Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Israel


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Israel Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Israel - 10/12/2012 9:29:11 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

and made it very clear he was going to invade with Jordan and Syria.

You may wish to dicker over the meaning of pre-emptive. The air-strikes were pre-emptive and successful bc they caught the Egyptian air force on the ground. I find no fault with them. That war ended more than 40 years ago. What is the justification for the continued military occupation and construction of settlements yet today? I fail to see any.

Yes, I did bang away at Christianity's persecution of the Jews. Christians inflicted a great historical evil against the Jews. Does that justify the behavior of the Israeli state in the WB today? I don't think so.

You lament the attacks against the settlers and the propaganda war. Why would you expect anything else in the face of such an asymmetrical application of power? You should not be surprised.

So, we differ in our points of view, in our conclusions.

Regards, in any event

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Israel - 10/12/2012 12:04:48 PM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

and made it very clear he was going to invade with Jordan and Syria.

You may wish to dicker over the meaning of pre-emptive. The air-strikes were pre-emptive and successful bc they caught the Egyptian air force on the ground. I find no fault with them. That war ended more than 40 years ago. What is the justification for the continued military occupation and construction of settlements yet today? I fail to see any.

Whether or not you agree, the point, which was made repeatedly, should be clear enough. The war ended 45 years ago but peace is as far away as it was when the Arab League came out with the Three No's in Kharthoum, after Israel offered them back most of the territory that it had taken from them in exchange for recognition. The 1973 Yom Kippur War nearly destroyed Israel despite it being a nuclear power by that stage. Israel should stay in the West Bank until it can ensure that its existence is not in danger, and its security is preserved. It is also entitled to maintain some settlements near the Armistace lines perhaps in exchange for land swaps, a principle Abbas had actually agreed to a few years ago.

quote:

Yes, I did bang away at Christianity's persecution of the Jews. Christians inflicted a great historical evil against the Jews. Does that justify the behavior of the Israeli state in the WB today? I don't think so.

That wasn't the point. I stated that you object to Christian anti-Semitism but took issue with my use of the word "Judenrein" with respect to Palestinian policy, which demands no Jew remain in their prospective state. Ingrained Palestinian anti-Semitism http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/palantoc.html is a major problem in this conflict.

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Israel - 10/12/2012 3:25:52 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

I looked back over the thread from your post of 186 and my long response at 187. I note that you made an edit a few mins before mine was posted (mine would have taken a while to write) so you either edited out that remark or I misread it.



Now your talking bollocks again. I clearly stated I edited to fix quote, meaning quote box.

Are you really suggesting i copied and pasted your quote, altered the words. Then that i followed this up by altering them back and left a note saying "edited to fix quote"....... if i was hiding anything it would have been easier to say nothing.

I see you may stated you may have mis-read something. So I will leave you with your remark to me on the topic, obviously refering to my apology to Lookie.

"I seriously wonder why you constantly fail to read posts properly? "

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Israel - 10/12/2012 11:12:32 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

What is the justification for the continued military occupation and construction of settlements yet today? I fail to see any.


It seems that the pro-Israel folks are either unable or unwilling to answer this question. The question has been posed many times, yet we still await an answer as to why Israel continues its occupation and expands its colonies from the pro-Israel side.

There has been one suggestion that " Israel should stay in the West Bank until it can ensure that its existence is not in danger, and its security is preserved". Why this doesn't fully answer the fundamental question, the suggestion is that there are 'security' reasons for the colonies and occupation. Netanyahu, no dove when it cones to Israel's security, seems to implicitly dismiss this claim when he finally announced that he was prepared to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders. (This leaves aside how sincere Netanyahu was, the point here is that he conceded that the settlements and colonies weren't needed for security reasons by agreeing to negotiate on the basis of the 1967 borders) So that leaves us still awaiting an answer to the fundamental question.

