How is it a hijack to claim that Israel has to live by a set of different rules than any other nation throughout history that claimed property from another (or in the case of the 1967 war, several others) when attacked and was the victor?
In that particular instance, I believe Israel was well within its rights to do so.
The Empire in Africa was chugging along quite nicely, thanks; British rule ended rather differently than the French or Belgians. Precious little ass kicking involved at all, but yes unsustainable.
Rather had the decency to realise that, rather than come up with increasingly tortured justifications.
No, I’m not saying that, but I’m saying it’s difficult. As to your other suggestion, about Israel unilaterally acting to bring about peace, that’s even harder. I think that’s sort of what Israel has in mind with the security border. One endgame I see to that is, once the thing’s done, Israel saying, “Ok, everything on our side is Israel, everything not is not, and you Palestinians on your side can go fuck yourselves.” I don’t think that’s the best solution, for either side, but it might happen.
Israel is not having to live by rules any different than any other modern nation, including China, for example. By international law, Israel is in violation of normal civilised standards - at least the Chinese have had the good grace to extend citizenship to the Tibetans one notes.
Oh bolllocks, you mendacious bilious scumbag. Jewish colonisation demonstrably has displaced the bloody bastards. And your “logic” is specious relative to raised living standards - Jewish colonisation is not a bloody magic wand you demented lying pig. This line of argument is right out of the kind of scumbag justifications for Apartheid the Boers liked to trot out. Why more Black South Africans were alive and at better standards than before White Supremacy came along. Obviously they should thank God for the White Masters… (and similar arguments relative to other colonial rule have been made, morally bankrupt for white Rhodesia, for Kenyan settlers, etc) Classic post hoc fallacy combined with fallacy of excluded middle (as evidently one effect is better access to capital).
Global technological advances, notably in medical sciences but of course in agriculture, etc. have permitted more Arabs to exist in every fucking country speaking Arabic than any time in history. And far richer than they ever were before as well (although no brilliance overall). No Israel nor Jewish colonisation required for that condition, it is then irrelevant as it would clearly obtain without.
And they get to rule themselves, which queerly enough people seem to be attached to - human beings you know.
Fuck all to do with precious Jewish colonisation.
You’re a bloody deluded work you are. The very fact you extend such a morally bankrupt scum-bag argument highlights what a perverted twisted bilious creature you are.
And for you nasty little twisted creature, the Falkland obs is fact; non-settled land and no other claims, a fundamentally different proposition than Israel right on its face, although I do enjoy that your twisted little mind sees your fine method of sly and nasty suggestion (a la your nasty little piece of work re H. Ford and Carter, that’s some right honest scum-baggery for a sly bit of aspersion)
Some, yes, but most Jewish colonization of the land that would become Israel in the 19th-early 20th century was either on unoccupied land, or the new settlers purchased the land from its owners (who, of course, weren’t often the occupiers of the land, which is part of the problem. Absentee land ownership and tenancy was really big in the Ottoman Levant. Most of the displacement, though, happened during the Israeli Independence War, where a lot of the Arab inhabitants (for various reasons; Jewish intimidation, Arab intimidation, the fear of being seen as collaborators, the desire to join Arab armies, what have you) decided it was a good idea to get out of Dodge.
So, when you’re condemning the Jewish migration to Palestine, are you condemning the Jewish settlement of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine, or are you condemning current Israeli settlement in the West Bank? Or do you not see a difference between the two?
We all have to live by a different set of rules than those which applied “throughout history”. If we don’t, there will be no history, unless our cockroach inheritors shall learn to read.
Yes, and don’t skip outright expulsions by Jewish militias and the Israeli army re 1948. Listing “various reasons” and dryly underplaying expulsions and fleeing the odd massacres and moreover, rumours of massacres is a bit precious.
Condemning?
I’m neither condemning nor supporting Jewish migration to historic Palestine. I’m fairly indifferent.
What I am attacking is the wholly unnecessary and grotesque Finnagain distortions.
The events of 1948 were doubtless inevitable, and on many levels I can hardly blame the Israeli / proto Israeli militias, but at the same time the Palestinian Arab reaction also rather strikes one as not irrational and logical, in particular in the context of reaction to foreign colonial rule (British that is). I don’t particularly, then desire to demonise either side given the situation.
To the extent I would condemn settlement, it would be the occupied territories - West Bank of course now. But that’s not really my prime point.
