doing now.


In regards to the correct date for Islam,, just read a couple pages back and you will see my point. Don't be lazy now,, your doing such a wonderful job educating me,,on what I have no idea,, but I'm starting feel something between us.

Again your Helenistic mentality is clouding what your reading. If you believe the muslim scriptures that you "suggested" (not "presented" ,we wouldn't want the other readers to get confused now would we), are the crucial pieces of evidence that muslims roughed up jews before 1800 , then that is taking a source as fact without knowing its legitimacy.

Is it sinking in yet?


Again I don't hate jews. You are brainwashed , like the majority, to yell fire when the slightest hint of negativity is posted about jews. You have me all wrong.

Originally posted by dilly1

You find it incomprehensible extending the Jew word with a physical race?? That's right Hermit Gerard,,, there are so many black jews in this world. In fact there are more black jews than black christian and black muslims.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there, but you DO seem to be stuck on stupid as far as race goes.

Really,,Its ok to step outside your bubble. Life isn't that harsh.

Look who's talking! Have you hugged your ZOG today?

You talk about Zionist as if its a rival gang giving a hoot about special'ol you. Like your so important. You are insignificant like the rest of us. We are nothing to the Zionist elite. If they wanted you dead,you would be dead.

And you speak of them as if they are some sort of supernatural monsters who might hear you from their hiding places under your bed or in your closet! Zionist "Elite", and all they can manage to do is haggle over a 200 mile long strip of desert? Not all that "elite", if you ask me. I think if I were "elite", but for some odd reason unable to take over the world, I'd settle for somewhere more pleasant than Palestine to take over. maybe Tahiti.

"Zionist don't scare me",,,oh please,,,,,you wouldn't know where to begin in knowing who are the Zionist .

Of course I know who they are - they are the monsters under your bed and in your closet! No, they DON'T scare me. It's YOU, and a few others like you, who are constantly carrying on about "zionists". they obviously mean more to you than they do me. As far as your comment about them killing me if they wanted me dead goes, well, they'd be in good company wanting me dead, and wouldn't be the first to try to make it so. Some day, someone will get it done.

it won't be a "zionist", though - they're having too much fun scaring the crap out of YOU to bother with me.

Who's in your top 10? Young grasshoppers?

Nunya.

"Those same folks I mentioned above" ,," ass kicking" ?? What?

Yeah.

Stings, don't it?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dilly1

Stop it already with the separation crap! Jesus!. Its ok Leo we won't agree. To me judaism is everything compressed. They are unique and jews know it.

Yes, I know. This ain't my first rodeo with people of those sorts of "thoughts".

I'm still laughing about the "young grasshopper". I'm seriously considering changing dilly1. It sounds native american. Lol

There is a stream in the mountains of Virginia named "Dilly Branch". Your moniker at first reminded me of that place. It's not "native american". It was named after a woman named Dilly who lived on the banks of that stream around the time of the Civil War. She was an African Slave, not a "native american".

Nice of them to name a landmark after a slave, wasn't it?

All I do is read.

Imagine that - all that reading, and no absorption!

The problem here is you believe everything you read literally. What you should do is gather as much gnosis as possible and then make a logical perception without being so subjective.

You seem to not have a firm grasp on the difference between "subjective" and "objective". Your own internal "logical perceptions", without logical foundation, are "subjective". reading and understanding the primary sources written at the time is "objective" - you have an external object to study, rather than internally making it up as you go along subjectively.

In your case You're a typical Hellenistic Christian(Anti-Objective).

I am neither a Hellene nor a Christian (nor a Jew, Muslim, or Animist for that matter), although I can read ancient Greek - but being able to read their language doesn't make me one.

Well I'm glad we can agree to disagree.


I didn't mean Dilly1 sounded native american. I meant "young grasshopper"... Wow, you are so helenistic. Were you born in Rome and raised in Macedonia?



"No absorption" ? Lol

I don't have a firm grasp??. Let's see, you absorb one sided info and immediately brand it as fact. That's being subjective my Archaic friend.

I want all the sides, not just one or two ,I want all the facts and opinions,,, being objective. You ,not being patient, have already made up your mind. Like everyone else you imagine that Jews are the victim.


You choose to adopt blindly the Main Street Opinion of jews. I don't . The MSO is too convenient, its without logical foundation. Why?,,because the MSO has been fabricated by the Zionist Elitist. Again you don't believe that, since your not scared of anyone.


Wooow, you can read Archaic. Did you use that for Eharmony? I think it would work.

