Debate: Israel – victim or aggressor?

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

  1. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Due to the long nature of this reply (most of it is background information to validate my conclusion members can simply skip to the green colored font to check out my choice of who is and who is not the aggressor)

    Hi Margot, due to a order from the big boss I am attempting to tone down not my message but the energetic abrasive manner that I often times deliver it. I came to that decision after another (prayer session) discussion with God (my fifth in a month) the message I received was to be as nice as possible to even those that dislike me. I was hoping God would say go out there and if you have need of another to cheek, kick it off someone else ! Ha ha…

    Who is the aggressor? Israel or Palestine….Honestly I dunno! Its been a loooooonnnng time since I sat in a college classroom trying to stay interested in Middle Eastern studies of Power and Society & cultural affairs! Well lets have a look at modern history of Israel and Palestine. I dredged up my notes from the last time I went to school while working on the Alaskan pipeline repairs, just some background info, to help me on my c writing (I am going to night college now, hopefully in a hundred years I will earn a phd)…

    I am going to base my opinion on the ME just after WW1, where the defeated nations were cutting up the world, the Middle east was no exception. Tensions were high because a plan to allow both Israel and the Pals to live close together wasn’t working. It was called the. partition plan for Palestine, (PPFP) and was created by United Nations (successor to the League of Nations), The Jews agreed to the plan but was rejected by the Palestinians and the Arab countries. (that’s 1 for Israel being a non aggressor).

    However the UN would not give up so easy and was adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 1947.Despite the Pals non acceptance the UN ratified the PPFP. Enraged the Palestinian Arabs began attacking Jewish convoys. I think we can honestly say that’s another point against the pals, making it 2 for Israel 0 fr the pals. Worse the pals and Arabs attacked communities throughout Palestine and blocked Jerusalem. Ie the Pals attacked civilians. That is another point against the pals. Score is now 3 for Israel 0 for the pals. However, the Zionists attacked and destroyed several Palestinian villages due to the Pals attacking earlier. I give a point to the Pals! Score 1 pals Israel 3. The Arab League had publicly declared that it aimed to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state by force, and Al Husseini told the British that he wanted to implement the same 'solution to the Jewish problem' as Hitler had carried out in Europe! Now that was worth two points against the Pals making the score Israel five the pals one.

    A day after the declaration of the state of Israel (May 14, 1948) Arab troops from the neighboring countries invaded the area. At first they made some advances and conquered parts of the territory allotted to the Jews. Initially they had better weaponry and more troops, but that changed after the first cease-fire, which was used by the Zionists to organize and train their newly established army, the Israeli Defense Forces. Due to better organization, intelligence and motivation the Jews ultimately won their War of Independence.

    I do not see how up to that point the Jews could be seen as the aggressor. I will test the waters and post this, I give the Pals as being very much more aggressive than the Israelis with a score of 1 for the pals to five for Israel with the highest score indicating the least agressive.

    I do not see how up to that point the Jews could be seen as the aggressor. I will test the waters and post this, I give the Pals as being very much more aggressive than the Israelis with a score of 1 for the pals to five for Israel with the highest score indicating the least agressive.


    The next installmentwill NOT be in this style, its too clumsey..but will cover 1948 to present....

    (end)

    Rev A
     
  2. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well these topics do get people emotionally pumped, but yes we should all attempt personal reflection to keep the debate thorough and relevant.

    Actually you should consider the fact Zionist foreigners had been forcibly implanting themselves in the area for 30 years prior, often violently. Furthermore, Benni Morris notes (in Righteous Victims) that although Zionist leaders excepted the partition, it was done under the idea that they would expand beyond their designated borders, and saw the partition as the first step to total domination of the local population.

    I really dont know what you are talking about here. After the 1947 resolution, Israeli forces committed what has been widely accepted as ethnic cleansing. If there was any counter-violence it was surely legitimate. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced. There were atrocities committed by both sides, but overwhelming by the Zionists.
    Given the ethnic cleansing, any resistance was surely justified and cannot be legitimately counted as aggression. Hence the tally is at Aggression: Israel 2 Palestine 0. But yes, if we seek to incorporate the cries of some Palestinian leaders, and the failure to recognize Israel we could change the score: Israel 2 Palestinians 1 by way of aggression.

