I have a simple question for you Dingo..

Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?

And to address the Debate questions:

The Palestinians have specifically targeted civilian areas.. women, elderly, and children. The suicide bombers go out of their way to cause as much harm to non-military targets as possible.

On the flip side the Israelis need to be more careful when going after the terrorist groups. Shooting up a building or home because there may be terrorists in there is not acceptable. Even though the suicide bombers go after civilian targets, it doesn't mean Israel has to as well in their fervor to get the terrorists.

Yes. Now I have a simple question for you Sleeper. Do you believe that the Palestinians have a right to make a state out of the last 22% of the land that Israel hasn't permanently annexed. That would generally be the land beyond the 1967 armistice line that the UN has told Israel it must finally withdraw from, allowing for minor border adjustments, not major land seizures.

As for the rest, this using Palestinians excesses in their resistance to illegal occupation by the Israelis as a post facto excuse for an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is dishonest in the extreme. If you are invading my house the manner of my resistance has nothing to do with the fact that you are violating my property rights. One can deplore Palestinian suicide bombers but that is not an excuse to justify Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land. Get Israel to support a full pull back with minor mutually agreeable adjustments along the lines of 242 and maybe folks other than the Israel-can-do-no-wrong-crowd will start to take her tears as being more than the crocodile variety.

And what did the Israeli's ever to to you to make you biased against them?

Since you are in such favor of UN Resolution 242, I say fine. Enforce the resolution, compel Israel to return to the borders it had prior to arab aggression, and as legality dictates..........return the so-called 'occupied territories back to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. And give them the palestinian people and their grievances.

Now after reading the text of various peace agreements, it would appear that Egypt and Jordan have renounced their claim to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank respectively.
"Land for peace" served as the basis of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, in which Israel retreated from the Sinai peninsula (Egypt withdrew its claims to the Gaza Strip). Jordan withdrew its claims for the West Bank shortly after the beginning of the First Intifada, and has signed the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace in 1994, that demarcated the Jordan River as the border line. Throughout the 1990s, there were Israeli-Syrian negotiations regarding a normalization of relations and an Israeli retreat from the Golan Heights but a peace treaty failed to materialize.
Link

So, to fall back on the legal positions the 'occupied territories' belong (minus Golan), to Israel.

Israel the rightful owners of the property. Heck the word 'Palestinian' is derived from Hebrew meaning 'invader from over the seas'. Or didn't you know that it's not even Arabic.

editted for spelling

My view continues to be the same- it is a series of cause and effect, mostly of bad and probably racist decisions at the turn of century by GB and US - and the cause and effect that Dingo is talking is legit. Ya, the Isrealis show contraint in not bombing the bejesus out of them. ya the palestenians want them wiped off the map for displacing them with a wave of Euro-immigrant jews (what is the ratio of russian speaking Isrealites these days anyway?

How in the world do we fix all this? Well, taking the all the money out of the equation would help a bit- and de-nuking Isreal should be a priority- I see that as a nuclear arms race catalyst in the ME anyway.

Beyond that- smarter men than me have tried and died- sometimes killed by thier own countrymen for doing anything but demanding the death of the other side.

While I’ll admit that my French is not the greatest, I have looked at that sentence for a while and I can think of no way possible to lose the “the” in French. You have to say “des” because “territories” is plural. But to say that “des” is a more strong “of the” territories vs. the English “of territories” is just semantics (on both sides).

Anyway, what good are words in all of this – Oslo, the road map, and everything else that the Palestinians have ever signed begins with “…shall denounce violence, recognize Israel, stop terror, disarm terrorists, etc.” and it has never happened. So quibbling about a few words on the occupied territories is just whistling while Rome continues to burn. The fundamental problem – the Arabs don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist – is going to continue to make peace impossible.

CW- as you can read from my post- I really don't "blame" either side-

but let me ask you this- WHY doesn't the Arab community not want them to exist? Especially, in context of the times- the Arabs were far, far far more amenable to LIVING with Jews for centuries? Isn't this a fundamental question?

Is it because for a long time, it was a European invasion really? (post 1900)

Only problem is you can't source anything.


You made the argument. You produce the appropriate reference.


Sorry, I'm not doing your work for you. As I've repeatedly shown you simply make assertions and then can't back them up.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you don't seem to have any research to back up anything you say. I'm the one who put 242 out there, not you.