We do know the colonists goal - the prevention of a Palestinian State. They are very clear and very vocal about this. And a lot of well informed observers feel they have achieved that goal, or are on the brink of achieving it. The goals of the colonists and the needs of a Two State solution conflict and contradict each other at just about every level.

So, for a Two State solution to succeed, colony expansion must cease immediately and the colonists must be confronted by the Israeli Govt. Sooner or later, the question of what to do with the colonists in the context of a Two State solution must be addressed, again by the Israeli Govt. (assuming that the colonists won't agree to living under Palestinian rule).

Unless the Israeli Govt puts the colonists in their place, the possibility of a Two State solution evaporates. Hence the importance of the 'colony/settlement' question, and the reason why it must be addressed by the Israeli Govt sooner rather than later. If the Israeli Govt fails to act on this issue, then the possibility of a Two State solution vanishes and variations of a One State solution will need to be considered.

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Israel - 10/12/2012 11:40:57 PM   
MistressSnow


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/19/2004
From: Santa Monica, CA
Status: offline 		I know I am coming into this late- however here is my free .2 cents......

I have one word for anyone thinking that a muslim 'state' and any other religion next to them or with them in the same country can survive,---- just one word----- and if anyone of you know history and choose to debunk this I will be much impressed: LEBANON.


_____________________________

In Leather Dominance,
Mistress Snow
aka
Mistress Snowmonkey

"I used to be snow white, but I drifted."- Mae West

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mistress_Snowmonkey/


(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 4:48:24 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSnow

I know I am coming into this late- however here is my free .2 cents......

I have one word for anyone thinking that a muslim 'state' and any other religion next to them or with them in the same country can survive,---- just one word----- and if anyone of you know history and choose to debunk this I will be much impressed: LEBANON.



I love a challenge

The Lebanese civil war started in the mid seventies. It was directly a result of the influx of the highly armed PLO members into Lebanon. Up to that point, Lebanese institutions had been secular. Indeed, the civil war was fought not simply between Muslims and Christians, but between Palestinians and Lebanese factions. If anything the civil war was caused by the PLO trying to turn Lebanon into a Palestinion state, not by inter-faith violence.

Christian Palestinians fought alongside the PLO, aginst a Lebanese alliance. Whilst there were clashes between Muslims and Christians, that wasnt the main cause of the war. Up until then, despite sporadic violent clashes, Lebanon was fairly peaceful and even known as "The Paris of the Middle East"

Turkey is also fairly secular, which counters your claim anyhow.

(in reply to MistressSnow)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 5:54:14 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSnow
I know I am coming into this late- however here is my free .2 cents......

I have one word for anyone thinking that a muslim 'state' and any other religion next to them or with them in the same country can survive,---- just one word----- and if anyone of you know history and choose to debunk this I will be much impressed: LEBANON.

I love a challenge

The Lebanese civil war started in the mid seventies. It was directly a result of the influx of the highly armed PLO members into Lebanon. Up to that point, Lebanese institutions had been secular. Indeed, the civil war was fought not simply between Muslims and Christians, but between Palestinians and Lebanese factions. If anything the civil war was caused by the PLO trying to turn Lebanon into a Palestinion state, not by inter-faith violence.

Christian Palestinians fought alongside the PLO, aginst a Lebanese alliance. Whilst there were clashes between Muslims and Christians, that wasnt the main cause of the war. Up until then, despite sporadic violent clashes, Lebanon was fairly peaceful and even known as "The Paris of the Middle East"

Factionalism was an issue but in broad terms the civil war was very much a conflict over Lebanon's Christianity, which was initiated after Jordan rightly booted the PLO out of their nation when the PLO mounted a take over. That is one of the reasons why the true Palestinian State now heavily restricts the citizenship of Palestinians within their kingdom.