    Arab states are not Palestinians, so they cant be counted, unless you want to have another tally, which is reasonable. So, so far we would have
    Aggression: Israel vs Palestine: 2 -1
    : Israel vs Arab States: 0 -1

    Good. After this we can see the tally fly way off against Israel - ie a total increase in Israeli aggression. I suggest if you wish to continue your timeline, to take it slow so we can identify root causes of each set of conflicts (although to give you a heads up, its almost always caused by Israel)
     
  3. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    True, defending and or promoting emotionally charged subjects is a very, VERY dangerous endeavor, much like navigating a minefield blindfolded while being shot at by a platoon of cloned machine gun Kelly’s armed with .45 caliber Tommy guns that are stuck on full auto, while riding a dog sled being pulled with twenty hype-dsAQ huskies that just consumed a drug dealers stash of high grade cocaine! Only easier…

    Seriously, intense overpowering emotions are many a man/woman’s down fall in all areas of life. The first thing I try to do when a problem is giving me a problem is to remove all the emotional baggage attached to the problem. Then solve the problem. Its ALWAYS so much easier. However in debate you stripping the problem naked is the easy part! Your debate partner must do the same thing! That is one of the most difficult things to do. Because both I and my debate partner often backslides to reclothing the problem, especially when losing ground. Kurt Godel was speaking of a much deeper level when he said “ Kurt Gödel: The more I think about language, the more it amazes
    me that people ever understand each other at all.', INDED ha ha,

    Well, respectfully I will not comment because its beyond the scope of my orginal 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.

    Well that conclusion is hearsay framed by speculation. We must, or should extrapolate what happened by actual events, not by an author writing after the fact

    I detailed what happened. The Palestinians ie Palestinian Arabs (the Pabs for ease) were already angry but become enraged when the UN adopted the proposal (not a resolution and I do think there is a difference)!

    Heck the Israelis had no reason to not be happy. However and this is in 47/48 the Pabs (again Pabs=Palestinian Arabs) began viciously attacking Jewish convoys and even communities and blocked Jerusalem. Some members here butchers grammar so badly (hated Semites etc) that I thought it courteous and an aid to productive debate to begin pasting the definition the word that might be confusing, hence Pabs etc. In that vein I ha2;

    Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its
    broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism -

    That said ; Maybe we read different history books? Or more likely we do read material with a different slant!! Some of the information in my reply was gained by my nephews books (he is a freshman in college) as well as the web and my books, and yes some by memory. By the way when you say the ‘47 resolution do you mean the ‘proposal’? You may be speaking of the Zionists attacks after the Pabs first attacked the Jewish convoys and communities and blocked the Jewish people worshiping blocking access to Duralumin (the most holy Jewish city that contains the number one religious site).

    That may be the events that led up to what you are calling attempted genocide. If so I would have to highly disagree. Actually after the Pabs cut off access to Jurulwsum etc which led to the Zionests attacks on several Pabs vils, that a bevy of skirmishes and declarations, battles and cease fires, eventually the Israelis established the IDF. When it all began in November of 47 the Arabs in support of the Palestians had better weapons (thank you USSR) and more troops. Nevertheless, that changed after the first cease-fire I mentioned. The Zionists took that time to vastly improve their newly established army. That my fellow member, that (and God inside)much better army gave Israel the edge to win her War of Independence. war of independence, and the rest is history so to speak!

    Again we surely will have to agree to disagree. For starters, y sources do not mention ethnic cleansing (because there were and are no ethnic Palestinians! Even if there were I highly doubt that anything resembling ethnic cleansing occurred.

    * http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm


    Not so fast ha ha! The Arabs were mixed with the pals. And even when they fought as anally as a nation they were again supporting the pabs in a military action, so the Pabs by engaging in the action is an aggressor. I will agree that my method of assessment was not well thought out!

    Again I know the details of history. If I am even more through it will be even more boring and exponentially longer. Lastly I was very precise who started the aggressive behavior and it was the pabs! Take any instance and list it (that I have mentioned, which covers all recorded skirmishes maybe save for one family attacking another) and I can show indisputably and conclusively that the Pabs (the Arab Palestinians) were the first strike aggressors (in the instances I presented).

    RevA
     
  4. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Israel from a religious perspective does have deed to the entire nation ! Don’t you wonder how the original borders of Israel were arrived at? The bible. And if you would brush up on your history it may surprise you to learn how Israel received her borders! They earned their borders just like many other middle eastern nations in close proximity to her. And that is? By UN decree, resolutions and the very UN that Palestinian and her supporters are praising with near religious accolades! And there is one more way Israel drew her boarders, and the was War. So please attempt to learn everything you can about the history of the area and people before making off the cuff comments like I do ha ha.

