Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why the constant fallacy that anti-Zionism = anti Israel's 'right to exist'...

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    You keep going on and on about who struck first, in this intentionally disingenuous manner.

    I already said repeatedly that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive.

    FFS, your just looking for an completley pointless arguement, with a really silly straw man here Justin. I already said that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive:
    wes wrote: »
    Israel started the 1967 war, claiming it was a preemptive strike (the other side would of course disagree):

    The only person being disingenuous is you. I have no idea what your problem is, but I have clearly stated that Israel claimed that Israel said there strike was preemptive. Anyway, this has gotten really silly. Clearly, you think that even when Israel was the one who attacked first, its always the otherside who is the aggressor. Doesn't matter that Israel, right after they kicked off the 1967 war, grabbed a bunch of land, that they always wanted as a part of the whole Great Israel nonsense. You may as well be claiming the sky is green, if really think Israel didn't kick things off in 1967.


  • Options
    #33
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    I already said repeatedly that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive.

    FFS, your just looking for an completley pointless arguement, with a really silly straw man here Justin. I already said that Israel claimed the strike was preemptive:

    The only person being disingenuous is you. I have no idea what your problem is, but I have clearly stated that Israel claimed that Israel said there strike was preemptive. Anyway, this has gotten really silly. Clearly, you think that even when Israel was the one who attacked first, its always the otherside who is the aggressor. Doesn't matter that Israel, right after they kicked off the 1967 war, grabbed a bunch of land, that they always wanted as a part of the whole Great Israel nonsense. You may as well be claiming the sky is green, if really think Israel didn't kick things off in 1967.

    And yet again??
    It is actually incredible that you can look no earlier than June 5th 1967 as to why this all "kicked off".
    My raising your claim isn't pointless, and neither is it whatever gimmicky web-term you wish to call it. It is a valid point to make as you myopically bang on about those big bad Israelis being the sole reasons behind the post-1956 augmentation of the Arab/Israeli conflict. They were hardly going to sit back and get hosed by what Nasser was rallying. Much more than a case of "but they started it". Even Pilger and Fisk admit as much.


  • Options
    #34
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    And yet again??

    They did attack first......

    Amazing, you can't understand this simple fact.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    It is actually incredible that you can look no earlier than June 5th 1967 as to why this all "kicked off".

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that is the day the war started. It is amazing that you can't accept a simple fact, as to who attacked first. Hint, it wasn't the Arabs.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    My raising your claim isn't pointless, and neither is it whatever gimmicky web-term you wish to call it.

    It is pointless actually. I already pointed out Israel claim that it was preemptive. You are claiming that I ignored that. Your claim is simply wrong, and as such pointless. Its really not that hard to understand. I am well aware of both sides version of events, either way it doesn't change you actually attacked first, now does it?
    JustinDee wrote: »
    It is a valid point to make as you myopically bang on about those big bad Israelis being the sole reasons behind the post-1956 augmentation of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

    I made no such claim. Your making things up again Justin. Its really rather sad, that you have resort to this absurd nonsense, in your desperate attempt to ignore the facts.

    All, I see is someone who can't accept anything other that Israel version of things.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    They were hardly going to sit back and get hosed by what Nasser was rallying.

    [sarcasm]Yes, he was totally going to attack, because Israel said he was, and as we know Israel never lies:[/sarcasm]
    Rethinking Israel’s David-and-Goliath past

    Little-noticed details in declassified U.S. documents indicate that Israel's Six-Day War may not have been a war of necessity.

    --SNIP--
    Or was it? Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration — including Johnson’s most pro-Israeli Cabinet members — did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser’s vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.
    --SNIP--

    Even the American's didn't buy Israels version of events, and I see no reason why, I should either.

    What interesting is that in any version of events it was Israel who attacked first.....


  • Options
    #35
    Shea O'Meara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Shea O'Meara


    People should have the right to exist and follow their beliefs freely.
    The state of Israel cannot claim to be simply trying to get by when it was created on the land of and without the consent of the indigenous people of the region.
    We all know too well about state and religion being tied together but I don't believe any anti-Israel sentiment is in any way automatically an anti-Jewish issue. I can see how it's advantageous for people to blend the two when defending the right to practically invade another region and set up your own country to the detriment of the native population.
    In my view the Israelis should apologise and try work out some kind of way to hopefully live in peace, rather than bluster their right to exist like they are the injured party and not the aggressor that the state is.


