naiveté

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Meuge
By such evil means as purchasing it. OMFGzorz, the evil jews are purchasing our land!

You think the Palestinians sold it so they could be refugees?

Israel's responsibility for Refugees - The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more than half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres [of civilians] as was the case in Lydda, Ramleh, Dawimiyya, Sa'sa, Ein Zietun and other places. Expulsion also was accompanied by rape, looting and confiscation [of Palestinian land and property]...

"For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished...I can't bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Beduins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming it for their own...I can't do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the whole lot go to hell without me." Israeli actress (and household name) Rivka Mitchell, quoted in Israeli peace movement periodical, "The Other Israel", August 1998.


Source


Historically at which point?

At which point weren't they?


 

beyoku

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2003
1,568
1
71
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Both do. Palestine uses suicide bombers, Israel uses tanks and aircraft. Regardless of method, the innocents are no less dead.

ownage...
 

euknemarchon

Junior Member
Feb 27, 2006
6
0
0
Yeah...if one can't see the difference between suicide bombers and tanks, something is wrong.

Why can't we all just let them shoot it out if they're so stuck on expelling the other? If the Jews want to own their holy land and the Palestinians want to own the land too, let them duke it out. The only thing I'm willing to get angry over is if the US is actually *giving* Israel money and not selling outdated military equipment.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
flavio

Did it ever occur to you that the Arab countries triggerred the Israel military response that led to the occupation.

Had the Arab countries followed through on their agreements to grow the Palestinians as a state; Isreal would have been at the original size. The refugee problem would have been much much smaller if it existed and most would have been voluntarily.

Israel expanded their borders in response to previous Arabs attacks were repelled and the Arab countries broken promises to leave Israel alone (ie. suing for peace when their attackes were repelled and Israel was getting the upper hand in the conflicts.)

The Palestinians were caught in the middle and used as pawns by the Arab countries after the Arabs gave up tryng to overrun Israel. And they still being used by some of the more radical Arab/Muslim nations as well as wealthy instigators.


 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: euknemarchon
Yeah...if one can't see the difference between suicide bombers and tanks, something is wrong.
Innocent people are dead. Why does it matter whether they were killed by a tank shell or a bomb vest? Dead is dead.
Why can't we all just let them shoot it out if they're so stuck on expelling the other? If the Jews want to own their holy land and the Palestinians want to own the land too, let them duke it out. The only thing I'm willing to get angry over is if the US is actually *giving* Israel money and not selling outdated military equipment.
Because as stated above, innocent people who aren't the ones behind the killing are getting caught in between.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: flavio
They by various means forced Palestinians from their land and claimed it as their own.
By such evil means as purchasing it. OMFGzorz, the evil jews are purchasing our land!
Originally posted by: flavioPalestinians had vastly outnumbered Jews in the area historically.
Historically at which point? When they were systematically chased out and/or murdered? Sure.

As for others, while your demagogy is entertaining, it's nonetheless as empty as the words of the OP.
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
but jsut by remaining there, they are being more antagonistic than palestine could ever be
And your presence is damn antagonistic to the tens of millions of dead American Indians. Maybe the entire white/black/hispanic population of the U.S. should get up and leave. After all, in 1500, the American Indians outnumbered the settlers.

Of course American Indians are consider citizens of this country can't say the same about isreal.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
flavio

Did it ever occur to you that the Arab countries triggerred the Israel military response that led to the occupation.

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
The strong have land, the weak don't.

Ask the Native Americans. I'm sure they have a few choice words about this.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
whatever sympathy i have for the palestinians is outweighed by a few things:

1) The Palestinians from what i understand actually were given a state that co-existed with Israel, but they chose to attack Israel to drive the Jews off the land and claim it for themselves. They failed.

2) Many militant Palestinians refuse to make peace with Israel, and vow with good credibility to wipe it out. Even now that Hamas has some territory in Israel and has won elections, it has refused to renounce violence. Since it is obvious that Israel will not give up the land (for both practical and religious reasons), both sides have to respect Israel's right to exist.

3) while the Arabs are always willing to publicize the Palestinians' plight, why have they not taken them in? why do they not give them a region or land so that they are not nationless?

I am not excusing Israel's disturbing lethal response to Palestinian violence, but it is certainly true that Israel has to do daily what few (if any) nations have to do today: justify its existence against ever-hostile enemies.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,619
409
126
Quoting Gandhi on Israel - Palestine crises serves no purpose.

Gandhi was no saint, he was busy trying to appease the muslims into joining the freedom struggle against the British. He failed miserably on both counts. Instead of the Muslims living in India peacefully with the Hindus, they (the muslims) managed to demand partition of the nation and got it as well (thanks to Gandhi's appeasement)

By the way, how much percentage of the middle-east does Israel occupy????