    Personally I think the USA was put on earth to defend Israel. Israel was prophesied to become a nation over thousands of years ago. She did just that in 1948. The first time she remerged with her biblical borders the first time she become a nation over night, etc etc~ Not only did Israel have supernatural help she had real world support, and even today she has the might of the west’s super power standing beside her.

    Yes the USA is doing what any other nation would do! Protecting herself! We became an nation that could control the world, a nation that demonstrated to the USSR (whom I respected) she was the ONLY real superpower on the earth. And while acquiring the might to do that we did break some eggs, we had to if were to protect our way of life and freedom. The only reasons many other nations are not aggressive is because the USA protects them! If the USA were maliciously aggressive she would rule the world.

    It does matter what we believe in. Sorry to disagree!

    I would guarantee you Israel would not invade anyone unless she feared for her survival. I can not say the same thing for the deceptive greedy nations that surround her, one that called for her destruction every time he opened his mouth !

    Only someone that does not understand history or geopolitical affairs would say that.

    Rev A
     
  5. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Explain Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 then? And that's just one example of Israeli brutality and double standards.
     
  6. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL A good quote. Yes, I agree, and as someone who does agree and strives for the same ends, I will try to avoid ethical arguments as well (as these engage with emotions quite often) and rather still to legal and historical fact.

    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.

    You obviously dont know who Benny Morris is. He, like Ian Pappe and Avi Shalim amongst others, are the "new historians" in Israel that have engaged extensively with newly released government documents and data in the last couple of decades. They have ALL concluded ethnic cleansing took place in Palestine with the creation of Israel. This is not hearsay, this is history. I cna assure you I would never resort to degenerate historians who merely point an opinion and call it fact. Again, an ethnic cleansing did occur, this is not disagreed with at all by modern historians.

    What is your source? No my historical, and accountable sources completely refute this.

    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.

    I'd like to know what your sources are. You began saying it was 'old high schools stuff' or something, so I'm guessing it isn't at all reliable, no offense.

    No I mean UN partition resolution 181, and the declaration of independence by Israel.

    Again, what is your source for this claim? Are you talking about Palestinian fedayeen?

    No, not genocide - ethnic cleansing, which isnt genocide, rather displacement by force - but it did include massacres and war crimes.

    When did this happen? (month and year?)

    Um... the Arab-Israeli war began in 1948.

    I dont know where you read this, but I haven't. A source would be nice. No the reason Israel won the war, again I cite Benny Morris (he's an Israeli, although I already mentioned that) was not only because the Israelis were fighting for more than their opponents (which he considers a major factor) but primarily Israeli victory rested on the fact the Israelis simply had better armed forces. The British had left them well trained, commanded and supplied (as well as by the zionist movement itself) but the Israelis also had close lines of communication and good leadership. All these things were lacking by the majority of Arab forces. God had nothing to do with it.

    Again what are your sources?

    Yes there are. If you are referring to the myths of books like 'Time in Memorial' which state this ('Time' being the most extensively - although fraudulently - researched) you will find ALL such analysis has been refuted as being filled with propaganda and misleading conclusions. Of that book I mentioned, Norman Finkelstien developed an extremely thorough and complete refutation of the book, which he exposed as a complete load of tripe.

    Again the history disagrees with you.

    Your link here is another example of recycled propaganda, as emphasized by the fact there are NO sources provided for the author's assertions.

    No, the Arabs were fighting independently and for separate goals, as indicated by their later actions, such as Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories.

    I cant see how this changes my tally. I already included that as a point for the Palestinians and one point for the Arabs in terms of aggression.

    You have not shown this. I have shown otherwise but also provided sources, which you have failed to do.

    Read my sources, they prove your out dated assumptions wrong. Ethnic cleansing took place, coordinated by the Israelis. I already counted Palestinian nonrecognition of Israel and violence against it (although as I said most was IN RESPONSE TO ETHNIC CLEANSING) as an act of aggression, so I dont see what you'd be changing anyway. Certainly Palestinian violence was not valid overall, that is legally, but you have used minute examples within one set of aggression to make some hugely large tally that doesnt make sense. If we count each massacre, we'll be here all day. If we count each event generally, we cna be far more efficient at recording to turn of aggression.'
     