  • Options
    #36
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    wes wrote: »
    They did attack first......

    Amazing, you can't understand this simple fact
    I didn't say they didn't ffs. What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.
    Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'. Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

    Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    JustinDee wrote: »
    I didn't say they didn't ffs.

    Could have fooled me, seeing as you post stuff like this anytime I mention it:
    JustinDee wrote: »
    And yet again??

    Go figure, it seemed me you had an issue with that.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.

    No, what beggars belief, is that you have out of hand rejected anything that suggests otherwise. You expect me to believe the claims of Israel, when the US at the time, taught that Israel wasn't under the threat of imminent attack.

    I am sorry, but I can't quite agree with someone who not only dismisses things you don't like, but doesn't even bother to address it all. All you have done so far is just say that anything you disagree with is wrong, and offered nothing more.

    Also to call me blinkered, when I have repeatedly said that Israel claimed there attack was preemptive is also funny, especially when you have been exclusively taking a very one sided Israel is right argument the whole time.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'.

    Well its shows that your more interested in the websites owner, as opposed to actually dealing with the article.

    So again, your right because you say so.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

    Considering that your line amounts to, you just saying you right again and again, and saying that anything that disagree with your views, is wrong solely on your say so, that is quite frankly a bit rich.

    You didn't even address a single thing the article said, not that I expected you to or anything. You have so far steadfastly relied on claiming your right, and that anything that says otherwise is wrong, just on your say so.
    JustinDee wrote: »
    Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.

    So, not only are you going to ignore documents that date to the time of the war (because you have some issue with the website owner), but also with anyone who says anything that disagrees with what you say, then its just wrong apparently. Yet you are the one calling me blinkered.

    I understand that you just reject anything that disagrees with you, but the simple fact is that Israels version of events are simply biased. To fair, then so is the other side, but you expect me to accept one sides version, because you say so is utterly ridiculous. If you want be biased towards Israel version of events, and ignore anything that says otherwise, more power to you. Personally, I am going to look at both sides, unlike yourself, and make up my own mind.


  • Options
    #38
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    JustinDee wrote: »
    I didn't say they didn't ffs. What I do take into account however and what you keep on feebly denying, is what was happening in the lead-up to the 5th of June in 1967. To think that nothing was to come out of Nasser's movement . . . just beggars belief.
    Ignoring this and quoting a David Talbot website of all things disproves nothing, 'wes'. Sorry but your posts are far too (deliberately) tilted to even begin an opinion on those decades given the blinkered line you keep taking.

    Go on, regurgitate those old chestnut former military quotes too.

    Regardless of the lead up (which I still don't agree with but it's off topic anyway), does any of that justify colonizing lands by literally driving out the indigenous population at gunpoint and bulldozing their homes? :confused:


  • Options
    #39
    JustinDee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,684 ✭✭✭JustinDee


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Regardless of the lead up (which I still don't agree with but it's off topic anyway), does any of that justify colonizing lands by literally driving out the indigenous population at gunpoint and bulldozing their homes? :confused:
    No, it doesn't justify anything. What it is however is a very real summary of where the region was headed following Nasser's (prodded) 'revolution', particularly amongst the three occupying countries of Palestine at the time (Egypt, Syria, Jordan - of which experienced coups) plus Lebanon. Head-in-the-sand, ill-educated lines about all going on being harmless and just talk change nothing. As much the Pan-Arabists' fault as the Israeli govt at the time. They mobilised and got severely beaten for this. Even Syria nearly went too but for their own interested party, the USSR's intervention. Biggest loss after Jerusalem was the Golan ranges, which will never be given up again, regardless of whatever talks take place. Far too important in defensive terms. This isn't me justifying anything. Just saying what happened. No anti-Israeli revisionist claptrap will convince otherwise.


  • Options
    #40
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres a strong difference between rhetoric and a planned enterprise.
    Let me get this straight, is it your view that the Israelis started the '67 war totally unprovoked with the intention of taking land?

