ISREAL63
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by ISREAL63
-
-
I was addressing Gabe, not you. The New York Times isn't biased, it's one of the premier news agencies in America. In fact their entire livelihood is based on being unbiased news. The link you gave is from an Israeli run agency, whose goal is to protect Israel from biased new. The article you linked too reaffirms how the NY Times is unbiased. It shows how the NY Times pulled an article after finding out it used bad information. Of course, you selectively quoted it and missed out on the part where they pulled the article to maintain their integrity. Also, you did not address all my concerns.
Since the article I linked on Israelis supporting Baruch Goldstein is still in circulation, it just shows that the facts it is based on have yet to be disproven.
I already did answer it you just don't want to accept the truth. The fact is you messed up in reading in article.
it “says hundreds came”' date=' later it says 10,000 came for a different purpose then what you said. [/quote']As for your video on child soldiers, I agree that it is wrong for children to be exposed to war. I never denied that some children might be. That is why I used the term hasty generalization. The parents who endorse this are certainly at fault. However, it is even worse to take a few isolated incidents and say that all Palestinian parents and children are like that. That is blatant misinformation. Ironically one of my close Palestinian friends here in Jordan was raised without even being allowed to play with BB guns or play violent video games because his parents were so adamant about not raising their children to use aggression.It isn't a few isolated incidents, 100,000+ children will be attending camps in the Gaza strip run by terrorist this summer.
I guess the bottom line for me is that it really makes me upset when this is viewed as such a black and white situation. Not all Palestinians are terrorists. Not all Israelis are pro-expansion. Not all Palestinians want a state. Not all Israelis want peace. People need to understand how complex this is.You are wrong what Israeli's want the most is peace, but it can't be achieved when Palestinians raise their children to be terrorist.
-
We hang our heads in shame when we hear that a Jew has does something terrible to an innocent Arab. They hold a street party when innocent Jews are killed.
This article from the New York Times begs to differ, 10,000 Israelis turning out to honor the man who massacred Palestinians while they were praying;
Every time I bring I link you claim it is to bias to use so I will say the same for your source. Here is proof to just how bias it is.
Here is the pictureThe New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man bloodied and battered crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat himUnlike you even if you are using a bias source I will reply. I like how you pick threw the numbers of the article it says hundreds came, later it says 10,000 came for a deferent purpose then what you said.
We guard our children with our lives. They strap bombs to the waists of theirs.A bit of a hasty generalization right there. I guess it's just an example of how the Israelis indoctrinate their own citizens and Jews worldwide to view the Palestinians as animalistic and crude.
We value life. They value death.Again, this is just an attempt to create a black and white view of the situation. Both sides value their own freedom, perhaps being killed fighting for the freedom of ones people is worth more to Palestinians then living a life where they are oppressed. Israelis need to learn to empathize with Palestinians.
Here my answer to both of your replies,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8&feature=related
You are denying the fact that they teach their kids to blow themselves up. They are not die for freedom they are dieing in the name of terrorism there is a big difference.
If they would stop firing, we would be at peace. If we would stop firing, they would come and kill us all.If I remember correctly, the first acts of terrorism in the region were by Zionists during the mandate period. I've shown extensive evidence to prove this. That being said this quote is a lie. If the Palestinians stopped fighting eventually there would be no West Bank, no Gaza, only Israeli settlements. Of course that would be a peaceful resolution for the Israelis, but there are two sides to this. This part of the quote is myopic propaganda.
If the Palestinians stopped fighting there would be peace, which is all Israel wants. No there still would be the west bank and Gaza and under their control but they prefer terrorism then peace.
Ring world I dont understand are you denying the holocaust?
-
Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.
I did not put any words in your mouth. I am asking you whether or not there was anyone living in Palestine when the Jews entered it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html
^ An example of Jews entering Palestine.
The Jews have a right to their homeland they bought all the land they settled on till the 1947-48 when they were attacked. The Arabs didn't need to sell the land to the Jews, but they did.
Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:
Ever thought it might mean I have conceded being incorrect on the other parts, or that I am trying to clarify my position?
I like how you pick threw [sic] each post and insult me without considering that I might be doing above things. :shame:
There is no excuse to cut up a sentence and post just 3 words from it, unlike you i replied to your whole sentence not just the words that suit me :wink: . So why don't you argue correctly and not cut up what you like and i won't call you out for doing that.
-
made the Palestinians leave
Displace
to take the place of; replace
I didn't say or mean by force.
Are you kidding why not just leave out the rest of the sentence as long as you get your point across. I like how you pick threw each post and choose a few words that without the rest of the sentence you can argue it. :shame:
-
The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.
So there was nobody there when the Jews entered Palestine...?
Do not put words in my mouth. In 1948 and in 1967 The Arab armies attacked Israel, in which Israel fought back and won.
-
What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.
You are so right :thumbsup:
So if Palestine invaded Israel, displaced nearly all Israelis, made them second class citizens, and violated the human rights of said Israelis in the process, it becomes Palestinian land, right? (Just clarifying)
Here we go again...
Nobody invaded Palestine, nobody made the Palestinians leave, the Hamas are the ones violating human rights, and territory won by armed conflict while Israel is the defender does technically become Israel's land.
The Gabe is correct. You make it sound like The Jews woke up one day and said lets go force people from their homes. NO THAT IS NOT TRUE Israel was attacked and acted in self defense and won some territory to. Israel never wanted it but it was attacked.
-
Israel has only one main condition that Palestinians must recognized Israel as a Jewish state this is very fair seeing as Israel is a Jewish State. You seem to have left out the part where at the end of 10 month only on the 9th month of the freeze the agree to talk only if Israel extend the freeze the Palestinians would think about talking. What happen the first 9 months? Why only at the End of the freeze they started thinking about alking
It's not that hard to understand. Palestinians didn't attend the peace talks because Israel made it seem that even if the talks succeeded they wouldn't let the Palestinians return to their homes, which is one of the key items that Palestinians have for existing in peace.
That is not the reason for the Palestinians not wanting to talk peace that can be settled in peace talks. But Hamas part of Palestinians government which is also a terrorist organization according to Israel, The USA, Canda and The EU. Hamas prefers to fire rockets at Israel's civilian. If they really want peace how those firing rockets at Israel's civilian promote peace? You seem to avoid admitting that they do fire rockets at Israel civilians. or that A tennager killed by Palestinians on the way home from school. or OR the Fogel massacre in which Three small children aged 11; four and just three months old were savagely murdered in their beds.
-
The reason why Palestinians didn't want to negotiate was because Israel put so many conditions on the peace talks that it wasn't really a talk, more of a list of demands. For starters they wouldn't even come to the negotiation unless Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinians don't want to do this because they fear that it means that once Israel recieves recognition as a Jewish state then they won't be able to return home since they are not Jewish.
You don't hold a peace talk by saying we want to talk about peace, but only if you do this, this and this. Because afterwords the talks could fail but the lesser party now is even worse off. Which would lower the chances of that talk ever happening.
Israel has only one main condition that Palestinians must recognized Israel as a Jewish state this is very fair seeing as Israel is a Jewish State. You seem to have left out the part where at the end of 10 month only on the 9th month of the freeze the Palestinians agree to talk only if Israel extend the freeze the Palestinians would think about talking. What happen the first 9 months? Why only at the End of the freeze they started thinking about alking
-
There is no peace in Gaza simply because Gaza isn't a free land. It's like saying the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were free, then when they rose up against the Nazis they deserved what they got because they didn't want peace.
You are right Gaza isn't a free land Hamas the Terrorist organization is holding it hostage. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel. Meaning Israel has a right to Defend itself even if Hamas turns the Gaza Strip into the biggest Terrorist base in the World. In Warsaw the Nazi came to put the Jews in in trains designed for cattle to send them to the Gas chambers, when the Nazi camp in to the Ghetto the shot everyone the saw, Men, Woman and children. Israel doesn't go around shooting everyone they see. You can't compare the Nazis To the Jews. The Nazis were murders, Israel acts in self defence.