  7. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are not serious are you MDF! That is too easy. You knew that I would know the answer to that as general info ….wait is it a straw thing? Hezbollah terrorists ambushed the Israeli soldiers. The sole purpose of that cowardly attack was to kidnap murder and torture Jewish people. I will give them credit for attacking a military group though. Nevertheless, everyone knows the story; The party of god terrorists ambushed a small Israeli Defense Force (IDF) patrol , killing three and capturing two Israelis. That was a first strike by Hezbollah, not the other way around. So my fellow member, there are double standards however Hezbollah were the 'double standard doers'...ha ha.

    Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    8.1 Public opinion; 8.2 Designation as a terrorist organization or resistance ...
    Organization are considered to be synonymous with Hezbollah by the United ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

    No, see above! That you feel even that first strike against Israel ie the murder, kidnapping, torture of the Israeli soldiers demonstrates the effectiveness of the radical Islam mastery of propaganda. It seems you believe the reverse of the truth… eh? Hmmm that is a symptom....

    As an old Army PsyOps guy I have to say that the modern Islamic ‘passive coercive persuasion’ is the best by far that I have seen since the North VC used it in Nam. And its so similar to the North VC's Nams propaganda. They too first targeted the college campuses to make hating our soldiers cool as do the Islamic Eventually it became a part of the counter culture movement…but that’s material for another thread….

    Not only did the radical Islamic goons of Hezbollah kidnap and torture the Israelis they brokered a prisoner exchange, where Israel returned live prisoners for dead Israeli prisoners. Real stand up guys those Hezbollah terrorists, aren’t they MegaDeathFan?

    LiveLeak.com - 2006 war israeli soldiers kidnapped are Dead.
    Jul 16, 2008 ... 2006 war israeli soldiers kidnapped are Dead.
    History of Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    kidnapped and tortured to death U.S. Marine Colonel William R. Higgins and the
    CIA .... Since summer 2006, though, foreign peacekeepers and Lebanese army ...
    (IDF) soldiers mentioned above, who were killed either during the Hezbollah ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah
    www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1216201329&comment_order...first -

    I think not, in this case at least Israel has better morals and far better ethics, and in the long run Israel is passive compared to the Radical Arab Terrorists (along with the Islamic radicals) Ie the R.A.T.’s and friends.

    * Personally I think the strawman is a good fair tactic. It tricks the trolls into showing their ignorance etc…More about that later?

    RevA
     
  8. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "I will gather all the nations, and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; and they have divided up My land" (Joel 3:2).

    As will I.

    Ha ha how convenient (staking a time to start advantageous to your argument). When did the USAs situation begin? Should we go back ten thousand years? The native Americans (NA's) were here at least that long and they are claiming that they have a right to the land, the same as the Pals claiming land ownership. How far back should we go? Wayyyy back? Or just a hundred years? It's not a easy thing to answer, but I say lets go medieval on em'.

    Seriously, I would go all the way back to biblical times because Israel is a unique state and nation. There are so many reasons that Israel has a right to her tiny nation, I will list a few of them. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land. The archeological evidence supports it. Israelis presence in Israel for thousands of years is proven, no serious archeologist would deny that. There are coins, pottery shards the cities, the culture. Israel’s claim to the land predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct as well as others that may of had valid claim by lineage, except for guess who, the Israelis.

    Even the race of the peoples play into the Isrealies claim for land. Modern Egyptians are not the same as the Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago. Genetically They are various stocks of Arab and other people. The first Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof/reason, then, is the archeology. The second reason, is made possible by a man named Mr Allenby.

    Flashback to WW1, Mr Allenby captured Jerusalem without firing a single shot. He was British. How does that tie into this mess of a story? The British now had the land we call Israel it was not long before another happy thing happened. A man named Weitzman, a Jewish chemist, discovered a way to make Nitro from materials that existed in England which saved the British because they had no way to make the explosive that was vital to the war effort. Still lost? Ok here is the clincher. The British were so grateful for the Jewish chemists contribution that they said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland! That is in every text book printed. The brits also gained something else, money from the rich banker Jews to help finance the war, ie WW1.

    BTW, the homeland that Britain said it would set aside for the nation of Israel constituted was the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917. Now do you see why Israel has the land legally? There are more twists and turns from after WW1. If I must I will cover that as well. Israel has a rock solid historical legal claim to her land.