The PLO and its large Palestinian populace began to dominate Lebanon, and caused an arms race amongst groups there. There was a great deal of destruction of the Christian populace, hence Syria initially coming in to protect Christians before before becoming allied with the PLO, ironically enough. The supposedly moderate PLO acted like butchers in Lebanon, e.g. wiping a Christian town of 25,000 off the map http://docstalk.blogspot.ie/2011/06/arafats-massacre-of-damour.html - this is the same organisation some on here (e.g. Tweak) absolve of any responsibility for the continual incitement today that radicalised their populace, and just blame settlements because only one people can be blamed.

Islamism emerged as a radical force within Lebanon allied to Islamist Iran where its Revolutionary Guards also had a presence and mounted deadly attacks on US bases killing several hundred in 1983 alone. Hizbullah began and grew there, and Hamas were also active there latterly as were other radical Islamo-Palestinian factions. The Taif agreement of 1989 was the first substantive peace agreement between Islamic/Palestinian factions and Christians. It allowed every major Islamic faction to remain armed whilst none of the Christian forces were to be. Don't pretend thats just a coincidence, and don't pretend its just a happenstance that Hizbullah has enbedded itself within the State today controlling its politics, when it was supposed to disarm when Israel withdrew in 2000. Don't also pretend its coincidental that the Christian majority (around 65% of the populace in 1948) has now shrunk to a third. Lebanon was envisioned as a Christian refuge in the Islamic world (including for Armenians) back when it was formed but the Islamic ME saw an end to that.


quote:

Turkey is also fairly secular, which counters your claim anyhow.

It doesn't actually because whilst Turkey is far more secular than ME Islamic states, it's still going through a substantive process of transformation, and the army, which was the one power that pushed Islamism to one side, is now pretty much out of the picture. I remember one prominent ME leader saying Turkey would be their trojan horse into Europe.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I looked back over the thread from your post of 186 and my long response at 187. I note that you made an edit a few mins before mine was posted (mine would have taken a while to write) so you either edited out that remark or I misread it.

Now your talking bollocks again. I clearly stated I edited to fix quote, meaning quote box.

Are you really suggesting i copied and pasted your quote, altered the words. Then that i followed this up by altering them back and left a note saying "edited to fix quote"....... if i was hiding anything it would have been easier to say nothing.

I see you may stated you may have mis-read something. So I will leave you with your remark to me on the topic, obviously refering to my apology to Lookie.

"I seriously wonder why you constantly fail to read posts properly? "

Waaa lol. I suppose I have to take you word on everything you say despite your frequent dishonesty and nigh on continual strawmanning. I read what you wrote and replied. Then you edit the piece but there is always a chance I may have misread - it's out of honesty I put that proviso in, something you no doubt are unable to appreciate.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 10/13/2012 6:31:23 AM >

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 7:32:56 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

So, for a Two State solution to succeed, colony expansion must cease immediately and the colonists must be confronted by the Israeli Govt. Sooner or later, the question of what to do with the colonists in the context of a Two State solution must be addressed, again by the Israeli Govt. (assuming that the colonists won't agree to living under Palestinian rule).

Here is an opinion piece which carries the implication that the Israeli government is unlikely to succeed in any confrontation with the settlers. The basic premise this writer offers is that Israel has become a religious-Zionist state as opposed to a secular-liberal state. I don't know how true this is. I have not visited. But if true it raises a serious question. Some on here [Anax] have proposed that the main issue in the region is the Sunni/Shia confrontation. I wonder if it is not, in addition to a contest for land, also a contest between orthodox Judaism and orthodox Islam. Is that an issue whose name we dare not speak?

A battle has been under way for some time for the soul of the Jewish-Israeli people. This battle, between the religious-Zionist wing and the secular-liberal wing, seems still to be undecided. [SNIP] But if we really look around, it is as clear as day that this battle has already been decided and that religious Zionism has won. This is no mistake, nor is it by chance. It has won because most of the Jewish people in Israel are religious Zionists, even if some disguise themselves during elections as supporting a "centrist party."

Reactions?

