Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israeli E1 Settlement Plan

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    By the way, to all of those that are calling Netanyahu and the settlements the worst obstacle to peace:



    The above is a list of the yearly averages of settlement building beginnings, from highest to lowest.

    1) Ehud Barak, 1999-2001 - Labor: 4,292 begun
    2) Benjamin Netanyahu, 1996-1999 - Likud: 3,194 begun
    3) Shimon Peres, 1995-1996 - Labor: 2,443 begun
    4) Ariel Sharon, 2001-2006 - Likud/Kadima: 1,826 begun
    5) Ehud Olmert, 2006-2009, Kadima: 1,741 begun
    6) Benjamin Netanyahu, 2009-2012, Likud: 1,168 begun

    That's right, in the past 17 years, Netanyahu is not only the right-wing Prime Minister that built the least in the settlements, he's also overall, both right AND left wing the Prime Minister that build the least in the settlements over the last 17 years.

    Not only that, you'll notice that since 2001 not only was there a massive decrease between Ehud Barak's (left wing) numbers and Ariel Sharon's (right wing) numbers, but also that since 2001 the numbers have been dropping, all by right wing/centrist Prime Ministers.
    Attached Files
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
      Let's look at UN shall we, which says exactly that:

      (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

      Which means the UN has declared that Israel should be guaranteed that Israel's borders should be safe and secure from any and all threats.

      As to (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict:

      Note the two bolded words. Negotiations in the UN went on for days and we're extremely heated, backed on one side by the USA and the other by the USSR over two tiny little words: "all", and "the". In the end, the realization was that if 242 went ahead with the language of "from all the territories", then there would be no meaning to "secure and recognized boundaries", since the 1967 borders were far from secure. Keeping out those two words means that Israel will give up land for peace, but not everything they captured. To do that would be utter stupidity on Israel's part.
      Read them in order the way they were intended.


      How can Israel illegally annex something that belonged to nobody? East Jerusalem was under Mandate control, then annexed by Jordan,which wasn't recognized (aside from by the mandate), then captured from Jordan. If you can tell which which national entity from 1948 wants East Jerusalem, point them out, we'll talk. For the record, UNSC 478 is worthless, since the UN, and therefore UN resolutions, have no jurisdiction in Israel, they cannot declare whether something is illegal or not, nor can they declare that it is against international law, since international law itself is built on consensus. If there is no consensus, there is no law.
      BS, Israel as a member of the UN is party to its resolutions and actions.

      In other words: The statement "Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem is illegal" is not a statement of international law; it is an opinion on applying international law to a specific circumstance. By definition, "consensus" means that everyone agrees. (There are some specific exceptions, but the statement is generally accurate.)
      The consensus in this regard is the security council which has the legal power since it was invested with the authority to dispose of mandate territories by the LoN.

      You call it extortion, I call it right to survival, to secure borders, to live in peace and to defend itself. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
      Then don't bitch when the Palestinians invoke the same right.

      Let's put it in real world situations: You're walking by your lonesome when you are accosted by three really big guys and one small guy, and they try and mug you. They don't know that you are a black belt in karate, so you kick their asses for them and mug them instead. Now, seeing as how you live in the neighborhood with them, you don't really want to cause any trouble, so you decide "you know what, I'll give back most of what I took, so you know, they can actually feed their family".

      Now, this guy just lost 100% of their wallet. He can happily take back 80% of the contents, accepting that the 20% is a penalty for their attacking and move on. Or, as you suggest, he can stand there and keep whining to you that he wants all 100% of the contents of his wallet back, which means he ends up getting nothing.

      Remember, one of the guys whose wallet we took was willing to talk honestly with us and got back the entire contents of his wallet, and a coupla extra bucks we threw in as well. So why should the little guy keep whining and demanding 100% when he knows he's not gonna get it, instead of settling for the 80%? Most rational people would realize that they are better off with 80% of something than crying for 100% of nothing.
      Its still extortion and the refusal to be an honest partner for peace only encourages the little guy to keep trying to get his wallet back.