    And………..there is more….much more….

    (*)(*)(*)(*) this is getting tiresome!

    RevA
     
  9. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No - ITS A TRAP!
    [​IMG]

    LOL No the reason I mention this is because it appears easy but in actual fact, most western commentators displayed serious double standards during the war, as I will explain. If you only listened to the news, or mainstream commentators instead of reading scholarly material or the reports that came out on the matter, you wouldnt know it was actually Israel's fault entirely.

    That's entirely contradictory. Clearly they targeted a military group, but yes for the purpose of capturing them, anyway go on...

    Israel commits far more terrorism than Hamas or Hezbollah could dream, but that isnt relevant...

    Wait till my final comment. Also what is "radical Islam mastery of propaganda"? LOL

    I really have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly have an extremely shallow, or rather twisted, understanding of public and intellectual opinion in regards to Vietnam and the conflict in Palestine, which you are now asserting has some mystical propaganda apparatus. Totally delusional, but again irrlevant so I'll say no more.

    See below.

    This above stuff is irrelevant to my question, but I'll end up refuting it all later, perhaps even now.

    Ok, so why did the 2006 Lebanon War start?
    Let me allow Israeli military analyst Zeev Moaz to explain:

    There is a wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral war. Unfortunately this consensus is based on selective and short-term memory, on an introvert world view, and on double standards. This is not a just war. The use of force is excessive and indiscriminate, and its ultimate aim is extortion. This does not imply that Hezbollah has a moral case in this conflict; quite to the contrary. But the fact that Hezbollah “initiated” this conflict by abducting Israeli soldiers across an internationally recognized border does not even start to shift the balance to Israel’s side of the scales of morality.

    ...

    The Hezbollah has violated an internationally recognized border in its attack on the Israeli patrol on June 12. That is indisputable. What is less known, however, is that Israel has violated Lebanese airspace by carrying out aerial reconnaissance missions virtually every day since its withdrawal from Southern Lebanon six years ago. True, these aerial overflights did not cause any Lebanese casualties, but a border violation is a border violation.

    ...

    (As for the abductions):

    On July 28, 1988 Israeli Special Forces abducted Sheikh Obeid, and on May 21, 1994 Israel kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had been responsible for capturing the Israeli pilot Ron Arad. Israel held these and other 20 Lebanese who were captured under undisclosed circumstances in prison for prolonged periods without trial. They were held as human “bargaining chips.” Apparently, abduction of Israelis for the purpose of prisoners’ exchange is morally reprehensible and militarily punishable when it is the Hezbollah who does the abducting, but not if Israel is doing the very same thing.
    Download more here:
    http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/The War of Double Standards.pdf
    Also:
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/morality-is-not-on-our-side-1.193739

    The reason for Hezbollah's action was evidently to organize a prisoner exchange - not the ludicrous assertion you make of 'torture and terrorism'. That much is obvious. What is amazing is that, Israel responded to crimes they have comitted far more frequently by killing 1000 INNOCENT people through their invasion.

    As Noam Chomsky notes, the IDF acted similarly in Gaza - in September of 2009, they abducted 5 kids. Now you may think this was in response to the Hamas capture of Gilad Shalit, however a day or so before his capture, the IDF had also abducted two civilians, the Muamar brothers, who were taken back to Israel and imprisoned along with THOUSANDS of other Palestinians.
    See Hopes and Prospects pgs 146 - 153.

    Israel has continued its inhumane double standards by kidnapping another two people from Lebanon in March of this year:
    http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/22/lebanese-army-slams-israel-over-kidnappings/
     
  10. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It isnt cause its advantageous - its because its the most rational point to begin.

    What do you mean? Modern US history? Began with the discovery of America by Columbus I would wager.

    It is quite easy to answer - you simply trace the origins of what it is you are looking at. The native Americans did not found the modern USA. They certainly had their own history and nations, and they should be recognized as a part of the history of the land of America, but not the USA. The same principle applies to Israel. Of course in US history, the native American Indians played a huge role in that they were brutally attacked, massacred and displaced by European explorers and settlers.

    But its current state is exactly that - current and modern. The ancient state of Israel was destroyed ages ago. Again I cite my Gaul example.

    There are so many reasons that Israel has a right to her tiny nation, I will list a few of them.[/QUOTE]
    This isnt up for discussion let alone debate. I thought we agreed not to discuss ethics? Legally, both Israelis AND Palestinians have a right to self determination. Legally, they have land to found nations. Whether we disagree or not, for whatever reason (I dont disagree with the legal parameters btw) it doesn't matter because we are discussing fact and legal agreements - not what 'could have happened.'

    This is ALL irrelevant. The fact is none of this matters today. Agreements have been reached already. The legal parameters creating the Israeli state also set in force the recognition of Palestine. This cannot be disputed if we are to simply debate the history of the ensuing conflict.

    This thread isnt about 'what should Israel be' or 'are the Palestinians a people' or 'does Israel have ancient rights to self determination' - the topic of this thread is, is Israel a victim or aggressor with relation to MODERN Israeli history. Modern Israeli history begins with the arrival of the first zionists. In fact, if you want to be really picky, the only other starting date would be 1948, however this would not change any of my points.
     
  11. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jesus MDF you are a master at redirection deception and bait and switch to say nothing of attempting to derail a chain of debate via declaring multiple new arguments.You accuse me of not providing enough sources then when I do you attempt to discredit them (you are no king of posting a source to back up every claim you make either).

    The double standard exists, however it wells from your mass of undocumented or unverified statements and claims. You may not be doing all these things intentionally so lets take ONE thing at a time and resolve it then move on to the next point? If you disagree with anything please make your point and be brutally specific?

    Orginal post that MDF disagreed to...
    Here is your EXACT reply ~

    Ok do I have to post everything again? My post and history clearly shows that Israel was attacked first, ambushed by Hezbollah. The Hezbollah soldiers didn’t intend to kidnap unless they were the keystone cops of terrorists, they intended to MURDER three IDF soldiers. They kidnapped two Israelis who later died, the Israelis may have been mortally wounded in the fire fight, may have been tortured to death or may have died of natural causes, who knows? There is a history to that little story too, more on that later. I already mentioned it was a military patrol. So Hez attacks and murders three, and sends the other two back home dead after a deception (more on that later) and its the ISRAELIS that are brutal and have double standards?

    Anyway to repeat you were proven wrong by admitting the terrorists attacked and killed three, with the last two sent home in a body bag. After this attack the chain of events was clear, WAR was declared, and if you are going to claim Israel was brutal in war, well that is beyond silly.Hezbollah KILLING three Israelis and sending two home in a body bag (how did they die? From the kindness of their captors???) was the trigger point (after a chain of events) that ended up starting or contributing to a war! End of (this) story..eh?
    NEXT???

    Rev A
     
  12. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Um... you realize multiple arguments can be used to make a point? That isnt deception, that's thoroughness in discussion. If you cant handle that, that's your problem not mine. Dont accuse me of redirection. If you really think I have, point it out dont make rhetorical accusations.

    Which is totally valid. Furthermore if there are statements where you require more sources, or you feel a source is invalid or you want something clarified etc etc, just point it out. Again dont accuse me of wrong doing when that is not my intent. Everyone of the events I have discussed I have substantiated with sources. You have not, nor have you provided any after I have asked. Conversely, I am offering to give more sources where you require them. This is why you will lose the debate - because instead of lifting the level of our arguments, you want to dumb them down so as to make it easier to let slip bs.

    Which claims are those? Again dont accuse without evidence, and even then I have repeatedly said I will substantiate claims you feel have not been.

    Dito.

    No they dont. They cut off history to justify an invasion that was totally hypocritical and cruel.

    What is your evidence for this claim? I have given professional analysis showing the reason for getting back those Israel had kidnapped - kidnapped first, if you havent realized.

    Indeed, who knows.

    Yes because Israelis had previously done EXACTLY THE SAME THING already and far more often! Did you not read more source?

    So you are denying Israel had done exactly the same thing before?

    You havent refuted my three or so sources I gave let alone their conclusions. Are you saying Israel has the right to invade Lebanon when Hezbollah kidnaps an Israeli but Lebanon cannot invade Israel if they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING???? Understand that I do not condone what Hezbollah did, rather I condemn what both sides did - pointing out the fact Israel kidnapped and violated the border MORE TIMES THAN Hezbollah and BEFORE the 2006 kidnappings. My analysts, to which I provided links, concluded the act was NOT to simply murder or to terrorize as you continually state (without substantiate either), but rather to kidnap Israelis in order to get LEBANESE CITIZENS BACK! After showing this you say Israel can invade? Logically then Lebanon had the right to invade Israel every time Israel not only violated the border but also kidnapped people.
     
    creation and (deleted member) like this.
  13. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
  16. diligent

    diligent New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,139
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) what a 'muscian' thinks or does? They have certainly, witha high level of arrogance, elevated themselves above the heads of us poor mortals.