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 4:31:04 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Waaa lol. I suppose I have to take you word on everything you say despite your frequent dishonesty and nigh on continual strawmanning. I read what you wrote and replied. Then you edit the piece but there is always a chance I may have misread - it's out of honesty I put that proviso in, something you no doubt are unable to appreciate.


I dont give a shit if you believe me or not. odd how you suggest it took you 9 minutes to read and reply to my edit huh.

As for your nonsense about the Lebanese civil war, go read a book. I did however note you were quick to mention how bad the PLO was and not the Israeli backed masacre at a refugee camp.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 5:25:22 PM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Waaa lol. I suppose I have to take you word on everything you say despite your frequent dishonesty and nigh on continual strawmanning. I read what you wrote and replied. Then you edit the piece but there is always a chance I may have misread - it's out of honesty I put that proviso in, something you no doubt are unable to appreciate.

I dont give a shit if you believe me or not. odd how you suggest it took you 9 minutes to read and reply to my edit huh.

As for your nonsense about the Lebanese civil war, go read a book. I did however note you were quick to mention how bad the PLO was and not the Israeli backed masacre at a refugee camp.

More of your "shit", which unfortunately you give a lot of! I said I replied to your initial message nine minutes after it was posted. My own was quite a lengthy one http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4264701 where I had to source links - hence the time frame was very much in keeping with the effort.

So was Damour merely a story http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7287 and why should I mention a massacre at a refugee camp by Lebanese forces? I wasn't attempting to give a full account of the civil war, it was merely to refute your apologist crap. BTW there are loads of conspiracy theories to shift blame onto Israel for the massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp. In hindsight Israel shouldn't have let them in but at the end of the day a Christian force committed the killing, one which was allied to Israel at the time, and the pretext for their entry was at least understandable since militants they were openly at war with were embedded in the camp so it isn't clear that Israel is blameworthy.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 10/13/2012 5:34:30 PM >

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Israel - 10/13/2012 7:33:52 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSnow

I know I am coming into this late- however here is my free .2 cents......

I have one word for anyone thinking that a muslim 'state' and any other religion next to them or with them in the same country can survive,---- just one word----- and if anyone of you know history and choose to debunk this I will be much impressed: LEBANON.


It sounds like you are saying that no country can live in peace with Muslin neighbours.

IF (and I stress IF) this claim is valid, then the prognosis for Israel is grim indeed. Because Israel is surrounded on 3 sides by Muslim States. The prognosis remains grim irrespective of whether there is a Palestinian State or not. Israel will remain surrounded on 3 sides by Muslim States.

So, even in the unlikely event that this claim is valid, I am unable to see how this claim advances the discussion one iota.

_____________________________



(in reply to MistressSnow)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 12:54:40 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, for a Two State solution to succeed, colony expansion must cease immediately and the colonists must be confronted by the Israeli Govt. Sooner or later, the question of what to do with the colonists in the context of a Two State solution must be addressed, again by the Israeli Govt. (assuming that the colonists won't agree to living under Palestinian rule).

Here is an opinion piece which carries the implication that the Israeli government is unlikely to succeed in any confrontation with the settlers. The basic premise this writer offers is that Israel has become a religious-Zionist state as opposed to a secular-liberal state. I don't know how true this is. I have not visited. But if true it raises a serious question. Some on here [Anax] have proposed that the main issue in the region is the Sunni/Shia confrontation. I wonder if it is not, in addition to a contest for land, also a contest between orthodox Judaism and orthodox Islam. Is that an issue whose name we dare not speak?

A battle has been under way for some time for the soul of the Jewish-Israeli people. This battle, between the religious-Zionist wing and the secular-liberal wing, seems still to be undecided. [SNIP] But if we really look around, it is as clear as day that this battle has already been decided and that religious Zionism has won. This is no mistake, nor is it by chance. It has won because most of the Jewish people in Israel are religious Zionists, even if some disguise themselves during elections as supporting a "centrist party."

Reactions?