The meaning of 242 is whatever the signers and authoritative commentators interpret as the meaning. There are multiple interpretations. How do you resolve that? I have already stated that - plain language, commonsense and historical precedence. Your pretzel approach loses.


As far as I know the only thing equivalent to an international treaty was the 1947 UN partition which left them with far less land than they acquired under the truce lines of 1967 which was considered temporary. They immediately violated the partition terms by not respecting Palestinian land rights.


The Arabs never accepted the UN partition solution and were quite aware of Israel's expansionist designs so they felt they were defending Arab territory and Israel and their allies were the aggressors and colonialists.


Sounds like a bunch of semantical gobledygook. Sort it out and specify what you are talking with some backup sources and maybe there's something factual there worth talking about.


You have a bad habit of asserting 2+2=3 and then demanding that I disprove it. Get your self together and start proving some of your assertions.


International laws don't generally give lands to people. Israel has conquered "people" (You know those folks that walk around on two legs) and expelled them to move in there own preferred folks in their place. You seem to think that's just dandy.


I suggest you go patronize the guy in the mirror.


Thanks for not meaningfully responding to anything I said.


Thanks for letting me know that the Palestinian are simply a Hebrew word. Makes them more disposable I guess.


Supporting a two state solution where they get 78% of the land mostly acquired at the expense of the Palestinians hardly makes me biased against Israel. I certainly don't think Hamas would see it that way. I have been accused of being proIsrael on other forums but it doesn't surprise me that a lot folks who seem to think Palestinians are nothing but a bunch of evil terrorists who have no rights at all and God gave the land to the Israelis should see me in a different light.


They didn't renounce their claims in favor of Israel however now did they? It still amazes me how folks will pull such obvious semantical ploys out of their bag of tricks. You really aren't serving Israel. Most folks who are interested can see your game. Why keep engaging in this kind of disingenuousness? Even a lot of Israelis are getting sick at seeing how "Israeli advocates" are reduced to such low tactics on their behalf. It makes it appear that straight forward honest arguments aren't available to them.

Make up your mind please, on one hand you state: The meaning of 242 is whatever the signers and authoritative commentators interpret as the meaning. There are multiple interpretations. How do you resolve that? I have already stated that - plain language, commonsense and historical precedence.
Link

And then you accuse me of obvious semantical ploys? Why don't we take the words of the palestinian themselves?
From the PLO Charter:
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

In 1950 Jordan annexed the provinces of Samaria and Judea from Israel, in other words the west bank, with no basis in international law or accords. Jordan then lost the land in the Six Day War. In 1988, King Hussein 'cedes' the west bank land to the palestinian arabs......though they are not in control of said land.
I invite someone to explain to me how the palestinians are entitled to that land.

Must we re-write the rules of our debate every time we come across a changing of the palestinian mind, concerning the goal of their 'struggle'?

The pathetic excuse of illegal occupation does not serve the palestinian cause well. In fact, in the opinion of many, it makes them all the more criminal in light of the actions taken by many of their numbers.

I had an epiphany today. Here I thought I wasn't making myself clear, or that I wasn't arguing well, or that I wasn't providing enough evidence to support my claim but I was wrong. I finally found out why I can’t make any inroads. And my answer comes from “The Hasbara Handbook.” check it out here. This is a 131 page document which instructs college campus Israeli groups and Israeli activists on how to use propaganda. Yes, propaganda. And it’s their wording, not mine. After reading through this document, I found the tactics have been used over and over and over again on this thread. Providing sources whether it be books, multiple international law journals, an academic thesis, or UN Resolutions are impervious to these tactics so it’s no wonder Loreng was so easy to dismiss them. If this is the game they're going to play then so be it. I'll stick to debating people that will actually address facts instead of foolishly dismissing them. If this is what they give to American Israeli college groups, I can only imagine what the IDF gets.

The Handbook does a good job of talking about how to set up demonstrations, write to representatives, putting on functions etc etc. Which is all well and good and I have no problem with that. But when it talks about how to debate or give speeches, then it all starts to make sense. Have a look:

It opens up with talking about the need to defend Israel and then gets into Point Scoring. I'm not exactly sure what it is but I don't want to play.

Point Scoring:


Though I'd say it wouldn't just irritate them, it's counter productive and ruins any credability you may have had.

Then it goes on to explain “How To Score Points Whilst Avoiding Debate.” (Yes, that's the actual title.)



I found this little gem a little later:


Sounds like the Bush Administration has been reading this book as well.