      Doesn't it really disappoint you, though, that your view of me as a rabid, extremist far-right rabble-rouser couldn't be farther from the truth? Doesn't it seem slightly surprising that between the two of us, I'm the one that's actually willing to take more steps towards peace, towards a real compromise that would bring about a lasting peace? Hell, I'm the one that's actually willing to compromise!!!
      You are a rabid right winger, you couch your positions in false moderation. You are not actually in favor of any concrete moves by Israel to be a partner for peace.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
        By the way, to all of those that are calling Netanyahu and the settlements the worst obstacle to peace:

        [ATTACH=CONFIG]31635[/ATTACH]

        The above is a list of the yearly averages of settlement building beginnings, from highest to lowest.

        1) Ehud Barak, 1999-2001 - Labor: 4,292 begun
        2) Benjamin Netanyahu, 1996-1999 - Likud: 3,194 begun
        3) Shimon Peres, 1995-1996 - Labor: 2,443 begun
        4) Ariel Sharon, 2001-2006 - Likud/Kadima: 1,826 begun
        5) Ehud Olmert, 2006-2009, Kadima: 1,741 begun
        6) Benjamin Netanyahu, 2009-2012, Likud: 1,168 begun

        That's right, in the past 17 years, Netanyahu is not only the right-wing Prime Minister that built the least in the settlements, he's also overall, both right AND left wing the Prime Minister that build the least in the settlements over the last 17 years.

        Not only that, you'll notice that since 2001 not only was there a massive decrease between Ehud Barak's (left wing) numbers and Ariel Sharon's (right wing) numbers, but also that since 2001 the numbers have been dropping, all by right wing/centrist Prime Ministers.
        Funny my calculator shows him having the highest numbers overall and second highest per term... 3194 + 1168 = 4362.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by zraver View Post
          You are a rabid right winger...
          Flaming intended to denigrate. A typical exemplar of why I avoid participating in I/P discussions here at the WAB.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Read them in order the way they were intended.
            Fine. The UN agrees that Israel should gave back some of the land it won in order to bring about peace that will include safe and secure borders for Israel.

            Doesn't make a difference what order you read it in, there is no proviso for Israel giving back ALL the land it won in 1967, without (ii) being null and void. It is a physical impossibility for Israel to give back every single inch of land and still have safe and secure borders. Can't happen, and therefore it won't happen.

            BS, Israel as a member of the UN is party to its resolutions and actions.
            And is also highly biased against in both UN General Assembly and UN Security Council Resolutions. Until the UN actually wants to back up its talking with an actual armed force that will take East Jerusalem and the West Bank away from Israel militarily, UN and UNSC resolutions are merely so many words written on so many pieces of paper. As I recall, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are also members of the UN and party to its resolutions and actions, to name but two. How did that go for the UN, I wonder? Have the Iranians stopped making nukes? Did Saddam stop his tyrannical rule before someone came in and threw him out?

            The UN is nice, in a perfect world. In reality, they are pretty much less than worthless.

            The consensus in this regard is the security council which has the legal power since it was invested with the authority to dispose of mandate territories by the LoN.
            There was no consensus and is no consensus, seeing as there is still at least one country (that's right, the US) that refuses to acknowledge East Jerusalem as "under occupation", rather is characterizes the sovereignity over East Jerusalem as "Undefined". To that end, they have abstained from any and all resolutions calling for anything otherwise. This goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration. Moreover, both the US Senate and Congress have passed bills calling for an undevided Jerusalem that is Israel's capital. There goes your consensus right there.

            Then don't bitch when the Palestinians invoke the same right.
            I don't, but I fail to see how suicide bombers and indiscriminately shooting rockets from residential areas at civilian population centers by armed personnel not wearing uniforms can be considered defending one's self. Once again, allow me to repeat: Israeli DEFENSE forces. The IDF only attacks when it must, and then only to defend Israeli civilians. We don't take joy or happiness in a higher body count, and we don't intentionally target civilians.

            Its still extortion and the refusal to be an honest partner for peace only encourages the little guy to keep trying to get his wallet back.
            How is it extortion if we won it fair and square? We're willing to give it back, or at least a large part of it, in return for a guarantee that they won't keep attacking us. Not only that, like I said before, I'm willing to give back 100% of the land they had, just a different 100%. They still will have the same exact amount of land they had before, just slightly different land, that will lead to less problems.