You still think like one

Originally posted by dilly1

I don't hate jews nor like any stereotypical group. My likes are based on a personal level. Kind of like what we are doing now.

My mistake. It must have been the whole "racially predisposed to vice" thing, and stuff like that. I mistook that sort of commentary for "stereotyping" along racial lines. Remind me - what IS "stereotyping" again?

In regards to the correct date for Islam,, just read a couple pages back and you will see my point.

If you HAD a point, and couldn't make it then, it cannot have been important enough for me to do a bit of textual archaeology to try and decipher it if you can't even explain what it was yourself.

If you believe the muslim scriptures that you "suggested"... are the crucial pieces of evidence that muslims roughed up jews before 1800 , then that is taking a source as fact without knowing its legitimacy.

Point One: they are only "scriptures" to Muslims - and apparently you.

Point Two: I think it's fair to take what they wrote as they were doing it as more relevant than your "logical perceptions based upon... I dunno, your "feelings" or something.

Is it sinking in yet?

Well, something appears to be sinking...

Again I don't hate jews. You are brainwashed , like the majority, to yell fire when the slightest hint of negativity is posted about jews. You have me all wrong.

Sure I do.

All I've got to go on is what you yourself have written.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by dilly1

I don't hate jews nor like any stereotypical group. My likes are based on a personal level. Kind of like what we are doing now.

My mistake. It must have been the whole "racially predisposed to vice" thing, and stuff like that. I mistook that sort of commentary for "stereotyping" along racial lines. Remind me - what IS "stereotyping" again?

In regards to the correct date for Islam,, just read a couple pages back and you will see my point.

If you HAD a point, and couldn't make it then, it cannot have been important enough for me to do a bit of textual archaeology to try and decipher it if you can't even explain what it was yourself.

If you believe the muslim scriptures that you "suggested"... are the crucial pieces of evidence that muslims roughed up jews before 1800 , then that is taking a source as fact without knowing its legitimacy.

Point One: they are only "scriptures" to Muslims - and apparently you.

Point Two: I think it's fair to take what they wrote as they were doing it as more relevant than your "logical perceptions based upon... I dunno, your "feelings" or something.

Is it sinking in yet?

Well, something appears to be sinking...

Again I don't hate jews. You are brainwashed , like the majority, to yell fire when the slightest hint of negativity is posted about jews. You have me all wrong.

Sure I do.

All I've got to go on is what you yourself have written.

Here you go again taking every little detail literally. When I say Ashkenazi jews or jews: I don't mean every jew. That's ignorant and illogical. For some reason you want to brand me as anti-semitic or an ignorant fool ... And For some reason you assume that you know jewish history, which you do in regards to the typical "MSO" of jewish history. You ignore the suppressed history of the ashkenazi jews from khazaria. Again,,,which you tend to disregard has fact.


Dude seriously , I even explained it in the previous post. Your muslim sources? Ring a bell? Probably(assuming) written in 7 century a.d. (That's why I said who care for the exact date of when Islam started); meaning anything written that long ago was probably written with an agenda(hence the old and new testament). I don't believe, the christian jesus existed nor the muslim Muhammad existed per'se; they are part of a old Myth. Pure fabrication. So I have a strong mistrust from biblical sources or scriptures or scrolls of any faith.


I suggest you read "Forged" by Robert D. Ehrman,,,,its a great read and I guarantee you it will open your eyes.

Your "point one" is super vague. Why don't you dumb it down for stupid people like myself.

Your "point two": you think its fair to take something written thousands of years ago as something legit. It isn't . Common misconception amongst the masses. My logical opinion is based on my opinions and theories and the main ingredient LOGIC. To say jews are always the victim is illogical.


I think it will never sink in . Its too late for Gerard. You said it yourself you're old and speak Archaic, have an array of knowledge that surpasses all of us, especially me right.. Your too deep into the main street history. The idea of it being forged or manipulated is too great for you.... I know a guy who sells pacemakers with a swell payment plan.



Try being a bit more objective and a little less Helenistic.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Link

Here is a list of the various terrorist attacks committed by Arab rioters/terrorists against Jewish communities, the first occurring 28 years before Dir Yassin.

In fact, 7 major attacks were made on Jewish communities until the definitive response of Dir Yassin by the only Jewish paramilitary unit - Irgun - with autonomy to act.

Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences

Amazing that this appears so low on the list. But of course - who was responsible for Dir Yassin? The Jewish UNDERGROUND. The non-establishment (before '48, when Irgunists like Begin and others took on government positions), the ones who didn't have the "authority" to act on behalf of the Jewish people.

The Hagana/IDF has always been the proxy of the western establishment. Look at what they did with the Altalena. Amazing. In the midst of war with the Arabs, Ben Gurion and his goons decided to attack other Jews, Jews who were TRYING TO SUPPLEMENT the Israeli armory, which the Americans tried to undermine with trumans blockade of weapon shipments to the middle east.

So I don't care whats in the report by the IDF. The IDF is demented. The Leftist establishment too absorbed in moral relativism, and an indecisiveness about it's own presence in Israel, a presence that is questioned today in 'post zionist' circles.

I guess you will discard or ignore this evidence simply because it is not in allignment with your ideological position, but as a rational person with no ideology guiding my view in this conflict I will accept it.

Why not analyze the facts for yourself? This report is tinged with bias - ironically - against Israel. How many attacks did Israel duffer before the 1947 Dir Yassin debacle? The Arabs had that coming.

but this was not one of the major causes of the Palestinian exodus.

The major cause was the Arabs rejection of UN law - the 1947 partition. If they accepted it, they would have the majority of the land called Israel today. They rejected it, because they didn't want Israel period. Why can't you understand this? It's so simple. I don't care about the various factions - commis, islamic radicals, pro-western democrats, they all can agree on one issue - their hate for Zionism.

Look at what Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were dealing with prior to '67. They were up to each other throats meddling with each others internal affairs. But when it came to act against Israel, they ignored their differences and coalesced. And - just to add - just as Truman sought to undermine Israel in '47, De Gaulle did the same in '67.

For further reading, check out '6 days of war' by Michael Oren.

negotiations centred around the Arabs reclaiming control of the areas entitled to a Palestinian state in the Partition plan.

What are you talking about? Is this before or after the fact that they rejected the partition plan and killed 6000 Israelis? You can't go back. This isn't monopoly!

And no, I wasn't lying. I'm extrapolating from what the Arabs have done. And in fact, a few Arabs, such as Zuheir Mohsen, made it perfectly clear what the Arabs ultimately desire - one grand Arab state, from the west of North Africa to the Gulf states.. The post colonialist creations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt etc - all this is arbitrary. Everyone who knows anything about the middle east knows this.

That is the equivalent statement of me proffesing my support for Palestinian terrorism

HUH? Palestinian terrorists ACTIVELY seek to kill Israelis. Settlers do not. At most, they carry guns for self defense.

Equating the two is akin to equating a thought to kill with the action of killing. They are morally different. The settlers have no desire to start problems. The lands in Judea and Samaria that they settle, are more or less vacant and empty.

And a note on rock throwing: Maybe someone should throw a rock at you and see how you like it. Rocks can become weapons. If I were to throw a rock at someone, and they die - that's murder. Many Israeli's have been killed because of rock attacks. Some, have had rocks thrown at their cars while driving that caused serious car accidents that left many dead. It's DANGEROUS - and if a settler responds with gun shots because someone threw a rock at them, maybe that someone should have thought before he decided to throw a rock at someone with a gun.

reply to post by dontreally


You are a joke. You reject IDF reports when it suits you, yet you would accept the same report if it did suit you. Instead you focus entirely on far-right, ultra-Zionist sources. Sorry, but any logical person on ATS can see through your unrelenting bias. As per usual I see you blaming leftists.

Why not analyze the facts for yourself?

Please show me your so called "analysis". No doubt your report would be tinged with bias. The fact is the IDF report is not tinged with bias, but the facts point against Israel. So it is not the analysis which is biased but rather the facts.

But when it came to act against Israel, they ignored their differences and coalesced.

Not at all true. The Saudi's, even with Israel as a common enemy. were always at the throat of the Hashemites, as were they with the secualr-radical Arab regimes in Syria, Egypt and Iraq. Saudi Arabia only "coalesced" with Nasser Egypt to place the 67 oil embargo (which disintegrated almost as quick as it was put in place) only because of his influence in the Arab world. Jordan was always in the Syrians throats even when they fought together. Not to mention, the conservative regimes hated Algeria and Libya. This is a major reason why both the 48 and 67 wars failed. The leadership during the wars were never joint. For example Jordan refused to occupy territory designated to the Jewish state (a factor of the historic and close relationship between Jordan and Israel) untill Israel launched its offesive on Jerusalem. Jordanian lines of communication to Syria were virtually non-existent. Not to mention, that this Myth that all the Arabs fought against Israel is just what it is, a myth. Point to me the Saudi batallions, the Libyan, the Algerian, the Morrocan, the Kuwaiti. There were none.