Generally I am reluctant to get involved in the internal politics of Israel. However this intra-Israeli debate has direct implications for Occupied Palestine and the peace process. So it seems worthy of attention and comment.

As I have asserted above, current Israeli policies endanger the democratic nature of the Israeli State. The choice in occupied Palestine, if current policies are pursued to their logical end, is between complete ethnic cleansing, a permanent apartheid system or a withdrawal to the '67 borders. As Israel has given no serious indication that it is prepared to stop the colonial expansion in the West Bank, we might discount the withdrawal option (for this discussion).

The remaining choices - ethnic cleansing or apartheid - feed directly into the internal debate between religious and secular Israelis. The secular sector would keep as its primary value, democracy. Sooner or later this is going to result in a choice for Israelis between democracy and continuing occupation. If the religious sector triumphs, then either or both of the other options will eventuate.

To date, the signs are not optimistic. There has been a number of laws passed by the Knesset that liberal Israelis have criticised as undemocratic. For example, one of these laws prohibits the foreign funding of human rights organisations, a clear attempt to circumvent if not stop entirely the activities of organisations such a B'tselem, which have been extremely critical of the Occupation. The rule of law has been jeopardised by official disregard for some Supreme Court rulings, and official conniving at circumventing others.

Another worrying sign is the stranglehold the Right, which is allied to religious Zionism, has held over the peace process for many years now. Another cause for concern is the presence of religious/theocratic parties in the Govt coalition. There are growing forces demanding sex segregation in secular society, and recently a few race riots targeting African refugees and Palestinians. Almost all observers agree that the level of racism inside Israel is increasing and that racism is expressing itself violently. The ominous violence of the colonists in the West Bank is another factor to consider here. There are a just a few of the disturbing trends within Israel, there are many more, too many to list here.

I hope for Israelis sake that the secular forces triumph. As things stand, it takes an awful lot of blind optimism to believe that will happen. The conjunction of Right wing ideology, religious fundamentalism and militaristic nationalism is a particularly odious combustible mix - Hamas anyone? So my feeling is that the future of Israeli democracy is not assured. This doesn't bode well for the peace process or a just resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli impasse.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/14/2012 1:14:29 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 5:58:41 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Waaa lol. I suppose I have to take you word on everything you say despite your frequent dishonesty and nigh on continual strawmanning. I read what you wrote and replied. Then you edit the piece but there is always a chance I may have misread - it's out of honesty I put that proviso in, something you no doubt are unable to appreciate.

I dont give a shit if you believe me or not. odd how you suggest it took you 9 minutes to read and reply to my edit huh.

As for your nonsense about the Lebanese civil war, go read a book. I did however note you were quick to mention how bad the PLO was and not the Israeli backed masacre at a refugee camp.

More of your "shit", which unfortunately you give a lot of! I said I replied to your initial message nine minutes after it was posted. My own was quite a lengthy one http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4264701 where I had to source links - hence the time frame was very much in keeping with the effort.

So was Damour merely a story http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7287 and why should I mention a massacre at a refugee camp by Lebanese forces? I wasn't attempting to give a full account of the civil war, it was merely to refute your apologist crap. BTW there are loads of conspiracy theories to shift blame onto Israel for the massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp. In hindsight Israel shouldn't have let them in but at the end of the day a Christian force committed the killing, one which was allied to Israel at the time, and the pretext for their entry was at least understandable since militants they were openly at war with were embedded in the camp so it isn't clear that Israel is blameworthy.



Youre lying again. You go on about my frequent dishonesty, which you will be hard pressed to find, other then my reply to Lookie which I (As I have done in the past) apologised for. Then you continue your attacks on me. Using the words anti-semitism didnt work, so you try and get the thread closed by another means, in this case, attacking other posters. I am the only apologist who has openly condoned drone attacks on proven terrorists. Funny that huh.