            How is it a refusal to be an honest partner for peace when A) We've had honest partners for peace in Egypt and Jordan and hey! Waddaya know, we have peace treaties! and B) 3 times since the year 2000 we've offered the Palestinians amazing deals offering them over 90% of what they wanted, and have still been turned down.

            You're now going to say that why should they settle for anything less than 100%. I'm going to say that because any rational person realizes that in NEGOTIATIONS both sides need to COMPROMISE so that both sides end up getting what they want. Whether in marriage/divorce proceedings, business negotations, settling arguments with your kids or deciding who gets the bigger half of the piece of cake. Everyone, everywhere, (except for you, apparently) realizes that when 2 people are arguing over the same thing, compromise is the way to go.

            You are a rabid right winger, you couch your positions in false moderation. You are not actually in favor of any concrete moves by Israel to be a partner for peace.
            A) Ad-hominem B) How do you know it's "false" moderations. C) Considering the face that in this thread I've laid out concrete moves towards what I believe is the best way towards achieving a lasting peace in the West Bank, I can only conclude that as the lovely lady said, you are flame-baiting merely for the sake of arguing. You are either incapable of or merely uninterested in reading what it is I have to say, just so you can keep repeating your same talking points over and over and over.

            I also notice that you have not really actually responded to the core of the discussion, at least as I see it:

            A) Settlements are bad and new settlements should not be built, neither should new Palestinian villages.
            B) The only building that should be allowed at all is for natural growth, and even that should be kept to as much of a minimum as possible.
            C) I've laid out a plan that will result in Palestinians getting the equivalent of everything they had on June 5, 1967, just in a different location, and in one contguous block of land.

            As far as I see it, you've declared that
            a) Settlements are bad, but Palestinian building is fine
            b) There should be no natural growth building on Israeli side, but the Palestinians can keep on building
            c) you've ignored that entirely

            and there's also
            d) the usual, standard vitriol against Israel, your absolute despisal of all things Israel and though I hate using this term, your extremely thinly-veiled anti-Semitism guised under your holier-than-thou veneer and claiming that you are merely anti-Israel.
            Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

            Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              Funny my calculator shows him having the highest numbers overall and second highest per term... 3194 + 1168 = 4362.
              Yes, because the situation 17 years ago, both the Israeli domestic political situation and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict situation, before the Second Intifada, before Camp David, before the Disengagement and before Cast Lead can be easily compared to the situation today.

              The point, since apparently you seem to purposefully want to make yourself more dense than we all know you really are, is that the world press and Obama have all said that Netanyahu and his settlement building are one of the main obstacles to peace. And yet, IN THIS TERM AS PRIME MINISTER (you know, just in case you didn't quite get it yet), despite all the hatred and poison being spewn at him, in reality he has started the least amount of building in the settlements out of all administrations in the past 17 years, yes, including his previous administration.

              I also like how once again, you ignore the part of the argument you have no response for. Here, let me repeat it for you:

              "Not only that, you'll notice that since 2001 not only was there a massive decrease between Ehud Barak's (left wing) numbers and Ariel Sharon's (right wing) numbers, but also that since 2001 the numbers have been dropping, all by right wing/centrist Prime Ministers."|
              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
                Flaming intended to denigrate. A typical exemplar of why I avoid participating in I/P discussions here at the WAB.
                Of course it is. Zraver is entirely incapable of getting into a debate without getting personal. Yes, before Z gets all high and righteous (which seems to be his natural outlook, doesn't it?), I have also lost my cool and my temper sometimes, but not half as much as Z does (nor is it my opening position and strategy to attack the person instead of the argument), and usually after events here in Israel, such as the Fogel family murder in Itamar.

                By the way, it's not just the Israeli/Palestinian stuff, either. Look up the Dojo fights between him and Dale, or more recently, the posts where Zraver calls Dale a pedophile with a slightly more than passing interest in bestiality.

                It's not his fault, I guess that's just the way he knows how to debate. It's a shame, really. I was always taught as a kid that when you start calling someone names, you've lost the argument because you've run out of good points to make....
                Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                Comment


                • #23
                  So, Ben...

