Thread: Debate: Israel – victim or aggressor?

Originally Posted by beenthere

They were real bullies when they finally go tired of palestinian terrorist attacking them from Lebanon and attacked back, right??

Are you referring to Begin's lies to the Knesset in 1982 after the PLO had respected the cease fire for a year?

Originally Posted by beenthere

{{{So it belonged to the UK, not the people living there already? Or it was stolen from the people living there already by the British? }}}

Do you know what a mandate is, Wabbit???

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)

Originally Posted by creation

Indeed but they were a majority in BOTH parts. Not just trans jordan but palestine as well.

Therefore theyy cannot have started anything as they did what anyone else would do - object to the division of any part of their lands with any group, none of whom had ever seen this land.

Can you be honest enough to admit that?

Ill start from any point you like.

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???

Originally Posted by klipkap

Are you referring to Begin's lies to the Knesset in 1982 after the PLO had respected the cease fire for a year?

Friend, go read the 1969 Cairo Agreement, look at the results that came from it then get back to me.

Originally Posted by creation

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?

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.

Originally Posted by beenthere

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"!!!!!

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?

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????

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?

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???

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?

Originally Posted by beenthere

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.

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?

Originally Posted by beenthere

I'm saying that he was an activist which DOES make him less credible.

Rubbish!! What utter dross. Does your "logic" also apply to AIPAC? If so, rubbish. Utter dross.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Friend, go read the 1969 Cairo Agreement, look at the results that came from it then get back to me.

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.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Originally Posted by RevAnarchist
Well, respectfully I will not comment because its beyond the scope of my original stated goals. Additionally, If why just go back thirty years ? why not go back to where it all began; with Abraham and Isaac and Ishmael.

We could, but that wouldn't be relevant to today. Today's situation BEGAN with the Zionists who sought an Israeli state. It is only logical to start the conflict with the emergence of Zionists in the region (after the turn of the century) who sought an Israeli state. The history of the MODERN Israeli state starts there, not with ancient history. You dont talk about say the modern state of France began with the Gauls because it didnt, such is the same with Israel.

An excellent rebuttal, Megadethfan. It cuts one of the favourite Zionist myths (that Israel has always belonged to the Jews) off at the knees.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Originally Posted by RevAnarchist
Heck the Israelis had no reason to not be happy.

Indeed, but the zionists werent becuase they wanted ALL of Palestine, not what was mandated by the UN. Their violence was a precursor to their future plans as Ben Gurion's own diary indicates, which Morris investigates and CONFIRMS.

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.