None-the-less this isn't the point we are discussing and you are once again diverting the attention in this thread once I showed the causes of the Exodus.

the Arabs ultimately desire - one grand Arab state, from the west of North Africa to the Gulf states.

This is a myth, a joke. The last pan-Arabist, Gaddaffi is dead. Pan-Arabism was an ideal that only lasted a few breif years. The Arabs will never, and could never unify. There is way to much division among ethnic, religous and ideological lines. Not only can there be no single Arab state, but the Arab states existing currently can not surivive. Lebanon always seems to be on the brink of collapse, Iraq is almost once again in a state of civil war, Libya's 3 opposing tribes are still divided and the many militia's may tear the country apart. The pan-Arab state will never occur.

It's DANGEROUS - and if a settler responds with gun shots because someone threw a rock at them, maybe that someone should have thought before he decided to throw a rock at someone with a gun.

It's sad really. Settlers commonly throw all kinds of rocks and debris at Palestinians (especially in Jerusalem), yet if a Palestinian were to have shot back "in self defence", I am sure you would act outraged. Your bias is up to the point were it clouts your perspective. Settlements are the major defining issue for the Palestinians as terrorism is for the Israeli's.

Either way it is nice to see you show your true colours. You only except evidence when it is alligned with your ideological position. Benny Morris has the same ideological position as you, I guess you discredit the evidence he presents and the analysis he comes to as well?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

Link

Here is a list of the various terrorist attacks committed by Arab rioters/terrorists against Jewish communities, the first occurring 28 years before Dir Yassin.

In fact, 7 major attacks were made on Jewish communities until the definitive response of Dir Yassin by the only Jewish paramilitary unit - Irgun - with autonomy to act.

Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences

Amazing that this appears so low on the list. But of course - who was responsible for Dir Yassin? The Jewish UNDERGROUND. The non-establishment (before '48, when Irgunists like Begin and others took on government positions), the ones who didn't have the "authority" to act on behalf of the Jewish people.

The Hagana/IDF has always been the proxy of the western establishment. Look at what they did with the Altalena. Amazing. In the midst of war with the Arabs, Ben Gurion and his goons decided to attack other Jews, Jews who were TRYING TO SUPPLEMENT the Israeli armory, which the Americans tried to undermine with trumans blockade of weapon shipments to the middle east.

So I don't care whats in the report by the IDF. The IDF is demented. The Leftist establishment too absorbed in moral relativism, and an indecisiveness about it's own presence in Israel, a presence that is questioned today in 'post zionist' circles.

I guess you will discard or ignore this evidence simply because it is not in allignment with your ideological position, but as a rational person with no ideology guiding my view in this conflict I will accept it.

Why not analyze the facts for yourself? This report is tinged with bias - ironically - against Israel. How many attacks did Israel duffer before the 1947 Dir Yassin debacle? The Arabs had that coming.

but this was not one of the major causes of the Palestinian exodus.

The major cause was the Arabs rejection of UN law - the 1947 partition. If they accepted it, they would have the majority of the land called Israel today. They rejected it, because they didn't want Israel period. Why can't you understand this? It's so simple. I don't care about the various factions - commis, islamic radicals, pro-western democrats, they all can agree on one issue - their hate for Zionism.

Look at what Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan were dealing with prior to '67. They were up to each other throats meddling with each others internal affairs. But when it came to act against Israel, they ignored their differences and coalesced. And - just to add - just as Truman sought to undermine Israel in '47, De Gaulle did the same in '67.

For further reading, check out '6 days of war' by Michael Oren.

negotiations centred around the Arabs reclaiming control of the areas entitled to a Palestinian state in the Partition plan.

What are you talking about? Is this before or after the fact that they rejected the partition plan and killed 6000 Israelis? You can't go back. This isn't monopoly!

And no, I wasn't lying. I'm extrapolating from what the Arabs have done. And in fact, a few Arabs, such as Zuheir Mohsen, made it perfectly clear what the Arabs ultimately desire - one grand Arab state, from the west of North Africa to the Gulf states.. The post colonialist creations of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt etc - all this is arbitrary. Everyone who knows anything about the middle east knows this.

