Reuters- al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claims "chemical weapons launch" into Israel

The BBQ Pit
81

Really? When the Palestinians elected a government with the stated goal of eliminating them? At this point, the Palestinians have participated in multiple wars and countless attacks (suicide and otherwise) against Israel and the Israeli people. It’s not unreasonable for Israel to take the stance that, this time, the Palestinians have to play nice first.

It should also be noted that Arab countries have also “forced” the Palestinian people into “shitholes” for years as well. It suited their political desire to make the Israelis the bad guys, but that’s apparently okay with you.

82

Sure, if the actual facts of history are too bothersome, change them. :rolleyes:
We’ve already done this discussion. Much of the land that the proto-Israelis owned before '48 was bought, fair and square, from the Turks. Then, during '48, there were massacres one both sides. But most of the Palestinians who were led out at ‘gunpoint’ were led out by Arab forces so as to make their stated goal of genocide easier. Either that, or they fled on their own once the Arab countries began putting out a more likely than not deliberately false version of events at Deir Yassin.

Again, if facts don’t work for you, make up new ones. Israel offered the '67 territories back to the Arab states in exchange for peace. They were responded to with the “Three Noes”.

Likewise those Palestinians who stayed in Isreal proper in '48 are full citizens, and there are Palestinians on the Knesset.

Yeah… why shut the borders when terrorists and weapons would flow freely were they open? You’ve got a real good point there.

Cite? :dubious:
Or are you deliberately distorting the fact that not not all waters are open to use by the Palestinians to a claim that none of them are?

Likewise, the claim that they can’t export produce is simply false. The fact that a terrorist state can’t be allowed their own airport and have to ship through Ben Gurion airport is quite a different reality than your convenient fiction.

Cite from them destroying the sewers?
And, maybe, just maybe, you might want to mention that they destroyed the power station because of an act of war/terrorism and in preperation of getting their kidnapped soldier back? Little detail there that you forgot.

83

As pointed out, Hamas sprang from conditions created by Israel. Has Israel ever given the Palestinians a good reason not to elect a govment that hates them?

84

Finn, you have lovely confection there of standard Zionist boilerplate that could be rebutted point by point (and already has been elsewhere), but I’d like to cut to the chase: do you believe that Palestinians should have rights identical to those of Israelis? If not, why not? And if you believe Palestinians should have rights equal to yours or mine or the average Israeli’s, what’s the best way for them to get those rights, seeing that, “Geez, I wish they’d just behave!” hasn’t shown any signs of working over the past 50 years?

85

So, your post is your cite, you’d like to change the topic, and all you will do is babble about “Zionist boilerplate.” but you sure could rebut all those facts if you wanted to. If only you wanted to. If only.
Check.

86

How about the offer in 1967? It was spurned. And, as I said, there are Arab nations that are complicit in the current conditions of the Palesinian people, but Hamas doesn’t seem interested in killing all of them.

87

Finn, I didn’t get any cites out of my post, but I’ll get a couple out of yours.

  1. “Much of the land that the proto-Israelis owned before '48 was bought, fair and square, from the Turks.” Yeah, make that 10% of the total land area of Palestine. The Partition proposal offered the Zionists 57%. You begin to get an inkling why the Palestinians refused the “deal,” and considered the Zionist embrace of it it an act of war? Cite.

  2. Re blowing up the electricity and sewerage infrastructure: cite.

  3. Re restrictions on Palestinian fishing: cite

  4. Re restrictions on Palestinian produce exports: “The fact that a terrorist state can’t be allowed their own airport and have to ship through Ben Gurion airport…” Your post there.

  5. Re the Palestians fleeing in '48: Cite. Is this a partisan cite? Absolutely, but is it more partisan than your own? And people like to talk about why the Palestians left, but the more relevant question is why the Israelis wouldn’t let them back. Let’s just say they didn’t want them back, and had the guns to make their wishes carry.

  6. Re the three no’s: What eight guys said in Khartoum in 1967 has fuck-all to do with Israell’s responsibility toward the Palestinians of the OT. These eight guys were not Palestinian and had no authority to speak for the Palestinians.

So now that that’s disposed of, how about answering my question, which boils down to this: do you believe Palestinians are entitled, without precondition, to rights equaling your own? I say yes, but then I believe in democracy and freedom and all that.

