Thread: Myth no 2
View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2007, 01:57 PM
klipkap klipkap is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 449
klipkap is just really niceklipkap is just really niceklipkap is just really niceklipkap is just really nice
Credits: 6,229
Default Logic has left the building!!

Sure, I will reply, but with little enthusiasm, because you seem to have totally missed the structure and intent of these posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moishe3rd";p=&quot View Post
"Israel never took someone else's land" As opposed to what nation state in the history of humanity?
You see, you have a rather severe logic train problem here.
Moishe, sorry, it is you who have slipped off the logic rails. I am not taking this position. These are not my Myths. You seem to have missed the very essence of my presentation. I am paraphrasing what I have seen innumerable times in print; not presenting the proposition. Rather ask the Zionist posters and web sites who maintain these positions why they don't want to fly in the face of the 4th Geneva Convention.

What I am doing is to tabulate their claims and then to try to refute them. I do not to make these ridiculous claims!! Good grief, I would have thought that was crystal clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moishe3rd";p=&quot View Post
If you want to claim that Israel is unique in the history of mankind, in that people were dispossessed when Israel became a State, then that is obviously absurd.
Different mistake to the above, Moishe. I don't claim anything unique about Israel, except perhaps that most of these events occurred after the Geneva Conventions were in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moishe3rd";p=&quot View Post
However, these "Palestinians," as a "people," did not exist before the creation of the State of Israel. That's a fact.
I agree in part. The word Palestinians is new and indeed post-dates the creation of Israel (I think). But it nonetheless refers to a "people", modern though the definition and identity might be, and not some new kids on the block. These "people" have been there for many millenia. You cannot make them irrelevant by denying them a name with a modern context.

They were and are the Canaanites that A'bram, the father of the Hebrews, encountered on his trek south from Syria. The fact that they were not called Palestinians then or in 1880 or 1947 is irrelevant. They were there - farming the same olives and almonds on their ancestral grounds as they did in 1945. What label you prefer to paste on their foreheads does not change that.

It is the human rights and respect for people who remained there for eons, many of them with Jewish genes, and not semantics, that are at stake here.
Reply With Quote