Debate: Israel – victim or aggressor?

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Margot, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you saying that NF is made a less credible academic because he embarrassed the University?

    On what grounds? What actual objection did anyone at De Paul have to his work? When was this stated?

    If its see you later for well researched work one can easily defend that no one at DePaul has ever expressed a problem with and is supported by the academic staff then what really is your problem?

    That one morally shouldnt embarrass your employers when working in a environment of free academic inquiry?

    Isnt your problem simplyy that NF said things you dont agree with and therfore you think you need to pretend to us that he was justly fired?
     
  2. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Calling someone a liar is against forum rules. I presume no mods saw this one.

    BeenThere, why are you surprised at these protests? In 1915 the Brits promised the Arabs control over Palestine if they rose up in revolt against the Ottoman empire. (Lloyd George confirmed this in 1922 in negotiations with the French.)

    Then, some 2 years later they made a promise which has haunted the 'Holy Land' ever since. They promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine as long as it did not infringe on the civil rights of the indigenous people (by far the majority being Arabs). Of course it infringed!! So when the UN approved a recommendation to the Brits to carve up Palestine (UN 181 of 27th November 1947), the Arabs went coo-coo. Why on earth would anyone be surprised if they did otherwise?

    Then, on 14th May 1948, without the Mandate holder having acted on UN 181, the Zionists unilaterally declared independence ... a HUGELY aggressive act.

    Yet now you pretend that these Zionist were humble peace-seeking people and that the horrible indigenous Arabs were the aggressors?

    I know; I know. This is the prime Zionist myth, so I have to call it:

    MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!!
     
  3. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I agree that in 1973 the Arabs attacked first. At least they did not try the Israeli trick of claiming it to be a defensive pre-emptive attack. But you did not tell the forum readers WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. I will do so.

    In January 1971 Anwar Sadat, Egyptian leader, offered Israel recognition and a peace treaty if they would abide by UNSC resolution 242. So what happened?

    The 'Murkans and the Zionists ignored him in essence. Go check what greedy Goldie Meir and the Sabra hero Dayan hatched up in response. You don't know? They rejected Sadat's offer. Why? Because it would not lead to Ben-Gurion's dream (and all the others) of achieving Eretz-Yisrael. Pure greed.

    So why do YOU think Sadat, after being spurned in his attempt to achieve peace and the recognition of Israel, attacked 2 years later?

    No provocation?? My old socks!!!
     
  4. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Terrorist attacks?? This just panders to current 'Murkan paranoia. You say it is impossible to tell whom started the conflict, and bugger whether it was terrorist or not? Nonsense.

    It started at the Zionist Basle conference in 1897 and was sealed by the Brits with the Balfour declaration of 1917, reneging on their promise of 1915 to Hussein. in this they promised the land of an indigenous people to some northern European nationalists who hankered after a 2500 year old fable.
     
  5. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well said, Sir. I salute your respect for the truth!!

    Uhm ... what do you mean by the "majority of a nation"? Was "old" Palestine Arab or not?
     
  6. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you referring to Begin's lies to the Knesset in 1982 after the PLO had respected the cease fire for a year?
     
  7. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So many Myths!! I am truly amazed that all this trash still lingers on.
    I have made a sterling attempt but my fingers are tiring. I will adress the Myth post-20th Feb on another occasion.

    (to be continued)
     
  8. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's the WHOLE point that you still don't seem to get, Trans-Jordan IS PALESTINE 77% of what was the territory of "Palestine"!!!!!

    What the British left for the Arabs and the Jews was a VERY small part of the territory of Palestine. But if you will EVER bother to look it up, 47% of what was left NOBODY owned, that's why the British claimed it as CROWN LANDS!!!! Do you understand that part of it????


    The next thing you don't seem to get is that when the left over territory wes "divided" the land still belonged to the owner at the time of the divison, it didn't change hands, there was no new owner, the only thing that changed was they NOW had become a country with it's own government which they didn't have before. What on earth is wrong with you that you can't see that???
     
  9. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Friend, go read the 1969 Cairo Agreement, look at the results that came from it then get back to me.
     