A good hint, angry-idiot, is that if you have to make them up, they are your distortions, and not mine.
I know, who’d a thunk it?
Again, it’s quite interesting that creatures like you have to lie to claim I’m lying. It’s oh-so-very meta.
[
](MidEast Web - Population of Palestine)
It’s quite clear that Jewish settlement vastly increased the quality of life for everybody in the Mandate territory. Sorry the facts don’t fit in with your biases. Kindly stop making shit up in order to claim that the facts are lies. There’s a good chap. Or are you so demented that you can’t tell the difference between Jewish settlement in Ottoman territory and the Mandate, and Israeli settlements? Or are you just all hopped up on stupid-and-angry, and you couldn’t take the time to see that I was referring to the Jewish migration to Palestine in the past tense, not the Israeli settlement of the West Bank, which would be present tense?
You really are a ignorant little vile shit, aren’t you?
Global technological advances of the sort you claim didn’t exist during the Jewish settlement in the Mandate, it was indeed the influx of Jews that raised the standard of living.
It’s interesting that you have no clue what the fuck you’re blabbering about, but you go on at length spewing idiocy at me with maximum anger.
Now go crawl back into your hole like a good like beasty until something else you don’t understand causes you to fly into a rage.
I don’t think that history has demonstrated that at all, especially if you ascribe to what is “supposed to be” the USA’s “kindler, gentler machine gun hand”.
Why should Israel be singled out as the nation that’s supposed to buck history and be somehow original or ingenious in its application of how it deals with its lands, indigenous peoples, etc?
We can’t keep holding up a microscope to other nations and demand that they “don’t do what we used to do but must do as we do now” just because we’ve been there before.
It doesn’t make us any more moral for demanding it to be so, frankly, it makes us look like an entitled teenager demanding that our cellphone be turned back on because we acted badly previously and will not come to grips with our own issues.
Its like the glass houses argument writ large.
By the way WM, you obnoxious angry idiot, bonus points for joining in the intellectual whoring and, rather than condemning Spoke for defending Carter’s agenda-driven lies with dodges and dishonesty, as soon as I point out that, yeah, it’s quite possible to be a philanthropist and also have prejudices, you decide that I’m secretly implying something. Assuming you’re not just an intellectual prostitute (I know, I know, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) why don’t you come up with another example of a famous philanthropist who is/was also a racist, rebutting spoke’s evasion? Lucy won’t do it because he doesn’t give a fuck about facts and will ignore any abhorrent suggestion, up to and including the genocide of every man woman and child in the Israeli settlements, but he’ll hop to anybody’s defense as long as he thinks it’ll annoy me, including the guy who calls for the genocide of every man woman and child in the Israeli settlements. Honestly, I’m a little shocked at his utter lack of morality or personal integrity, but I’m not sure I should’ve expected much more. Lucy apparently works only on the level of emotion and personal interactions, and wouldn’t know how to honestly debate facts if they bit him on the face.
Meanwhile, assuming you can manage intellectual honesty for long enough and you have the ability to call spoke out on his bullshit about how even when facts show that Carter is a bigot, we can’t say that because he’s such a philanthropist? Then, go google or something and find an easier example of a philanthropist who was also prejudiced than Ford. I didn’t feel like spending much time rebutting an obvious dishonest bit of evasion from spoke, maybe you will.
Anyways, then, after you’ve had your moment of intellectual honesty, go back to being a partisan whore and condemn yourself for offering such an example, because the only reason to rebut spoke’s dodge has to be to suggest that Carter is not a bigot, as I’ve correctly stated, but an anti-Semite.
It’s a nice trap you have set up: allow spoke to dishonestly dodge the issue, or rebut it conclusively and show that philanthropy and prejudice are not mutually exclusive. If his dodge is unchallenged, then his support of agenda-driven lies designed to demonize one side and excuse the other stands (but remember, it’s not partisan intellectual prostitution! Because even if we show a list of dozens of ‘honest errors’ that Carter can and should have caught, spoke can Just Ask Questions and sure, all the lies we’ve seen are all driven by the same agenda to hide the truth, make shit up and demonize one side, but maybe there are some other lies we haven’t seen that demonize the Palesitnians!)