    I am quite capable, as are many others on this site, of making decisons on matters poltical without some spurious advice from a 'muso'.
     
  17. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ok... so whose the "muso" and why should we disregard him/her just because they are a muso? LOL
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This was probably one of the weakest debates I have encountered on PF.
     
  19. Khalil

    Khalil New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is this debate/discussion over?
     
  20. Khalil

    Khalil New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh man, I would have had fun debating this topic...
     
  21. Khalil

    Khalil New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I noticed what RevArchanist has said, so I have decided to respond to him. Here is the first part of my response.

    I find it hysterical that you try to base your information on what happened in the Middle East “right after WW1” when you skipped to the Partition Plan immediately, which was after WWII! First, I’d like to talk about how the powers of WWI began to “split up” the Middle East. Before there were any promises made to the Jews for Palestine, Sir Henry McMahon (British High Commissioner of Egypt) correspondence with the Sharif of Mecca. This promised the Arabs to be recognized in all their territory except for the area of present day Lebanon. Not long after the British betrayed the Arabs during secret Sykes-Picot agreement.

    Anyway, to the Balfour Declaration… The Middle East was still under the control of the Ottomans when this promise was made. Balfour didn’t do this for his “love” of the Jews. In fact, Balfour was a known anti-Semite who as prime minister tried to push the 1905 Aliens Act to curb foreign, particularly Jewish immigration to Britain. The Balfour Declaration was even officially recognized as illegal in the Maugham Commission Report in 1939. To promise the Jews to come, it pretty much promised the Jews a home, and declared the “non-Jewish” population’s rights will not be affected. This seems to just amount to an invasion of a country by thousands of immigrants, so how exactly would this not disturb the people in possession? This is already unacceptable. The British government was revoking the Palestinians rights under the League of Nations Covenant. The British government were not free to dispose of Palestine without the regard and wishes for all the inhabitants of Palestine.

    Only after decades of Jewish terrorism and illegal Jewish immigration, did we get to the partition plan. The Jews introduced terrorist acts such as the truck bomb, the letter bomb and economic sabotage. The Jews not only targeted Palestinians, but even the British government. By the way the League of Nations Mandates were under the concern of article 22 of their covenant. They were supposed to help the indigenous population establish an independent state with tutelage and assistance, not “colonization of a foreign group of people”.

    I’d like to point out before the UNSCOP partition plan there had been other attempts to partition the territory, for example, by the Royal Peel Commission. Anyway, back to the point. I find it sad that the fate of Palestine was put into the hands of the newly formed UNSCOP who had no knowledge of the history of Palestine. The Arabs had a right to reject it this does not make them any aggressor, particularly because resolution 181 was a joke. If anybody was to look at the population distribution in Palestine they would have noticed that it was completely wrong (by the way the UNSCOP proposed a solution to have a bi-national state which the Jewish Agency rejected). Since in the area designated for the Jewish state there was about 500,000 Palestinians sharing the land with nearly 500,000 Jews (most of which were recent immigrants), while the Palestinian part had nearly 800,000 Palestinians, and only 10,000 Jews. The Jews before the partition only owned about 6% of the land, so why give them 10% more land than the Palestinians in the partition? Especially out of the 56% of the land the resolution promised the Jews, 90.62% of it was legally owned by private Arab and Palestinian owners. The Arab League was even opposing the partition plan by boycotting its proceedings from the start. And the Palestinians showed their contempt for the partition plan during 1936-38 as history shows us. The British were directly violating the right to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, again is stipulated under the UN Charter. The Arab League and the Palestinians already knew that they were going to lose the vote, since in the First Committee on the question of Palestine it was already noticeable that they were very pro-Zionist. It is a rather strange procedure having delegates from both the Jewish Agency and Arab League represent in the first committee even though they weren’t even members to the UN… In other words, it was completely unjust. If anything the question of Palestine should have been decided upon by the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

    In conclusion, this was unjust, and the Arabs had a right to reject the Partition of their territory. Never in history did the indigenous people ever want to give away their land to foreign colonists.
     