    And as for the "driving the Jews into the sea" part, are you suggesting that they weren't really serious about it or something? It seems to me to be farily clear that there was an intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" if it wasn't the intention, they wouldn't have said it.


  • Options
    #41
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SeanW wrote: »
    Let me get this straight, is it your view that the Israelis started the '67 war totally unprovoked with the intention of taking land?.


    No, however land was taken, held, and colonisation begun subsequently.
    SeanW wrote: »
    And as for the "driving the Jews into the sea" part, are you suggesting that they weren't really serious about it or something? It seems to me to be farily clear that there was an intention to "drive the Jews into the sea" if it wasn't the intention, they wouldn't have said it.

    Rhetoric =/= structured plan and intent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Nodin wrote: »
    Rhetoric =/= structured plan and intent.
    Meh, perhaps. But when one explicitly states that they want to "drive the Jews into the sea" I think it makes to believe that they might, possibly just be serious about it.


  • Options
    #43
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SeanW wrote: »
    Meh, perhaps. But when one explicitly states that they want to "drive the Jews into the sea" I think it makes to believe that they might, possibly just be serious about it.

    I doubt they had hugs and kisses in mind, but extrapolating genocide from rhetoric, without detailed plans to back up the conclusion, doesn't really fly.


  • Options
    #44
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users Posts: 9,839 ✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Not to mention that Ahmadinejad has no actual power, he is a puppet, a front for the Ayatollahs.

    So everything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt.


  • Options
    #45
    Shay McLaughlin
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Shay McLaughlin


    The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital....how much land for peace is it going to take to satisfy this hunger for occupancy? Let's go BEYOND the '67 borders...what Israel is now and what it Originally was is quite surprising..there is no 'OUT" for Israel if they are sandwiched between the Gaza Strip and the Wesr Bank....I see many similarities between what has happened in my beloved Republic/country of Ireland and the Jewish struggle to hang on to what little land that's left which is rightfully their's.


  • Options
    #46
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Shay McLaughlin wrote: »
    The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital..............


    That wasn't the negotiating position of Fatah. You've some source for that?


  • Options
    #47
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Shay McLaughlin wrote: »
    The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital....how much land for peace is it going to take to satisfy this hunger for occupancy? Let's go BEYOND the '67 borders....

    Israel are the ones expanding outside there borders, on a daily basis via there settlements.

    The PA position is a state more or less based on the 1967 borders, with some mutually agreed upon land swaps.


  • Options
    #48
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Nodin wrote: »
    I doubt they had hugs and kisses in mind, but extrapolating genocide from rhetoric, without detailed plans to back up the conclusion, doesn't really fly.
    They said they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, I'm not sure why any other evidence is needed.


  • Options
    #49
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SeanW wrote: »
    They said they wanted to drive the Jews into the sea, I'm not sure why any other evidence is needed.

    ...which is, to be blunt, part of the problem. There is a difference between rhetoric and fact.


  • Options
    #50
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,785 ✭✭✭SeanW


    The fact is they never got to do it!


  • Options
    #51
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SeanW wrote: »
    The fact is they never got to do it!

    Genocide requires some level of planning. These plans would exist regardless of whether or not the genocide occurred. There's none. Therefore we're left with a lot of hot air in a region famous for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Nodin wrote: »
    Genocide requires some level of planning. These plans would exist regardless of whether or not the genocide occurred. There's none. Therefore we're left with a lot of hot air in a region famous for it.

    Formalised plans would not need to exist, not everything is conveniently laid down on paper. There is a significant group of people out there who think that Hitler didn't order the holocaust to be carried out, their reasoning being that his signature is not on anything related to the holocaust, thus he can't be blamed.

    If Hamas or any other party had the power to defeat the Israeli army then I'm quite sure they would be able to draw up plans pretty quickly to commit genocide. There is no point in them drawing up such plans while the prospect of such a victory is remote however their expressed intentions are enough to take their words seriously.


  • Options
    #53
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    While the Israeli government has SHOWN through their actions/rather than their words that they are happy to continue to ethnically cleanse and wipe out the palestinian people till none are left and all the land belongs to Israel.