Damour was a Phalangist strong hold, the massacre there was in response to a massacre of Palestinians and Muslims by Phalangist Militia in East Beirut. The later attack on Sabra and Shatila (SP?) was in response to this. All of these events were reprehensible.

As you said, Israeli forces, who had control of entry to the camps did nothing to stop the latter massacre, even going as far to fire off illumination flares at the Phalangist request. This was AFTER the IDF had shelled the camp.

But no, you are, as ever correct, Israel played no hand in this, Ariel Sharon wasnt found guilty for his part in it, by an Israeli commission no less, nor was he forced to resign........ Except he was.

quote:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the prospect of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps and for having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the chances of a massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 6:43:03 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
More of your "shit", which unfortunately you give a lot of! I said I replied to your initial message nine minutes after it was posted. My own was quite a lengthy one http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4264701 where I had to source links - hence the time frame was very much in keeping with the effort.

So was Damour merely a story http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7287 and why should I mention a massacre at a refugee camp by Lebanese forces? I wasn't attempting to give a full account of the civil war, it was merely to refute your apologist crap. BTW there are loads of conspiracy theories to shift blame onto Israel for the massacre at the Palestinian refugee camp. In hindsight Israel shouldn't have let them in but at the end of the day a Christian force committed the killing, one which was allied to Israel at the time, and the pretext for their entry was at least understandable since militants they were openly at war with were embedded in the camp so it isn't clear that Israel is blameworthy.

Youre lying again. You go on about my frequent dishonesty, which you will be hard pressed to find, other then my reply to Lookie which I (As I have done in the past) apologised for. Then you continue your attacks on me. Using the words anti-semitism didnt work, so you try and get the thread closed by another means, in this case, attacking other posters. I am the only apologist who has openly condoned drone attacks on proven terrorists. Funny that huh.

I'm sorry but you have frequently been dishonest and I make no apologies for saying so. Dude, you strawman so much that at this stage it cannot be anything but intentional. You constantly go on about Islamophobia, and claimed recently you were called an anti-Semite for simply saying a peace process re. Israel would be difficult! That's a total crock of shit and I'm sure you are smart enough to know that. I brought up Tweak openly coaching an outright anti-Semite on here because it was worthy of comment considering her manifest antipathy toward the State. You then went out of your way to defend her, and when I simply replied to your posts, you then accused me of trolling and repeatedly accused me of trying to close the thread down. I want nothing of the sort to happen, and I assert that I have a right to reply when you target me with your nonsense, as does anyone on here.

quote:


Damour was a Phalangist strong hold, the massacre there was in response to a massacre of Palestinians and Muslims by Phalangist Militia in East Beirut. The later attack on Sabra and Shatila (SP?) was in response to this. All of these events were reprehensible.

Thats crap, Damour had hardly any arms, and so a large town was overrun without much resistance. Secondly, the attack on Sabra and Shatila is thought to be in response to the PLO killing Phalangist leader Bashir Gemayel, not Damour which occurred six years earlier. Even the source you quote states that! It is remarkable how lacking your knowledge of the basics is, and yet you spout such a crock. It is simply to bend the few facts you possess to your beliefs - it appears to be just another element of your apologism of Islam.

quote:


But no, you are, as ever correct, Israel played no hand in this, Ariel Sharon wasnt found guilty for his part in it, by an Israeli commission no less, nor was he forced to resign........ Except he was.
quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the prospect of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps and for having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the chances of a massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps


That is another one of your dishonest arguments. The commission found him guilty of a dereliction of duty, not of collusion in the murders as you have contended. I would agree that it was a dereliction of duty but it is far from certain there was any collusion but the pro-Palestinain brigade essentially make out Israel pulled the trigger. That was my point.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 10/14/2012 7:33:31 AM >

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 8:36:01 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Whatever........ You dont like the truth so you lie and make continued personal attacks.

I clearly quoted the commissions verdict, Yet you contend I meant something else.