Then it gets into how to give a speech in public:

Research the Audience


Is anyone on this board impressed by half truths or simple dismissal of a well researched argument? If so please let me know.

Then we move on to:

Gathering Materials and Information:


Yep, that about says it all right there. Now let’s get on to the good stuff. This is straight from the section "Seven Basic Propaganda Devices": (yes, again, that's the actual title).

From the section on Name Calling:


From Testimonial:

(Then it goes on to explain how to undermine a celebrity that supports Palestine)

From Fear:

Again, I think Bush took some stuff right out of here. This is an interesting section on fear manipulation.

From Bandwagon:


Sadly it goes on. I didn't even quote all 7 tactics and that's not even all the way through the book. Loreng and Kman at this point I could careless with whatever you come back with or whatever way you dream up to dismiss this or skirt the issue. Dingo I suggest you do the same as hopefully this document shows its an exercise in futility. Congrats you two, you have won your little point scoring game...Have fun playing with yourself...

The laughable part of this entire debate is the justification for terrorism - as if land has anything to do with it.

In 1964, the PLO was formed and immediately began acts of terrorism against Israel. Was this about "occupied territories"?

Three years later - 1967 - Israel preemptively attacked the forces that surrounded them and had begun early stages of attack. Then the Pals cried foul when Israel took over the strategic points that left them more vulnerable.

How is it defensible that before 1967, the Pals allowed anyone with a tank and enough hatred of Jews the use of the disputed territories to start an unprovoked war?

What did an Olympic village have to do with this dispute when the Pals took it upon themselves to massacre athletes who had nothing to do with anything?

There is no excuse for the Palestinian's terror. If you really think this has anything to do with land, you are either mis-informed or completely delusional. The evidence is overwhelming that this issue is simply about Israel's right to exist and about the Palestinian's uncivilized culture. The Pals are like locusts. They've turned anyplace they've lived into places we'd equate with Detroit.

Psyclist:

Yes, a revelation, excuse me, an epiphany. Point scoring via association with negative symbols = Israelis are Nazis and Ansar is Auschwitz [and since you brought in Dubya, let me add him to Sharon, so, Bush + Sharon = Hitler]. Next on the menu we have, Israel = an apartheid state. But never mind Abbas Suan and Walid Badir, the Arab deputy mayor of Tel Aviv, the Arab Israeli Supreme Court Justice, the Arab Knesset members, the Druze major general [highest rank below chief of staff], the handful of Arabs who have served and been awarded the Order Of Distinction, and, lastly, the scores of Bedouins and Druze who have died serving in the IDF. Oh, sorry, the flip side, point scoring by ridiculous positive association, Rachel Corrie = martyred hero, and not the ignorant student of the radical chic who was also ignorant enough to get rather low to the ground in front of an operating bulldozer. Sorry, one more, demonstration versus riot...the former involves marching, protesting, etc., while the latter involves that too but also includes throwing stones at other humans.

So maybe your Palestinian Arab friends have their own copy of Hasbara Handbook, but never mind, since, in any event, you don't get the gold star this week. Nice try though, as it was a rather artful form of your own propaganda, and Noam Chomsky would otherwise be proud [he's the living epitome of the one who rails against "propaganda" while himself being a master propagandist, though I prefer to think of him as simply a wolf in sheep's clothing]. And by propaganda I mean to say it could be argued and/or claimed that you've raised the matter and voiced your exit from the discussion, and so one wonders whether the propaganda lies in the disguise of your leaving in defeat...

Sorry, one more. I always have fun playing with myself, though I rather prefer the presence of a female, since there's nothing quite like the low, soft moan...but I digress....

Psyclist:

How about accurate propaganda? How does Islam divide humanity?

1) Muslims [the chosen people, the master race, the Ummah]
2) People of the Book [Jews/Christians who can live as 3rd class citizens]
3) Pagans [to be exterminated wherever found unless they "revert" to Islam]

How did the Nazis divide humanity?

1) the Herrenvolk, the Arayans, the master race and the master nation
2) the Slavs, Untermenschen [inferior people who would live 3rd class]
3) the Jews [to be exterminated wherever found, though some of the young ones might be able to be "Germanized"]

Ironically enough, given all the bad press and PR attending the same as of late, but there is something to be said for narcissism, since Mohammed, unlike Hitler, was a narcissist, and so opted for conversion before death since that would satiate his ego. But in every other respect, the comparison is very nearly exact, with the ultimate goal being, for Islam, a world that is heidenfrei [pagan free], and for the Nazis, a world that is judenfrei [Jew free].