Naturally, if his dodge in defense of a pack of lies designed to slander and demonize an entire state is rebutted, then you go into an ignorant frothing spell because someone pointed out an historical example of a person who was both a philanthropist and prejudiced.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You are such clever little muppets.
Honest, too.
Ahem.
You poor, stupid schmuck. Some people can think when they get angry. You are evidently not among that group. So fume and sputter incoherently to yourself and then go join the party of folks who think that, in this thread of all places, I’m being coy.
I have to tell ya, whenever my views of the possible depths of human stupidity are cemented, someone like you comes along to shatter the foundations and start digging yet again.
Me, *in this thread of all places, being coy and reserved, working by suggestion and hinting. *
You are fucking retarded.
cough India cough Far East cough America cough wheeze
Well, Dan Rather can be quite the twit.
Absolutely. The thing to do is dazzle him with witty repartee. Then if all else fails, one may judiciously resort to the stern admonishment.
I must admit though, I do like this new dodging technique that Lucy has trotted out. Someone points out, for instance, that the UN can authorize sanctions against a nation. The reply “That’s just lunacy! I can stop talking to my neighbor, but the HOA can’t vote to place his home under interdict and prohibit him from leaving or getting any mail!!!”
More facts, less froth.
Fuck 'em, they lost, eh?
Your obsessive bile is also pretty repetitive.
Your mendacity and shrill and irrational partisanship really doesn’t know any bounds, does it?
Actually the page (although I should say I am hardly impressed by it) says, rightly that the data regarding the population doesn’t allow for much conclusions at all, but regardless, the economic observation ties improvement to the British Mandate, to quote “Economic analyses show that by the 1930s the standard of living of Palestinian Arabs was approximately twice that of Arabs in surrounding countries, whereas in Ottoman Turkish times it was lower than in surrounding countries. … Additionally, British activity in building the port of Haifa during the 1920s and in operating it during WW II undoubtedly attracted at least some immigrants… However, since economic conditions did not improve until mandatory times, it is unlikely that the bulk of the immigration occurred under Turkish administration.”
There is no statement as to this being due to immigration - leaving aside that the underlying citations are to partisan sources (as in particular the sole cite supporting this paragraph and its comparatives, rendering it rather suspect overall). It is by the actual text, without getting into source criticism, far from clear Jewish immigration, versus British investment in infrastructure, etc. drove anything.
It is rather evident that you view Magic Jews as a great thing.
Rational data analysis say you’re taking nuggets of factoids and stretching them until they squeal to support your preferred ideological story. And again the same kind of story the justifiers of Apartheid liked to spin.
Of course, further to that, it is again an observable reality that Jewish settlement ended up in the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. One would not have the refugee camps if that were not the case.
Ironic - but then you do like to play mirror-rhetoric games.
In fact you’re the bilious maladjusted creature who dragged in Ottoman
Really now, your incoherent rage is getting the better of you:
Global technological advances are by their nature global. They most certainly “existed” as one sees the rise in living standards across the 20th century - indeed it was one of the justifications, insincere as it was, of colonial rule that the White Man was bringing sanitation, infrastructure, modern institutional organisation. Didn’t exist… what a delicious bit of idiocy from you.
The British Mandate in fact was investing in modern port infrastructure, proper courts, etc. But of course FinnAgain the Bilious Maladjusted Ranter can’t acknowledge Perfidious Albion, why we were almost running Nazi Death Camps, yes that’s it.
But of course this allows your distortion - habitual on your part of course - of my observation to channel the conversation, as my observation was comparative, noting that standards of living rose across the region, without the Magic Jews of FinnAgain’s fetid agitprop, based on investment. As such, tying improvements to Jewish immigration as such, versus global improvements in technology is … mendacious spin.
The counter-factual would be no Jewish immigration, one would, by the example of other countries in the region, would have seen similar effects.
Of course, again, this is exactly the kind of argument I’ve heard from Boers to support Apartheid (and suffers from the same flaw, denying agency to the native)
Cough away mate, India wasn’t “asskicking” it was Gandi winning by moral suasion. The reluctance to go was because it was such damned good business.
Yes, please do cite where the British army got into trouble in the Far East.
What about America and what possible relevance does your 1781 treaty have to the events of the 1950s and 1960s, in particular Africa and the Empire that rather grew larger after the rebellion.
How is Israel being singled out?