                  You lost the argument, too?

                  (you know, just in case you didn't quite get it yet)
                  purposefully want to make yourself more dense than we all know you really are
                  No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                  To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Not at all. The first comment is there to make sure that he actually understand what it is we're debating, so he knows what to insult me about. The second comment is the exact opposite. We all know that Z can be a smart person, I'm wondering why he's trying to be the opposite.

                    Never once did I insult his intelligence or claim that he is something he is not
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                      Sure!

                      Israel is willing to give land back: Israel gave back the entire Sinai for peace with Egypt, including some very advanced military and naval bases, uprooted settlements and gave back the oil discoveries that were finally making Israel energy independent from the Arab countries.

                      We also gave back the Gaza Strip in 2005, but Z will argue that wasn't for peaceful purposes, so I'll leave that up to you.

                      land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians, cm^2 for cm^2: Have you looked at a map of the West Bank recently? It's a hodgepodge of Israeli settlements and Arab villages. The plan is twofold: 1) Find out what are the safest borders Israel can live with that takes the absolute least amount of land possible. 2) swap tracts of land between the Israelis and Palestinians, creating two contiguous blocks of land, one for the Israelis and one for the Palestinians. The Israeli one should connect to Israel proper, and the Palestinian one should include land that was traded for the secure borders that Israel now enjoys. Cm for cm, the Palestinians still have the same exact amount of land they had on June 5, 1967, just in slightly different areas.

                      Of course, this is only the cure for the West Bank. There is no real cure for Gaza, and there is no real hope for a two-state solution, since there is no real and valid way to connect Gaza and the West Bank without bisecting Israeli in two.
                      err, I thought you were talking about the west bank jewish settlements in the topic, like E-1. Is there a plan/map or something for the land swaps you are talking about?

                      Btw, Israeli prime minister just pledged not to make any settlers leave occupied West Bank if he wins Tuesday's general election.
                      Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements
                      Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has said no settlements in the occupied West Bank will be dismantled if he wins next week's general election.

                      In an interview with Israel’s Maariv newspaper published on Friday, Netanyahu was asked: "Can you promise that during the next four years, no settlement will be dismantled?"

                      "Yes," Netanyahu answered. "The days when bulldozers uprooted Jews are behind us, not in front of us. Our record proves it."

                      "We haven't uprooted any settlements, we have expanded them," he said, recalling that his government had established the first university in a settlement, in Ariel deep in the West Bank.

                      "Nobody has any lessons to give me about love for the Land of Israel or commitment to Zionism and the settlements."

                      Netanyahu was alluding to the strong opinion poll showing of the pro-settler Jewish Home party which has been championing accelerated settlement expansion and looks set to take seats from the prime minister's right-wing list in Tuesday's election.

                      Hanan Cristal, an Israeli public radio commentator, said Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party, had "in the final stretch of the election campaign, steered to the right on the question of settlements to try to woo Likud supporters tempted to vote for Jewish Home".

                      Opinion polls on Friday, the last day they are allowed be published before the election, showed the Likud-Yisrael Beitenu list winning 32-35 seats in the 120-member Knesset, down from 42 in the outgoing parliament.

                      Jewish Home was credited with 13-14, and the ultra-Orthodox Shas party 11-12.

                      The centre-left Labour party would win 16-17 seats and the centrist Yesh Atid and HaTnuah, 10-13 and 7-8, respectively.
                      Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
                      Gods Are Atheists - Atheists Are Gods

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sparking Neuron View Post
                        Btw, Israeli prime minister just pledged not to make any settlers leave occupied West Bank if he wins Tuesday's general election.

                        Netanyahu vows to not dismantle settlements - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
                        And Abbas along with the PA is regularly on record that Jerusalem is not Jewish, that it is and always has been an Arab/Islamic/Christian capital of Palestine.

                        Moderate Mahmoud Abbas: Israel's "Judaization" is stealing Jerusalem's "cultural, human, and Islamic-Christian religious history" - Jihad Watch

                        The statements of politicians of any ilk are nothing to do with BR's views on how peace can be attained.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                          Fine. The UN agrees that Israel should gave back some of the land it won in order to bring about peace that will include safe and secure borders for Israel.