That is the equivalent statement of me proffesing my support for Palestinian terrorism

HUH? Palestinian terrorists ACTIVELY seek to kill Israelis. Settlers do not. At most, they carry guns for self defense.

Equating the two is akin to equating a thought to kill with the action of killing. They are morally different. The settlers have no desire to start problems. The lands in Judea and Samaria that they settle, are more or less vacant and empty.

And a note on rock throwing: Maybe someone should throw a rock at you and see how you like it. Rocks can become weapons. If I were to throw a rock at someone, and they die - that's murder. Many Israeli's have been killed because of rock attacks. Some, have had rocks thrown at their cars while driving that caused serious car accidents that left many dead. It's DANGEROUS - and if a settler responds with gun shots because someone threw a rock at them, maybe that someone should have thought before he decided to throw a rock at someone with a gun.

edit on 28-12-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Sorry for intruding , I know its not my place ,but I want to clarify that Zionism started after the 1800's. And the majority of these attacks in palestine happened after the 1800's.


Sorry to disturb, continue bashing each other.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

You reject IDF reports when it suits you, yet you would accept the same report if it did suit you

When the hell have I ever supported IDF reports?

Why don't you take the plank out of your own eye before you criticize me. You're the one who extolls the importance of international law, when the Arabs rejected the solution devised by the UN in it's 1947 partition plan, which would have given them their blessed homeland.

Unlike you, I have no gone on about IDF reports, and I don't think I have ever made recourse to IDF reports, while you are constantly yapping about the importance of respecting international law - but here, you ignore it.

Sorry, but any logical person on ATS can see through your unrelenting bias.

And you're a cheap political opportunist, probably in 'school' right now, learning how to become a lemming for the system.

As per usual I see you blaming leftists.

Well, the world is controlled by leftists. The UN is leftist, even America's right wing, is leftist i.e. look at Bohemian grove, with its pagan hellenistic statues of pan, nymphs, sylphs, statues of buddha (before 1895) which was later replaced by a stone owl - games? Fun? Ya #ing right. Maybe to the uneducated buffoon that explanation will suffice, but in reality, its the fact - that both parties serve a radical secular leftist agenda.

Zionism is even riddled with these people. I don't reject secularism, I might add. I just reject the political games played by the American-European establishment, in America, but mainly in Israel, with the secular leftist socialists, against real conservatives with spiritual values that oppose their agenda.

Please show me your so called "analysis". No doubt your report would be tinged with bias. The fact is the IDF report is not tinged with bias, but the facts point against Israel. So it is not the analysis which is biased but rather the facts.

So the 7 or so massacres against Jews before Dir Yassin has nothing to do with it? It's seems the IDF report puts most of the culpability on Israel. Ignoring the many different calamities Jews endured before their reprisal.

This is a major reason why both the 48 and 67 wars failed. The leadership during the wars were never joint.

Or, maybe the failure of Egyptian radar which led to the destruction of their main airfield had something to do with their loss in '67 - the loss of their airfields was a major blow which they never managed to recover from. Israel had control of the skies because of that. Syria had a weak air force, and for some reason, incompetent pilots.

he Arabs will never, and could never unify

And why not? What's the big obstruction standing in the way??

You really are incredibly naive if you think pan-arabism is a dead dream. It's THE DREAM. It's their ultimate vision - whether it be as an Islamic caliphate, or one large Democratic federation, I don't know, but I do know the differences are trivial and superficial compared to what Europe would have to deal with in their dream for a more unified European Union. At least there there are ACTUAL ethnic differences, in language and culture particularly. In the Arab world, petty differences stand in the way. Actually, differences derived from Colonialist influence, western democracy and Communism in particular.

It's sad really. Settlers commonly throw all kinds of rocks and debris at Palestinians (especially in Jerusalem), yet if a Palestinian were to have shot back "in self defence", I am sure you would act outraged.

And what reason would the Settlers have to throw rocks at palestinians? You really do eat up the popular leftist melodrama of a poor and defenseless arab boy being beaten by Jews. Fact is, if settlers do throw rocks, its in RESPONSE to Arab attacks.

Jews, and this is a psychological fact, are more or less pacific people. Their ancestral consciousness, or 'inherited' mental traits, aren't predisposed to violence the way the Arab is.

Look at all the violence between Arabs, and that will suffice in showing how true that is.

Settlements are the major defining issue for the Palestinians as terrorism is for the Israeli's.