  • Options
    #54
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Memnoch wrote: »
    While the Israeli government has SHOWN through their actions/rather than their words that they are happy to continue to ethnically cleanse and wipe out the palestinian people till none are left and all the land belongs to Israel.

    Thats just rubbish and you know it. Hyperbole like that just makes people immediately discount any argument you may be wishing to make. Israel does have questions to answer over settlements and their activity in the west bank, however to imply that Israel is seeking to wipe out the Palestinian people is just plain silly.


  • Options
    #55
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Thats just rubbish and you know it. Hyperbole like that just makes people immediately discount any argument you may be wishing to make. Israel does have questions to answer over settlements and their activity in the west bank, however to imply that Israel is seeking to wipe out the Palestinian people is just plain silly.

    It is the sad truth.

    four-panel-map.jpg

    I think if you were to create another picture in 2012, with the settlements in white the Green would have shrunk even further. And it is not just by building settlements but by crippling 'security measures,' that destroy any chance of the palestinians building a prosperous economy also.

    It is not hyperbole. Israel has no interest in peace because they have no need for it. Their government is happy to sacrifice a few of their citizens to terrorist attacks because it allows them to continue in their objective of wiping the palestinian people out once and for all. And with the protection of the US in the UNSC they will succeed.

    I don't think Palestine will exist fifty years hence.


  • Options
    #56
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Formalised plans would not need to exist, not everything is conveniently laid down on paper. There is a significant group of people out there who think that Hitler didn't order the holocaust to be carried out, their reasoning being that his signature is not on anything related to the holocaust, thus he can't be blamed.

    ...............


    ...a silly argument, in that such was the extent of the planning it would have been impossible to hide them. Bringing in a silly argument to make yet another one is a nonsense, tbh. There are/were no Egyptian plans for genocide. If some come to light, then I'll be glad to concede the point.


  • Options
    #57
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...a silly argument, in that such was the extent of the planning it would have been impossible to hide them. Bringing in a silly argument to make yet another one is a nonsense, tbh. There are/were no Egyptian plans for genocide. If some come to light, then I'll be glad to concede the point.

    Well done for completely missing the point, or choosing to ignore the point, whichever. There doesn't need to be any formalised plans for a genocide for one to take place, in fact it would be smart for them not to put something like that in writing.

    The Israelis mindset in any conflict they face is that they cannot afford to lose a war because of the consequences that may occur.


  • Options
    #58
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Well done for completely missing the point, or choosing to ignore the point, whichever. There doesn't need to be any formalised plans for a genocide for one to take place, in fact it would be smart for them not to put something like that in writing.

    .....

    However, seeing as (a) no genocide took place and (b) no plans exist to show that there was genuine genocidal intent, we're back at square one.


  • Options
    #59
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Nodin wrote: »
    However, seeing as (a) no genocide took place and (b) no plans exist to show that there was genuine genocidal intent, we're back at square one.

    (a) The IDF didn't give them the chance.
    (b) As I said, not everything needs to be written down in advance.


  • Options
    #60
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    (a) The IDF didn't give them the chance.
    (b) As I said, not everything needs to be written down in advance.

    Something writen, - other than publically delivered rhetoric - would help your case enormously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Shay McLaughlin wrote: »
    The Palestinians want ALL of Israel and to make Jerusalem it's capital....how much land for peace is it going to take to satisfy this hunger for occupancy? Let's go BEYOND the '67 borders...what Israel is now and what it Originally was is quite surprising..there is no 'OUT" for Israel if they are sandwiched between the Gaza Strip and the Wesr Bank....I see many similarities between what has happened in my beloved Republic/country of Ireland and the Jewish struggle to hang on to what little land that's left which is rightfully their's.

    What's rightfully theirs does not include East Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Gaza Strip. What has happened there has many similarities with what happened in my beloved Republic/country of Ireland when the British decided they could take whatever they wanted and colonize it because they had bigger guns than the indigenous population.

    How anyone can justify Israel's expansion beyond its original border, through nothing less than sheer brute force, it utterly and completely beyond me.


Advertisement