So just one more reason to support Israel...

And for Koenraad Elst, on Islamic negationism [ http://www.voi.org/books/negaind/ ]:

"1) Head-on denial: The crassest form of negationism is obviously the simple denial of the facts. This is mostly done in the form of general claims, such as: "Islam is tolerant", "Islamic Spain was a model of multicultural harmony", "the anti-Jewish hatred was unknown among Muslims until Zionism and anti-Semitism together entered the Muslim world from Europe"....The Rushdie affair was the occasion for negationism on a grand scale. There happens to be an unambiguous answer to the question: "Is it Islamic to kill those who voice criticism of the Prophet?" According to the media and most experts, the answer was definitely: no. According to the basic traditions of Islam, it was: yes. Mohammed as well as his immediate successors have killed critics, both in formal executions and in night-time stabbings. [my note, the media and most experts are having a tough time now, what with all the rioting and destruction]
***
3) Minimizing the facts: If the inconvenient fact is pointed out that numerous Muslim chroniclers have reported a given massacre of unbelievers themselves, one can posit a priori that they must have exaggerated to flatter their patron's martial vanity - as if it is not significant enough that Muslim rulers felt flattered by being described as mass-murderers of infidels."

I'll let you read the rest, but the tie-in here, as I believe that someone else, or some others here have already mentioned, is that the Palestinian Arabs are essentially trying to rewrite the entire history of the region and the conflict. Dingo here is babbling on about UNSCR 242 but omits that long before 1968, the Palestinian Arabs, and some other Arabs as well, rejected that resolution in its entirety. Sorry, but you don't get to reject a resolution and then cry foul some 20 years later when you claim some others aren't living up to the same. Ditto the expulsions. I have never denied that there were expulsions, I simply object to the historical rewrite, the negationism that is inherent in the "head-on denial" of statements made by Palestinian Arabs themselves, and some other Arabs as well, that refute entirely the claim that any and all were expelled and that prior to any expulsion they were all simply "peace loving" Arabs who would have got on quite well with the Jews.

Oh, and thanks for the info re Hasbara, since I did not even know such a thing existed. Maybe I'll write those responsible for the same and tell them to include Koenraad's comparison of Nazism and Islam. How's that for point-scoring?

Sorry, one more. I'm not Jewish. Grew up in the Jewish part of L.A. as I described prior, but was raised Roman Catholic and attended Roman Catholic parochial school [St. Ambrose] and a Jesuit college prep high school [Loyola H.S.] [and, yes, I was even an altar boy]. And I'm on their side because Islam is as anti-Semitic as is Roman Catholicism, and I've had enough of the same, given a childhood spent with afterschools filled with Jews trying to make it such that the son of a divorced mom wouldn't be the proverbial "latch-key kid" and so accepted me as one of their own, and spent schooldays being intermittently pained by schoolmates who made all those jokes about those "cheap" Jews and their "fondness" for money [amongst other items heard]. Now, to be fair, let no Protestant gloat, since Protestantism is as infected with anti-Semitism as is Roman Catholicism and Islam. I suppose that our Jewish friends could call it the unholy trinity...but, again, I digress...


Edited to add: Stupid me. Just noticed your signature line[s]. Why the ...., is such because if we all could read the words not appearing in favor of the ...., then we'd all have a different opinion of what Ben-Gurion actually meant? And maybe you need to include this as well:

"In the original edition of The Birth, Morris concedes that "Ben-Gurion, testifying before UNSCOP [United Nations Special Commission on Palestine] on 8 July 1947, went out of his way to reject the 1945 British Labor Party platform ‘International Post-war Settlement' which supported the encouragement of the movement of the Palestine Arabs to the neighbouring countries to make room for Jews."

Let me leave you with another human who you and your friends have defamed ad infinitum:

"The writer of these lines is considered an enemy of the Arabs, one who wishes to banish the Arabs from the Land of Israel. There is no truth to any of this. It is my opinion that it would be impossible to do so. There will always remain two peoples here. Secondly, I am proud to be numbered among that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but, for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and for our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This however, is not dependent on our attitude to the Arabs, but on the Arabs relationship to us and to Zionism."

"An individual - this is the supreme concept, the highest value, that which was created “in the image of G-d”. The doctrine of communo-fascism states that man is part of state societal mechanism. Our tradition has it that in the beginning, G-d created the individual. Man is intended to be free. Democracy’s meaning is freedom and the goal of democracy is to insure the influence of the minority."