Shrugs.... More from the commission, who I suspect you will also call liars and apologists. Oddly enough its in your own link, which I am guessing you failed to read or understand.


quote:

Later in the afternoon, a meeting was held between the Israeli Chief of Staff and the Phalangist staff. On Friday morning, the Israelis surrounding the camps ordered the Phalange to halt their operation, concerned about reports of a massacre.[20] According to the Kahan Commission's report (based on a Mossad agent's report), the Chief of Staff concluded that the Phalange should "continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure." He stated that he had "no feeling that something irregular had occurred or was about to occur in the camps." At this meeting, he also agreed to provide the militia with a tractor, supposedly to demolish buildings.[

(in reply to Anaxagoras)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 8:44:36 AM   
Anaxagoras


Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Whatever........ You dont like the truth so you lie and make continued personal attacks.

I clearly quoted the commissions verdict, Yet you contend I meant something else.

I'm afraid your conduct suggests otherwise. Even on this thread it was you rather than me who was the first one to lash out on this thread in our "discussion" with words like stupid.

Secondly you claimed "I did however note you were quick to mention how bad the PLO was and not the Israeli backed masacre at a refugee camp." When I contended that there could have also been a less malign reason for the IDF allowing in a Christian force into the came, you then subsequently posted the quote from the Israeli commission into the act.

quote:

Shrugs.... More from the commission, who I suspect you will also call lias and apologists. Oddly enough its in your own link, which I am guessing you failed to read or understand.

quote:

Later in the afternoon, a meeting was held between the Israeli Chief of Staff and the Phalangist staff. On Friday morning, the Israelis surrounding the camps ordered the Phalange to halt their operation, concerned about reports of a massacre.[20] According to the Kahan Commission's report (based on a Mossad agent's report), the Chief of Staff concluded that the Phalange should "continue action, mopping up the empty camps south of Fakahani until tomorrow at 5:00 a.m., at which time they must stop their action due to American pressure." He stated that he had "no feeling that something irregular had occurred or was about to occur in the camps." At this meeting, he also agreed to provide the militia with a tractor, supposedly to demolish buildings.[


Dude, you actually posted the Wiki link to Sabra and Shatila first.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 10/14/2012 8:45:45 AM >

_____________________________

"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 8:47:44 AM   
VideoAdminGamma


Posts: 2233
Status: offline 		Fast reply

The discussion will return to the points of the subject material and not each other. If the comments about each other continue, then administrative action will be taken. Utilize self control to stay on the subject or don't post. The next 30 days will prove to be some interesting discussions happening and I would hate for anyone to miss out.

Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
Gamma

_____________________________

"The administration has the authority to handle situations in whatever manner they feel to be in the best interests of the forum, at that moment, in response to that event. "

http://www.collarchat.com/m_72/tm.htm

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 12:16:44 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		Netanyahu has called for an early election, mainly due to not being able to get his budget agreed. I think he also hopes to have the election while he is still fairly popular. I read somewhere, dont ask where as I cant recall, that the election is being brought forward to January. I am guessing much will depend on who the American President is on immediate Israeli policies.

I dont see Romney and Netanyahu together as being conducive to a quick solution in the Middle East.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19891455

(in reply to VideoAdminGamma)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 2:31:05 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I dont see Romney and Netanyahu together as being conducive to a quick solution in the Middle East.

I don't see Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed coming to a quick solution so long as the settlements remain and the WB Palestinians are subject to IDF military law. How serious can anyone take the intentions of Israel while they are occupiers? They have gotten themselves into a moral and strategic dilemma imho. And so they deflect attention away from the WB by ranting about Iran.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 10/14/2012 2:32:16 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Israel - 10/14/2012 3:26:05 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		How serious can anyone take the palestinians when they claim israel is occupying palestinian lands?

Israel has a right to exist, and has defended that right through force of arms. And frankly, upon the next provocation needs to conquer more to pass the message to the arabs that if you don't want peace - fine. We can work it that way too.


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Israel Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109