                          Doesn't make a difference what order you read it in, there is no proviso for Israel giving back ALL the land it won in 1967, without (ii) being null and void. It is a physical impossibility for Israel to give back every single inch of land and still have safe and secure borders. Can't happen, and therefore it won't happen.
                          It doesn't say some, most, little etc it says territories et al. Now I am willing to and have conceded that giving back the Golan would be foolish and dangerous. However with the PA demilitarized and a peace treaty with Jordan, Israel has those secure defensible borders since there is no one to defend against.

                          And is also highly biased against in both UN General Assembly and UN Security Council Resolutions. Until the UN actually wants to back up its talking with an actual armed force that will take East Jerusalem and the West Bank away from Israel militarily, UN and UNSC resolutions are merely so many words written on so many pieces of paper. As I recall, Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are also members of the UN and party to its resolutions and actions, to name but two. How did that go for the UN, I wonder? Have the Iranians stopped making nukes? Did Saddam stop his tyrannical rule before someone came in and threw him out?
                          Funny that you link Israel policy on the level of Saddam, Ajad and Tyranny. Surprisingly, it looks like there is something you and Palestinians can agree on. As for why the UNGA votes against Israel, have you ever considered that maybe its due in part to Israeli policies that are openly racist?

                          The UN is nice, in a perfect world. In reality, they are pretty much less than worthless.
                          Israel is a member, if you don't like the UN pullout, otherwise obey the friggen law.

                          There was no consensus and is no consensus, seeing as there is still at least one country (that's right, the US) that refuses to acknowledge East Jerusalem as "under occupation", rather is characterizes the sovereignity over East Jerusalem as "Undefined". To that end, they have abstained from any and all resolutions calling for anything otherwise. This goes all the way back to the Clinton Administration. Moreover, both the US Senate and Congress have passed bills calling for an undevided Jerusalem that is Israel's capital. There goes your consensus right there.
                          Straight out lie there

                          Senator Paul Sarbanes: "Is it the present position of our Government that East Jerusalem is occupied territory?

                          Secretary Cyrus Vance: "That is the position, yes."

                          Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, March 20, 1980

                          US policy on weather or not Jerusalem has not changed.

                          As for consensus, there is not a single foreign embassy in Jerusalem, they are all in Tel Aviv- that is consensus. However, there is US a consulate in Jerusalem, it works with the PA not Israel.

                          I don't, but I fail to see how suicide bombers and indiscriminately shooting rockets from residential areas at civilian population centers by armed personnel not wearing uniforms can be considered defending one's self. Once again, allow me to repeat: Israeli DEFENSE forces. The IDF only attacks when it must, and then only to defend Israeli civilians. We don't take joy or happiness in a higher body count, and we don't intentionally target civilians.
                          Ask the surviving members of the Irgun, or read their memoirs. Oh, and the IDF does intentionally target civilians either through malice or incompetence. Every single "war" has examples of precision weapons hitting non-military targets. Most recently pasting an underground garage being used as a civilian bomb shelter.

                          How is it extortion if we won it fair and square? We're willing to give it back, or at least a large part of it, in return for a guarantee that they won't keep attacking us.
                          When was the last time the PA in the West Bank attacked you inside Israel? No attacks, yet nothign given back and more and more acres forever sealed off by expanding settlements.

                          Not only that, like I said before, I'm willing to give back 100% of the land they had, just a different 100%. They still will have the same exact amount of land they had before, just slightly different land, that will lead to less problems.
                          You know that is a BS argument. Would you accept it? Of course not. Would you trade for land and leave the land of your birth, as long as you got 100% in area of what you once had...

                          How is it a refusal to be an honest partner for peace when A) We've had honest partners for peace in Egypt and Jordan and hey! Waddaya know, we have peace treaties! and B) 3 times since the year 2000 we've offered the Palestinians amazing deals offering them over 90% of what they wanted, and have still been turned down.
                          You are not dealing with them honestly, We've been over this before.