The same rules that are applied to Israel were used in criticising the Rhodesian regime, the Apartheid regime, in ongoing criticism of China regarding Tibet (which again has at least actively given citizenship to the territory), and other colonised / conquered territories.
In what fashion is this different than Israel in terms of standards (or effectiveness for that matter)?
.
Bollocks, same standards that led to the European colonial powers giving up the colonies.
Boring. Repetitive and without content.
I have nothing to do with American presidents, but I do see your loathsome form of smearing often enough to get the Ford implication. Deny as you want, it was fairly transparent in the context.
Really, you do need therapy.
Well, yes. They’re not getting Israel back. There probably is going to be some Palestinian state eventually in the West Bank, but all the Palestinians who used to live in Israel proper, they and their descendants are not going to be allowed back. The stuff that happened in '67 might be reversed, but the stuff that happened in '49 isn’t; not unless Israel gets invaded and its population wiped out.
You might try citing some then. Just a thought.
You have, though, gone to demonstrate the dishonesty that anti-Israel crowd stoops to when they declare that not just refugees, but their descendants for all time are also “refugees”. By that standard, America is filled to the brim with “refugees”. Hell, I’m a Russian-German refugee myself. I guess. I wonder what reparations I’m entitled to?
Of course, with characteristic intellectual dishonesty, you’re not curious about the all the Jews who were kicked out or Arab nations circa 1948. They don’t have that ol’ time refugee cred.
Unsurprisingly, Badil’s claims are based on fiction. Nobody, at all, who has studied the history of the region thinks that Palestinians owned 90% of the area. The fact is that most of it was Miri or Waste Land, and very little was Mulk. It’s telling that they’re simply making stuff up to support their claims. Of course, Badil ‘forgets’ to mention that under the laws that Israel was obliged to uphold, those who cannot continue to cultivate Miri land have no claim to it any longer. Likewise, they are lying when they claim that there is “Jewish only” land in Israel. Much like previous lies that there are “Jewish only roads”, it’s just a smear. It is, of course, a standard deception.
[
](BACKGROUNDER: Land, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel | CAMERA)
No, angry-idiot, it states that it doesn’t allow firm conclusions about demographics. You are lying. It does indeed point out that Jews raised the standard of living. And independent British findings confirmed it. It’s the same reason that all the Arab population increases we can track were substantially larger in the areas with the most Jewish immigration. By the way, of course you’re not impressed with mideastweb, it’s one of the most neutral and objective sites about the conflict. It doesn’t confirm your biases or your prejudices, you must hate it. Anyways, some of the actual facts that show you’re an ignorant yapping ball o’ rage:
[
](http://www.mideastweb.org/hopesimpson.htm)
No, you’re just lying some more. Anybody who clicks through will find that although certain statements are hosted on a (gasp!) pro-Israel site, they’re all accurately sourced and cited. Nor is basic history “suspect”. You’re just ignorant and acting only on your biases. Yeah, from such a perspective I’m sure that anything which contradicts your bias seems strange and scary.
Try again, my enraged little mental defective.
No, that’s an observable agenda-driven deception of yours. Jewish settlement would have not led to war if the Arabs hadn’t declared war. The Arab war caused dispossession. There would’ve been two states for decades now if not for that.
Again, I know you’re a vile little turd of a human being, but is it so hard to find out wtf you’re talking about before you vomit on me? And seriously, quit the dishonesty. ‘Global technological advances’ existed in all of the neighboring states, and the standing of living around the Jewish immigrants was still twice as high, you angry ignorant moron. Jewish immigration and investment is the only differing factor, and is the reason for the economic prosperity of the region.
Seriously, as you are evidently both retarded, willfully ignorant and suffering from roid rage, I think I’ll just let you go be stupid and angry in a corner.
Probably a good idea, Finn.
I think this thread has shown everyone for who they are, and they really don’t see any reason to be ashamed of it.
Like cats, you know?
There is no reason left to believe that either the Israeli government or the people that elected it are willing to let that happen at present, is there?
The point was that “Fuck 'em, they lost” is being used by many as an excuse for refusing to recognize that, if they’re going to be even in the West Bank, they’re going to be Israel’s neighbors for a long, long time, and that the continuing effects of the relationship’s past need to be addressed if the relationship is ever going to be a neighborly one.
E-Sabbath, he’s stormed off just like that a number of times before, but couldn’t make it even 24 hours before returning, fully reloaded.