No, oppressed people have every right to fight for their humanity. Gaza is a horrible example given the massive humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza currently due to the Israeli blockade.
According to the deputy director of the Red Cross is Gaza, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Also, I disproved Isreal63 on the Arab leaders getting the Palestinians to leave being a justification for settlements pages back. This was through my extensive citations of the right to return. He can't be reasoned with, I suggest people just ignore his myopic posts.You can disapprove all you want you have a right to your opinion but you don't have the right to say i don't have a right to my opinion.
-
Let me know if you see something wrong with this:
You walk into a stranger's home, they try to kick you out, you point a gun at them, and then proceed to beat them repeatedly. Then, you tell them "Jeez, OK! You can stay in the kitchen if you want", and wonder why they are mad even though you are generous enough to let them have the kitchen all for themselves. Of course, those [bleep]ing bastards only use the kitchen to take the knives from there and try to attack you. That's really rude of them, right?
We already went over this The Jews didn't force the Arabs out they left by the encouragement of their leaders. So making up a false story to prove your point is pointless. So please stay with the truth so we can have a normal debate based on facts not on your imagination.
That's pretty much what Israel did to Palestine, and why Palestine isn't going to settle down until they get all of their lands back.That isn't at all what Israel did to the British mandate. The Arabs attacked the Jews and the Jews fought back and won.
But we already had this argument many times before and explained in a more serious manner, so I don't think you're gonna listen this time.
You are right we did and you seem to be saying the same thing instead of replying to our post you just repeat what what you said. So it isn't really a argument its more like you say something we respond and you say what you said again forgetting we ever replied.
To "make peace" in Gaza means that Gaza is all they get. Because seriously, if they "make peace" then Israel isn't even gonna bother giving them more land.To make peace the Arabs first of to prove themselves that they want peace and stop firing rockets at Israel.
-
Why can't both Palestinians and Israelis have a home in a similar multi-state solution?
I have a simple answer the Palestinians don't want peace. Why can't they make it in Gaza its their land now, they have the chose to make peace or to fire rockets at Israel.
What makes it Palestinian land? Israel won it in an armed conflict and even gave back the vast majority of 'occupied' land in a peace treaty.
You are so right :thumbsup:
-
Yes, they totally love each other now, and there is no tension at all. :rolleyes:
Anyhow, I agree with The_Gabe here. No conflict is identical, so it's unlikely the same solution will work.
I also agree with the Gabe. Also you can't really compare conflicts like this one.
-
-
Here we go again.... They were from the UN and other international organizations, at least for the most part. You can't get less biased then that.
Only half were, the other half were from palestinemonitor and occupiedpalestine sounds pretty bias to me.
-
I can't look at your sources anymore Isreal63. Our last conflict over sources ended up with two pages of arguments in which you misdirected the argument horribly after I showed how yours were biased.
And i showed how bias yours were to.
-
Let the moderators decide when and if something is off topic, please. I think it's quite relevant to the discussion, as it's being used to attempt to prove Islam has some stake in Jerusalem.
I didn't say Islam doesn't have right to Jerusalem, but that we are not arguing religiously who has the right to Jerusalem. Jews, Christians and Islam have the right to Jerusalem to be shared. As i said before Under Israeli law all religions are allowed to enter Jerusalem. As appose to when Jordan ruled no Jews or Christians were allowed to visit the old city.
-
Could you stay on topic or just don't post if you want to talk about religion go here .
First of all, the importance of Jerusalem is relevant to the topic of the administration of the lands, which is the god damn conflict we're discussing. Second, he was only replying to Gabe's post. I've seen you do this like 3 times already in this thread, first you bring up something to back your posts up, then when someone proves it wrong you tell them it's off-topic. Get your [cabbage] together, bro.
the importance of Jerusalem is relevant that is correct, but we are not debating religion here.