88

See above re 1967. Other Arab nations don’t occupy Palestine, hence the absence of concern with them on the part of Hamas.

89

Wow… a collection of half-truths and cites which themselves point out that you’re lying. Good show!

You first “neglects” to mention that the ‘act of war’ was in response to Jews buying land from the Turks. That long before a partition plan, there was ethnic violence targeted at Jews who legally owned land. You then neglect to mention that the Palestinians did not own the land themselves, and that it was a Turkish possesion.

Your second cite shows that you are simply lying. Doesn’t that give you pause, that you have to make up things that your own cites deny? They didnt’ blow up sewers, but the sewer system requires electricity. We can, however, see your commitment to the truth. Good show! If you can’t fight ignorance, spread it.

Or do you have another cite somewhere which actually claims what you say it does? Should I hold my breath?

Your third cite, again, shows that you are playing fast and loose with the truth. Or does “allowing” mean “prohibiting” in your world? You are letting your talking points get in the way of honesty. “ZOMG! Israel prevents palestinians from fishing, they are teh suxorz!” is a much better talking point than “During periods of violence, the waters were restricted for a short time, but they are allowed to fish the waters with restrictions on where they can go.”

Your fouth point, again, shows you to be dishonest. You did not claim ‘restrictions’, you said they were “prohibited” from selling their produce. But rather than admit you lied, you shift the goalposts.

Your fifth cite is not only blatantly partisan, but relies on Benny Moris. You might as well just state that you’re relying on a cherry picking revisionist historian who has only a passing relationship with the truth. And no, my cites are not partisan. They include, but are not limited to the Arab leaders of the time period saying that they are the ones who carry the blame. I can easily provide them on request and, lo and behold, they’ll actually say what I claim they do. You might want to try that.

But then, of course, you contine on with massive intellectual dishonesty . Why oh why wouldn’t the nascent Israeli state let back in a fifth column? Gee, no idea. Must be because they’re gun toting crazies. :rolleyes:

Maybe the more important question is why the surrounding Arab states refused to take in the refugees. But asking that question would get in the way of your rhetoric.

And then, of course, in a stunning creschendo of intellectual dishonesty, you delcare that the Three Noes were just authored by “eight guys”, and that they don’t speak for “palestinians”. You, of course, deliberately and wilfully ignore the fact that those ‘eight guys’ were the Arab states. You also deliberately and wilfully ignore the fact that the territory in question after '67 was owned by some of those ‘eight guys’, who refused to take it back in exchange for peace.

So now that your dishonest is disposed of, and you’ve shown what your agenda is, I have no real desire to submit to your baiting and irerelevant, leading, loaded questions. I guess I just don’t believe in ‘democracy, freeodm, and all that.’ :dubious: So sorry.

90

What you call “dishonesty” on my part I call quibbling pettifoggery on yours. I’ll let the disinterested reader be the judge. And I find it illuminating that you continue to evade the central question – the only question that matters, in fact – which is whether you believe the Palestinians should have complete and unconditional rights to sovereignty, full stop.

91

So your lying, which your cites confirm, is quibbling on my part? You make stuff up, and your own cites refute it, so rather than admit it, you attack me?

Wow.

Unless they’re unable to read, I doubt they’ll be much impressed that you cite sources which call you a liar.

You can find whatever illuminating you want. I’ve never said anywhere that they don’t have full rights, and your obfuscation, lying, and intellectual dishonesty invalidates you as a valid discussion partner. I’m not about to watch for your hidden ‘gotchas’ and to see where you’re lying and your cites won’t even back you up.

I’m also not about to ignore the fact that this thread is about a response to clear acts of war and terrorism, and, indeed, a claim by those same terrorists that they have and will use WMD. Instead you want to babble about democracy and freedom. I’m not about to take your bait, or pretend that your massive dishonesty is somehow a good thing.

My apologies.

92

Most of the countries on my list have displayed organized campaigns of hate and murder against another group or have had powerful groups within them which have displayed organized campaigns of hate and murder.

All are punished.

No argument will convince me that all the bad guys are born on one side and all the good guys are born on the other.

93

I’ve never said that, Zoe. And it’s not fair to respond to me as if I had. I wouldn’t, for instance, say that Baruch Goldstein was one of the ‘good guys’. But that still doesn’t change the overall dynamic of the situation.