I know settlements are the issue. They were an issue in 1921, when Arabs invaded Jaffa and killed 45 Jews, and in 1929, killed 133 Jews Hebron (more then Dir Yassin), and killed 20 Jews Safed...What do you think caused these massacres? Jewish SETTLEMENT.

The Arabs knew why the Jews were there. And they wanted to prevent it. They didn't want them in Jaffa, or Haifa, or Tel Aviv. The sheer notion of a self autonomous Jewish presence in the middle of the Arab and Muslim world was anathema to them.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Benny Morris has the same ideological position as you

In what world is Benny Morris an ardent die-hard Zionist?

According to Publishers Weekly, commenting on his book "righteous victims"

Like Avi Shlaim (see above), Morris is a revisionist historian working to deflate the heroic-romantic Zionist view of Israeli history

No, Benny Morris does not have the same position as me. You're understanding of Zionism seems to be very dim if you think He and I are intellectual friends. He's not even religious.

He like the other philosophically uncertain writers, damaged by the extremes of moral relativism, causes him to be a "Zionist", while condemning Zionism.

Who is he trying to win over with this sort of rhetoric??? It's damaging. Plain and simple.

You must know what Alinsky has to say on this matter. I don't agree with alinsky, I am absolutely opposed to his ideology, but his political pragmatism is common sense. If you're fighting for legitimization, you don't weaken your argument by pointing out the 'justice' of your opposition, and demonizing Zionism by using words such as "atrocities" "colonization" etc... You need to polarize your opposition, and at most, as a moral token, you make exceptions such as "it's unfortunate people have to die"...

Compromise will not happen. Read the Jewish state and imbibe its central message: The Jews have suffered persecution wherever they have gone. Even in those "benevolent" Muslim lands where they, like Christians, were accorded dhimmi second class status.

Rest assured, just as Iraq denies the rights of Kurds, any Arab state with Jewish residents would have their rights equally denied.

And yet you naively imagine the Arabs - who have spent 14 centuries Arabizing the Middle East and North Africa, don't have a larger Arab national agenda......

reply to post by dilly1


OK, well, that about says it all, so I reckon we're about done here.

I apologize for failing to recognize the absolute supremacy of your inner "perceptions" of events that were, in your own words, "thousands of years ago" over eyewitnesses to those same events.

Eye witnesses, I might add, who were not Jews, but rather who were subjugating Jews, right along with everyone else they met. I apologize also for not recognizing the "zionist agenda" of those early Muslims.

I don't know what I was thinking, trusting the reports of eye-witnesses and perpetrators over your "perceptions" of events. My mistake.

Have a nice life, and you are dismissed.

I'll just sit around and see if anyone wants to rake me over the coals with their "perceptions" of the Palestinian history, which is, after all, the alleged topic of the thread.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by dilly1

 

OK, well, that about says it all, so I reckon we're about done here.

I apologize for failing to recognize the absolute supremacy of your inner "perceptions" of events that were, in your own words, "thousands of years ago" over eyewitnesses to those same events.

Eye witnesses, I might add, who were not Jews, but rather who were subjugating Jews, right along with everyone else they met. I apologize also for not recognizing the "zionist agenda" of those early Muslims.

I don't know what I was thinking, trusting the reports of eye-witnesses and perpetrators over your "perceptions" of events. My mistake.

Have a nice life, and you are dismissed.

I'll just sit around and see if anyone wants to rake me over the coals with their "perceptions" of the Palestinian history, which is, after all, the alleged topic of the thread.

Talking about misunderstanding every angle. Or maybe you are the Twist Master. Congrats.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by dilly1

 

OK, well, that about says it all, so I reckon we're about done here.

I apologize for failing to recognize the absolute supremacy of your inner "perceptions" of events that were, in your own words, "thousands of years ago" over eyewitnesses to those same events.

Eye witnesses, I might add, who were not Jews, but rather who were subjugating Jews, right along with everyone else they met. I apologize also for not recognizing the "zionist agenda" of those early Muslims.

I don't know what I was thinking, trusting the reports of eye-witnesses and perpetrators over your "perceptions" of events. My mistake.

Have a nice life, and you are dismissed.

I'll just sit around and see if anyone wants to rake me over the coals with their "perceptions" of the Palestinian history, which is, after all, the alleged topic of the thread.

Talking about misunderstanding every angle. Or maybe you are the Twist Master. Congrats.

reply to post by BRAVO949


What Israel???

No, the Mayan calendar tells of the end of the age, not the world. It's the end of one age and the advent of the age of Aquarius to them.

That's pretty much it.