Second the Gabe was quoting something i said when he posted. Also when did he prove me wrong, just because you say that doesn't make it true. So why not go back on topic instead calling me out which you seem to have done many times. How about you say something creative on the topic
Roccodog
"Al Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars take this as a reference to Jerusalem.[2]"You said it yourself commentators meaning it wasn't part of it. In someone's opinion it is in reference to it. Not actuality in it
-
"Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque"
Where in this sentence those it say Jerusalem? It is never mentioned it is hinted now please get back on topic or go to the religion topic.
-
Except that Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran once.
"Muhammad's journey to Jerusalem is mentioned in the Qur'an, in the verse (17:1). Al Qur'anic commentators and Islamic scholars take this as a reference to Jerusalem.[2] The verse states:
Glory to He (God) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless (Yusuf Ali's translation). "
-wikipedia
Could you stay on topic or just don't post if you want to talk about religion go here .
-
Well there will be no peace if Israel isn't willing to compromise about Jerusalem. That's why I feel it should be jointly administered with mediation coming from perhaps a UN advisory panel composed of a mixture of countries with histories of being neutral on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Edit: @ Gabe and Isreal63
I know for certain that under Jordanian control Jews and Christians could visit the city, just not enter certain Muslim holy sites. I know this because I've talked to Jews, Muslims and Christians who have lived in the Old City for generations. Gabe, how many native Muslims, Christians and Jews have you talked to in the older parts of Jerusalem?
I am sorry to say but you are wrong, Jews were not allowed into Old city since they were expelled in 1948. I am starting to doubt these people you talk to because this a strait out Lie.
From the period of 1948 to 1967, Jordan demolished 58 synagogues in Jerusalems Old City. The Mount of Olives is a mountain ridge east of Jerusalem which from Biblical times until today is a cemetery and the site of many important Biblical events. It is important to not only Jews, but also to Christians and Muslims, and many important religious events are tied to this historical location. During the period of Jordanian control over eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount from 1948 until 1967, King Hussein of Jordan allowed the construction of a hotel access road to the Intercontinental Hotel which spanned across the Mount of Olives cemetery, where hundreds of Jewish gravestones were bulldozed and desecrated. On April 3, 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an Armistice Agreement. One of the conditions of the GAA was that a special committee would be formed to make arrangements for safe movement of traffic between Jerusalem and the Mount Scopus campus of Hebrew University, as well as free access to Holy Places. The Jordanians, by denying access to Jews to enter the Old City and Judaisms holiest sites, directly violated the GAA. Under the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem, Jews were denied access to the Western Wall and Temple Mount. Likewise, in Hebron, Jews were not allowed to enter the Tomb of the Patriarchs and other holy places in Bethlehem. Similarly, during Jordanian rule (and eventual annexation) of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, Israeli Christians and Muslims were also barred from their own respective Holy Places.948-1967: Jordanian Occupation of Eastern Jerusalem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_occupation
My friend his grandfather grew up in the old city his family was there for generations. During the war he was forced from his home, after the war his family tried to reenter the old city but they were not allowed
-
-
I like both its good to mix it up
-
Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.
So one of the most sacred and holy Muslim sites should be cut off from Muslims?
What The Gabe said and from 1948-1967 when it was under Jordain control not Jew or Cristian was allowed to visit the old city. Since the liberation of the old city every religion is allowed to visit. Jerusalem is the most sacred place in Judaism why was it cut off then?
-
Well, Israel would never settle for allowing citizenship and right of return because it is a democracy and it would end the concept of "a Jewish State."
I personally think 1949 borders or 1967 borders is what would happen in a two state solution. You have to understand that the Palestinians will not accept an unfair solution, just like the Israelis wouldn't. Even 1949 borders would leave many people who would have to deal with never getting their land back.
You are right Israel won't allow anybody to return that is the point of a 2 state solution,but what do you do when one want peace and the other doesn't? . As the Israeli prime minster said Jerusalem is Israel and it won't be divided.
Israel vs Palestine
in Off-Topic
Posted