  10. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm saying that he got his butt kicked out because he did embarresed the University. I'm saying that he was an activist which DOES make him less credible.
     
  11. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah yes so now you ignore the point that there was an arab majority in both parts and now you tell us that israel was justified because it was apparently only a small part of the total according to a criteria youve yet to mention.

    Did you get that?

    Wow now youll tell us that one can simply move onto what is deemed 'crown land' or public land by an invading imperial power with whom the natives had cooperated, to set up your own state and pretend that the people actually on or around this 'crown land' dont matter.

    Will you have the same argument when martians take over the USA and decide to let Mexicans with an ancient claim come along set up a state in various yellowstone type parks? Suddenly the opinions of americans wont matter both physically and morally because they dont have big enough ray guns?

    Do you get that?


    I love this comment. Its worth emphasising;

    Youre actually telling us that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants to palestine, who were given territory that exceeded their numbers and who had a majority in precisely no district of palestine were the owners who held some kind of political authority over the majority of humans there who had consistently objected to their arrival at every stage. Never even mind the simple fact that the majority of jews in the gerrymanderd 'jewish state' was a sliver majority created despite - again - the consistentt objections of most humans (yes thats right, humans) in any area you could care to mention.

    Is there any of the above you can see?
     
  12. creation

    creation New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    68
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why cant you be accurate? He wasnt kicked out. Thats just a simple first fact.

    As for embarrassment, do you believe in academic freedom or not?

    Now youve given us the term 'activist'. If the scholarship is considered worthy by his peers whats your problem?

    Isnt scholarship the most fundamental consideration here far beyond what anyone may think of the subject matter? Given that you agree with that - which you do. Isnt it really just that you dont like the message?
     
  13. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Rubbish!! What utter dross. Does your "logic" also apply to AIPAC? If so, rubbish. Utter dross.
     
  14. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    By having to bring up this strawman, I presume you are unable to counter my claim that Begin lied to the Knesset in order to be able to send 'Butcher' Sharon into Lebanon to commit genocide.

    Thanks you, because we all know that the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was yet another example of Israel's aggressions, successfully sold by Zionists to the gullible West as a 'defensive actions'.

    These also include the following spurnings of International Law by "poor little peace-loving" Israel and equally accepted by a complicit West:

    1) the seeking of Nazi support by Zionist terrorists during WW2
    2) the terrorist activities in Palestine in 1946
    3) the spurning of International law in May 1948
    4) the Lavon affair in 1954
    5) the invasion of Egypt in 1956
    6) the provocations of Syria in 1966/1967 leading to war
    7) the invasion of Jordan in 1966
    8 ) the first-strike invasion of Egypt in 1967
    9) the rejection of Anwar Sadat's peace proposal in 1971, and again in 2002 and 2007 (Arab summits)
    10) the illegal occupation of territory acquired as the spoils of war from 1967 to present day, with 'Murkan connivance
    11) the utterly disproportionate response against Lebanon in 1978
    12) the farcical lies justifying the aggressive invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the disgusting genocide which followed
    13) Operation Cast Lead which was just as disproportional as those of 1978 and 1982 and just as unjustified as 1982 but still silently 'approved' by the West

    When we see it all laid out like that, are we surprised that people feel compelled to fly aircraft into tall twin buildings because justice appears to be irrelevant to the West?

    And you offer the 1969 Cairo strawman as a justification for what was probably one of the two worst cases is this appalling list?

    Try again. Strawmen are never acceptable.
     
  15. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    An excellent rebuttal, Megadethfan. It cuts one of the favourite Zionist myths (that Israel has always belonged to the Jews) off at the knees.
    Again, well highlighted, Megadethfan. Eretz-Yisrael, much bigger than 'current' Israel is and has been the Zionist goal since 1897. This is confirmed by Israeli minutes of the Sevres meeting in which the 1956 invasion of Egypt was cooked up. The illegal settlements are part of this plan. Ben-Gurion did not try to hide this ultimate Israeli goal. Modern Zionists do. It is one of their Myths.
     