                          You're now going to say that why should they settle for anything less than 100%. I'm going to say that because any rational person realizes that in NEGOTIATIONS both sides need to COMPROMISE so that both sides end up getting what they want. Whether in marriage/divorce proceedings, business negotations, settling arguments with your kids or deciding who gets the bigger half of the piece of cake. Everyone, everywhere, (except for you, apparently) realizes that when 2 people are arguing over the same thing, compromise is the way to go.
                          What is Israel willing to give up that is equally painful to them as what they demand the Palestinians give up? You demand the Palestinians give up East Jerusalem, what Jewish city are you willing to evacuate in trade? You won't even pull out the settlements.

                          A) Ad-hominem B) How do you know it's "false" moderations. C) Considering the face that in this thread I've laid out concrete moves towards what I believe is the best way towards achieving a lasting peace in the West Bank, I can only conclude that as the lovely lady said, you are flame-baiting merely for the sake of arguing. You are either incapable of or merely uninterested in reading what it is I have to say, just so you can keep repeating your same talking points over and over and over.
                          Because all of your conditions are premised on the Palestinians cosigning the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and annexation of Jerusalem.

                          I also notice that you have not really actually responded to the core of the discussion, at least as I see it:

                          A) Settlements are bad and new settlements should not be built, neither should new Palestinian villages.
                          Great example of false moderation, you want to limit the Palestinians building in thier land since the world community wants you to stop building in their land. You might have a leg to stand on if the Palestinians were throwing up settlements in Israel. They are not doing so, the only one building on some one elses land is Israel.

                          B) The only building that should be allowed at all is for natural growth, and even that should be kept to as much of a minimum as possible.
                          Its an excuse to continue building. The who natural growth argument falls on its face since Israel denies Palestinians the same rights.

                          C) I've laid out a plan that will result in Palestinians getting the equivalent of everything they had on June 5, 1967, just in a different location, and in one contguous block of land.
                          Where the middle of the Negev? That is no better than Arab calls for Israel to evac to the middle of the US. Because equivalent means equal in kind. You want them to give up East Jerusalem, what city are you going to give them in trade.

                          As far as I see it, you've declared that
                          a) Settlements are bad, but Palestinian building is fine
                          Its their land, they should be able to build when and where they want. It is not Jewish land. But I'll meet you half way, lets tear down and remove all settlements and block all new ones. No Palestinians settlements in Israel, no Israeli settlements in Palestine.

                          b) There should be no natural growth building on Israeli side, but the Palestinians can keep on building
                          c) you've ignored that entirely
                          See above.

                          and there's also
                          d) the usual, standard vitriol against Israel, your absolute despisal of all things Israel and though I hate using this term, your extremely thinly-veiled anti-Semitism guised under your holier-than-thou veneer and claiming that you are merely anti-Israel.
                          What vitriol against Israel? I've simply called a spade a spade. I've not called for any pogroms, not called for the destruction of Israel etc. Accusations of antisemitism is all you have, I've even seen you post articles from your right wing idols that say the same against those on the Left inside Israel. You have no valid legal, ethical or moral arguments, just firepower and obstinacy. In your world view no one can be for peace unless they give you every piece of Palestine you want. I have not declared myself to be anti-Israel, I've defended Israel multiple times. I am for both peoples having their own state and enjoying peace.
                          Last edited by zraver; 18 Jan 13,, 21:30.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                            d) the usual, standard vitriol against Israel, your absolute despisal of all things Israel and though I hate using this term, your extremely thinly-veiled anti-Semitism guised under your holier-than-thou veneer and claiming that you are merely anti-Israel.
                            For the last time: Enough of the accusations of anti-Semitism.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                              For the last time: Enough of the accusations of anti-Semitism.
                              You know I'm anti-romanian.All the people I absolutely hate are my own.Me thinks that's for a good reason,but should I repent before being allowed among civilized men?
                              Those who know don't speak
                              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Since everyone is airing their laundry perhaps we could have the thread currently in the trash restored where Z airs his views on the killing of the Fogel family in Itimar?
                                So everyone knows where it is he actually stands on the limits of what are "rabid" positions when it comes to Palestinians.
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X