The “Israeli preconditions” of course being that any agreement allow for the continued survival of Israel.
Yeah, those are completely unreasonable.:rolleyes:
For the record, as I’ve said before, if there’s going to be a solution, it would require a stable, viable Palestinian state and a guarantee of security and continued existence for Israel.
“Zionism” means nothing more than “Jewish ethnic nationalism”
Nearly all states are built on “racialism” if by “racialism” one means “ethnic nationalism”. Think of the Germans in Germany, the Russians in Russia, the Turks in Turkey or the French in France.
All states pretty well without exception are built on “violence”.
Beyond that, anyone who argues that Israel should agree to a solution that “eradicates” it is making unreasonable demands.
You might as well argue the solution to the Pamidtani-Indian conflict is for India to annex Pakistan and be shocked when Pakistan gets upset.
Not always true, although it is sometimes. Many of the settlements are built on land that was empty. Some were built upon field or orchard land that was seized, but not by demolishing homes.
The truth is bad enough; exaggerations don’t help anyone uncover the truth.
Are you seriously claiming that Israel has 320,000 settlers in Gaza?
By the way - starting with “Heh.”? Care to explain why that’s any more polite than me starting posts with “duhhhh” or something similarly patronising?
What Gary Kumquat would do is look for a more reputable cite. And he did. And all he could find was Israeli media reporting it, and then other media citing the Israeli reports.
So, cite please. Because if I’m going to distort facts, I really need actual facts to distort.
Nifty. Do you apply the same standard to the other side? That is, if something is reported by Hamas, and then other media based on that Hamas reporting, do you dismiss it?
With regards to your first comment, I just find with you it’s good to get specifics. It’s not a lot of fun to go and find the flaws with one of your links, so you can then say you were referring to another.
So, in this case you’ve gone for the IDF figures from a wiki link, on the basis of a gatestone institute article. Now obviously you know who Gatestone are, so will understand just why their claims will be viewed as circumspect, right? I mean this is the same lot who claim that Islamis’s are interested in sodomy for jihad:
"Citing his desire for “martyrdom and the virgins of paradise,” one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, “Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?”
Of course, that was complete propaganda ( see loonwatch’s analysis of the video involved here Sodomy for Jihad or Islamophobic Hoax? | Loonwatch.com ) but that is what Gatestone does, after all ( funnily enough for an offshoot of the Hudson Institute, founded by those fun loving guys from the Rand Corporation)
In short, you’re quoting propaganda to support the IDFs bodycount ratio for the last atrocity…and then arguing that this one will probably be the same.
Now, I appreciate that this position will do just fine for your confirmation bias, but I must admit it’s not cutting much ice with me.
Yes. Yes I do. I think Hamas are a massive bunch of evil bastards and full of shit. That doesn’t mean though that I think the arseholes on the opposing side are any better.This seems to be a position that confuses you? I will try to explain it as simply as I can.
I like the people of Israel a lot. I could explain my personal reasons for this, but there’s no point. You have to paint me as being biased, because that’s the only way to support your narrative, so any anything I give describing a personal connection to either the Jewish faith or the people of Israel, you will dismiss as a lie.
Whereas I have no connection to the people of Gaza, but I must assume they’re just the same as you or I, so I’m rather upset to see over a thousand of them killed for a bad reason. No particular reason, it’s just generally when hundreds of children are being killed, along with innocent women and men, I think that’s rather crap and should be discouraged.
I see you’re doubling down on ignorance. How’s Time Magazine for you?
We have seen this before. A similar dispute over casualty figures occurred during Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip in January 2009. The Israelis contended that the majority of the fatalities were combatants; the Palestinians claimed they were civilians. The media and international organizations tended to side with the Palestinians. The UN’s own investigatory commission headed by Richard Goldstone, which produced the Goldstone Report, cited PCHR’s figures along with other Palestinian groups providing similar figures. Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report.
Out of interest, what geographic constraints are attached to that nation?
In other words, you accept your first cite is massively compromised, so have found one that’s not complete conspiraloon territory?
Good for you!
Except now you’re quoting Steven Stotsky:
“Steven Stotsky is a senior analyst with The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a U.S.-based group that monitors the news media for what it considers to be anti-Israel bias”
You know CAMERA right? The same group caught setting up a Wikipedia PR campaign to whitewash any Israel relate entities ( http://electronicintifada.net/files/080421-camera-wikipedia.pdf ). The organisation “known for its pro-Israel” advocacy, set up with the express purpose of promoting Israel’s tactics.
In your opinion, is an author from such a lobby group a reputable source?
Heh.
If you’re going attack CAMERA’s credibility(which is quite a reasonable position) I’d recommend against using the “Electronic Intifada” as your source.
It undercuts you a bit.
You’ll have to take up that distortion issue with CarnalK. He’s the one who tied your nom de plume to the distorting of obvious facts. I took your side. 
I’ll bite. Since you brought it up, perhaps you could explain it to me. I won’t call you a liar.
Those are the same exact facts that are being reported. Even in “The Islamic News”.
http://theislamicnews.com/palestine-hamas-acknowledges-higher-casualties-in-gaza-war/
He told the paper, “They say the people suffered from this war, but is Hamas not part of the people? On the first day of the war Israel targeted police stations and 250 martyrs were killed, from Hamas and other factions”.
“In addition to them, between 200 and 300 fighters from the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s armed wing) and another 150 security forces were martyred.”
The exact same quote. If you think it is fabricated, guess who’s the “conspiraloon”?
Sorry, I only just noticed your complaint about the use of the word “heh”. Sorry about that. No offense was intended. Unfortunately the edit window has lapsed, so I can’t edit it out.
See previous comment about “Heh” Shit, I’m happy to swap insults if you fancy, but go to the right forum, there’s a pal.
Wikipedia also describe CAMERA’s little propaganda play, in their own article on CAMERA:
They were caught bonny. So far, Terr’s quoted one offshoot of the Rand corporation, and a journalist who works for a pro-Israeli PR group. And he feels free to accuse others of “doubling down on ignorance”
No, no you don’t. Example: how do you know “hundreds of children are being killed”? Because Hamas reports it. Can you find independent confirmation that does not just repeat what Hamas says?