  16. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The evidence which you provide here for the Jews’ ‘a priori’ right to Israel is flawed because it dates back way before the time when the Jews were only a tiny minority in Palestine; a situation which lasted for many hundreds if not thousands of years. There were others who remained in Palestine during this period as a clear majority. Surely THEY have the overwhelming right from deep-history?

    But your position is flawed for an even more fundamental reason. Do your nephew’s books tell you what happened to the indigenous peoples of the land of Canaan, who were there when Abram was supposed to have drifted by? Apparently not, because you imply that they "became extinct". Do they tell you what modern archaeologists believe; those who are not swayed by old legends written hundreds of years after the fact? Let me explain.

    Modern scientific consensus is that many of the legends quoted in the Bible are not historically accurate. The Israelites formed as a religious sect (believing in monotheism) within the same peoples who had ancestrally occupied these lands for millennia. This explains the DNA results which make Mizrahi Jews all but indistinguishable from Palestinians based on their Haplogroup J1 (defined by the 267 marker). The differences displayed by Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are adequately explained by later intermixing with European lineages. The conclusion is that the Israelites were just as indigenous to Palestine as the other inhabitants of the area.

    What happened then? It is believed that many pagans were converted to this new monotheistic sect – they became Jews. Then, with the onset of Christianity and persecution of the Jews by the Romans, many (but obviously not all) Jews converted to Christianity. In the 8th century a new conversion occurred, this time to Islam. But these conversions to-and-fro all largely involved the ancestors of the original inhabitants of Canaan; peoples whose DNA was essentially the same over millennia. They were all always from the same ancestral root stock, some being swayed by new faiths and others not. It is a simple uncomplicated explanation that does not need to fight the genetic evidence.

    Therefore, any argument that you make for the Jews having a deep historical right to Israel/Palestine, applies equally to the Palestinians, with one exception. The Jews left. The Palestinians remained where they had always been, guarding the herds of sheep and goats and tending the olive and almond trees of Palestine. Do your nephews books reflect this modern view?
     
  17. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thank you for confirming the British gain. It goes a long way to explaining why they make a clear promise to Hussein in 1915 to get the Arabs to respond to T.E. Lawrence (L of Arabia) when he exhorted them to rise up against the Ottoman empire. Then, not even 3 years later, after the Arabs had complied with their side of the bargain, the Brits make a promise to Rothschild (as representative of the Zionists) which clearly contradicts the Hussein promise.

    Yes, your logic and historical recount is impeccable.

    And it goes to show how the local ‘wogs’ or ‘fellahs’ were screwed in the cause of British interests. Thank you for confirming the reason for the deceit which Zionist apologists try to deny even exists.

    So the 'fellahs' get screwed once again. After centuries, no - after millennia of occupation, when the hour of their independence seemed within their reach, a new colonialist occupier took the place of the dozens who went before. And the Zionists offer the fact that there never was a Palestine country as a reason why there should not be one now. How sick to perpetrate this suppression for yet more generations.
     
  18. klipkap

    klipkap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,448
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!!

    Britain NEVER undertook to set aside ANY land for the nation of Israel. After sticking to real historical facts and even emphasising buried ones, I am disappointed that you had to resort to a twisting of the truth. The documented Mandate for Palestine never even mentions the word ‘nation’, only homeland. It makes it abundantly clear that this homeland would be in territory that would be shared and in which the Jews also had the right to nationality. This means that only a single country was ever intended, and it was never exclusively Jewish.

    Once we internalise that document, ‘safeguarded’ under international law, look to see that it is consistent with the Balfour declaration in which the civil rights of the existing inhabitants were to be guaranteed, and we then look at what we have today, how can we possibly conclude other than that land was taken from the Palestinians and given to the Jews.

    Yet at every turn the Zionist apologists attempt to smudge this clear fact over by the incessant repetition of their Myths.

    You are absolutely correct, RA, “(*)(*)(*)(*) this is getting tiresome!”
     
  19. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Victim then survivor. All of Israel plus the land justly conquered in the 1967 Six Day War is less than one percent of Arab land. Israel is the only civilized country in the Mid East. We should let the Jews have it and tell the Palestinians to move.
     

Share This Page