"In my eyes, all people are equal. Of course, I love my people above all but it isn't 'superior' to my mind."

Or so wrote Jabotinsky, the arch-Zionist. But I know, since I've heard some say it, Zionism is racism...yeah, maybe so, but on the same wall where that's written it also reads: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Your cutting out the part where he acknowledges that he knew there would be a resistance to the jewish settlement of Palestine. The entire article is here. Here's some more complete quotes:


It basically goes on to say that they should not expect a peaceful settlement from natives of the land they wish to settle. So basically the zionists invaded Palestine to knowingly provoke a war, and now are the "victims" of the Palestinian resistance. If you disagree with the term of "invaded" what else would you call a mass migration of people to a establish a majority to become the ruling government?

To be more precise Dayton, the atrocity is Israel's right to exist on land foreign to themselves and about the Palestinians, the native inhabitants for centuries, uncivilized resistance to the immigration. Without the former, the latter would not have occurred though.

From Wikipedia


The Muslims had conquered it since 638, 1200 before Zionism in 1897ish. By 1903 there were half a million arabs at the beginning of Zionism. There was no "land without a people." The zionist clear knew there was going to be unrest by moving their foreign population into the area and trying to establish a ruling government over the natives, and yet they proceed. Now millions are displaced, the responsible party does not matter, they have the birth right to return and live in the land they were born in, more so then any immigrant that has never had any relatives for hundreds of years that just happens to be a particular religion. To say otherwise would make it a racist state.

Appalachia
Appalachia is a mostly rural, partly urbanized, and partly industrialized region in and around the Appalachian Mountains in the Eastern United States.

Over twenty million people live in Appalachia, a heavily forested area, roughly the size of the United Kingdom, covering largely mountainous, often isolated areas from the border of Alabama and Georgia in the south to Pennsylvania and New York in the north. Between lay large areas of South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Ohio.

So what is your point? Are there any Appalchiaians?

So let me understand this India and Pakistan had some 14 million people that were forced from their homes in 1948. Or Germany some 12.5 million people from Czechoslovakia and Poland, Finland 400,000 from USSR, Israel 800,000 people from 22 different Arab countries. How many as considered refugees now? Exactly zero. How much international aid did they receive? None. How many of the have a right to return? Zero again.

The only group of refugees in the entire world that got larger after the war is the 'Palestinians'. According to the UN the term refugee applies to those people that are displaced from the place of residence and any minor children. Of the some 400,000 Arabs that left Israel in 1948 over 100,000 have returned which makes Israel unique in allowing a hostile people back after a war of independence. The US did not nor did they ever compensate them for their loss of land. The youngest 'refugee' would be 58 years old. How many are there? Million, not a chance.

Yet with even these facts you state Israel has to be racist for not allowing in people that are active in trying to destroy it. Is Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, etc. all racist as well? If not why is only Israel singled out for this distinction?

Moshe Kohn, “The Arabs’ ‘Lie’ of the Land,” Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 1991)

Moshe Kohn, “The Arabs’ ‘Lie’ of the Land,” Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 1991)

Avner Yaniv, PLO, (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Study Group of Middle Eastern Affairs, August 1974), p. 5

Just maybe you might work on getting the Arabs to agree with your statement.

This is what drives me completely nuts: Ignorance combined with misinformation creating a silly idea and extreme confidence.

(Note: Before I say everything I want to say, please note that I am an atheist)

First of all, Islam does not divide humanity in such a way. Nor does is claim to have a "chosen race" like Judaism. There are people and sects who interpret it that way but they are not the majority.

Calling Islam narcissism is simply wrong. On the base of Islam is love for God and all of God's creations. Yes, there are idiotic "jihadist" interpretations of Islam but what religion is free from such stupidity? Do I need to remember what the Holy Crusades were about? Or the auto-da-fe and the Inqusition?

Compared with the religious pressure exerted by the Roman Catholic Church during the middle ages, Islamic civilisation of the same era was much more tolerant towards other religions. For example, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet "the Conqueror" allowed the Orthodox Church to remain in Istanbul (Constantinople as it was called back then) and practice their religion freely.

Islam, like all the other religions, has faults. And todays Islamic world is years behind the west. But, that does not mean it gives you the right to call Islam narcissist. It is not only wrong but also very offensive. I am ashamed to see such intolerance and rudeness in this very civil forum.