  22. Khalil

    Khalil New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Messages:
    855
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, after resolution 181 was accepted, the Palestinians did begin to attack Jews. But this is only if you disregard the several acts of violence that the Jews committed for the past decades. Not only did Jews (mainly the terrorist organizations like Irgun and Lehi) contribute in this violence after the partition, but they eventually provoked much of it in the civil war. The Haganah had already began its first operation on December first, and the Irgun began their fighting as well. The Irgun and Haganah in all throughout December began to attack Palestinians. Haganah launched plan Gimmel. The Irgun attacked Abu Kebir, Tireh, some residential areas in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, as well as Khisas, Herod’s Gate, Haifa refinery, among other areas in December (attacks still continued in 1948). Eventually, the Haganah launched operation Dalet, which included several massacres on defenseless villages. Once the first truce was called on June 11 1948, guess he broke it? Yes, the Israeli operations Dani and Dekel on July 9 – not the Palestinians. By the way the Zionist forces attacked several more villages and from the beginning of the civil war to the ending of the actual war over 400 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Now what do you call that for “attacking communities throughout Palestine”? I’d like to add even after the signing of the armistice agreements Israel continued emptying villages like Al-Faluja and Iraq Al-Manshiya for example. When you said, the Jews attacked many villages “due to ‘pals’ attacking earlier” you couldn’t be more wrong. By January it would be impossible to say the Zionist forces actions could be retaliation or anything of that sort (just as a few attacks previous to January). The Zionists actually were planning attacks like this for some time now. Ben-Gurion confirmed planning and preparation for this war began as early as 1945. And if you include the village files (which found ways to attack all Palestinian villages in Palestine) then you could say 1940. The Palestinians during the civil war didn’t even have an actual army or military (although this isn’t needed for a civil war, it’s still something to note down).

    Al-Husseini told the British that? Well, big deal, with what army are you supposing he does that with? And I am assuming you’re talking about the mufti of Jerusalem. The Arab League actually only intervened in the conflict after several massacres and attacks on Palestinians was committed by the Zionists. Previous to this, the Arab League didn’t take any action. This wasn’t done randomly either, the Arab countries made sure they got secured parliamentary approval for their intervention. The United Nations Security Council didn’t even condemn such acts by the Arab nations. The Egyptian Foreign Minister even informed the Security Council that the Egyptian forces were to intervene.

    Again, Arab nations only invaded after several attacks on Palestinians, their intervention was completely justified. As I explained earlier:

    The Arab countries made sure they got secured parliamentary approval for their intervention. The United Nations Security Council didn’t even condemn such acts by the Arab nations. The Egyptian Foreign Minister even informed the Security Council that the Egyptian forces were to intervene.

    Actually, the Zionist armies in the battle outnumbered all numbers in the Arab Armies. Not only that, but most the training of the Haganah forces came from the British (not intentionally, the British created the Zionist police enforces who they trained). The Haganah did have good weaponry by the way, since they made an agreement with Czech for a firm supply of arms. Their weaponry superseded that of the ALA’s. The Arab League intervention was too late anyway; the Zionists already had taken control of much of the land. Also, nearly all the battles even after the Arab armies intervened, took place in the area designated for the Palestinian state (of the resolution 181) and not the designated Jewish state (as of resolution 181). The Zionists even were preparing to convert Palestine into a Jewish state via the Baltimore program (1942). And yes, Israel did end up winning the war.
     
  23. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nice contribution Khalil. Yet another example of Rev's weak argumentation.
     
  24. greatgeezer

    greatgeezer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The best way I can answer this is this, rocks vs Merkava tanks, CAT D9 vs Rachel Corrie, Willie Pete vs more rocks. You figure it out.
     
    MegadethFan and (deleted member) like this.
  25. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you going to sit there and tell us that the Arab nations didn't help arm their brothers in the Arab/Jewish civil war??? Come on Meg, tell the truth.

    .'[/QUOTE]No, the Arabs were fighting independently and for separate goals, as indicated by their later actions, such as Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of Palestinian territories.'[/QUOTE]

    You forgot Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq who were also fighting the Jews. All toll there were 5 Arab nations attacking Israel. And all 5 got their collective tails whipped.

    And my question to you is, who attacked who??? Dec.1 1947 was it Arabs attacking Jews or Jews attacking Arabs??? On May 15, 1948 was it Israel attacking her Arab neighbors or the Arab League attacking the new state of Israel??? Careful now...
     

Share This Page