Israel has offered plenty of concessions to the Palestines to create their own state, no it was their insistence on the destruction of Israel which has driven them to this position.

The current conflict is the direct result of the Palestanians use of violence.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
flavio

Did it ever occur to you that the Arab countries triggerred the Israel military response that led to the occupation.

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
The 67 conflict was a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
With Egypt increasing their forces; Israel did not want to take a chance on being caught unprepared.
Given the Arab track record before and afterwards; they were correct.

Had the Arabs not attacked again in '73 on the Jewish holiday; Israel may have been willing to accept the so called "pre '67" borders. However, again the Arabs getting gready, shot themselves in the foot.

After that point; it was easier for the Arabs politically to turn their agrevations and frustrations over to their proxy cannon fodder.

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Braznor
Quoting Gandhi on Israel - Palestine crises serves no purpose.

Gandhi was no saint, he was busy trying to appease the muslims into joining the freedom struggle against the British. He failed miserably on both counts. Instead of the Muslims living in India peacefully with the Hindus, they (the muslims) managed to demand partition of the nation and got it as well (thanks to Gandhi's appeasement)

Do you find fault with his logic?

By the way, how much percentage of the middle-east does Israel occupy????

What does that have to do with anything?


Israel has offered plenty of concessions to the Palestines to create their own state, no it was their insistence on the destruction of Israel which has driven them to this position.

What concessions?

If people came to your country, kicked you off your land, and then sectioned off a part to call their own what would you think of their new country?

The current conflict is the direct result of the Palestanians use of violence.

Not Israeli vilence? How so?

 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The 67 conflict was a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
With Egypt increasing their forces; Israel did not want to take a chance on being caught unprepared.
Given the Arab track record before and afterwards; they were correct.

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

The history of Israeli expansionism

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Expansionism - continued

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

Expansionism - continued

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

What happened after the 1967 war ended?

"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.
Source....

Had the Arabs not attacked again in '73 on the Jewish holiday; Israel may have been willing to accept the so called "pre '67" borders. However, again the Arabs getting gready, shot themselves in the foot.
Why do you think that?
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Israel breaks UN mandates and international law at will and with massive military aid and vast amounts of money from the US now illegally occupies parts of several arab countries. Now the arabs don't like the jews and because the US is aiding them anti-american sentiment is born.

So did the Israelis just one day decided to occupy all these lands without any provocation?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
you cannot argue the history of that region of the world with somebody who does not understand the history.

Flavio you are totally 100% wrong. On all accounts.

 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
you cannot argue the history of that region of the world with somebody who does not understand the history.

Flavio you are totally 100% wrong. On all accounts.
You can still argue with someone who doesn't understand the history. You can't argue with someone who is determined to use history in order to prove their point, even if he has to misrepresent facts, or flat-out lie.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Looney

So did the Israelis just one day decided to occupy all these lands without any provocation?


Just read the quotes in my last post.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
you cannot argue the history of that region of the world with somebody who does not understand the history.

Flavio you are totally 100% wrong. On all accounts.

Pretty solid logic and evidence you present there. I'm totally convinced.

Originally posted by: Meuge
You can still argue with someone who doesn't understand the history. You can't argue with someone who is determined to use history in order to prove their point, even if he has to misrepresent facts, or flat-out lie.

Sure you can. All you have to do is provide proof of your point. You can't argue with someone that makes baseless accusations and doesn't understand concepts of debate, logic, evidence, etc.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Meuge
Arguing with you is wasted effort... that's why nobody is doing it.

I see people debating with me. You however aren't doing it because your claims are baseless.

Pretty fresh cop out you used there though. I bet nobody's seen that one before.

 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Meuge
Arguing with you is wasted effort... that's why nobody is doing it.

I see people debating with me. You however aren't doing it because your claims are baseless.

Pretty fresh cop out you used there though. I bet nobody's seen that one before.
I don't see people arguing with you. I see a couple of people who are equally biased agreeing with you. The people who'd argue for the other site are conspicuously absent in this thread... and it's not because they are afraid of you.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
you cannot argue the history of that region of the world with somebody who does not understand the history.

Flavio you are totally 100% wrong. On all accounts.

The point if this thread was to ellaborate, not act the part of an elitist who simply denounces without proof.

 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Meuge
Arguing with you is wasted effort... that's why nobody is doing it.

I see people debating with me. You however aren't doing it because your claims are baseless.

Pretty fresh cop out you used there though. I bet nobody's seen that one before.
I don't see people arguing with you. I see a couple of people who are equally biased agreeing with you. The people who'd argue for the other site are conspicuously absent in this thread... and it's not because they are afraid of you.

Why is it that they are absent.


I am here to learn and peopel are using excuses to hurt the credibility of others rather than attempting to refute.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |