Israeli apartheid

taconnol wrote: »

The very concept of there being a Jewish state, along with the idea of a nation, has only existed since the late 1800s. And are you aware that one of the locations discussed for Israel was in the middle of Uganda?

I don't think you know much about Judaism. The belonging to Israel has been there ever since the birth of Judaism. There was a presence of Jews throughout, only in smaller numbers after they were exiled by the Romans.

It does make me laugh though. Europeans went to the middle east and drove the Jews out of their homeland. Had that not happened, there would be no 'palestine'. 'Palestine' is a Roman fabrication.

Then the Europeans persecuted the Jews they had exiled and chased them back to the middle east.

Do you know what the graffiti said in 1930's Europe? "Go back to Israel"

So they did. And now you have the same Europeans doing their best to destroy that country again.

Out of desperation, a homeland for the Jews was discussed in other areas of course. That does not mean that Israel had been forgotten about. It was purely survival.

How hypocritical to argue that the Palestinians never had a country or rightful claim when the grounds for a Jewish one are so modern and manufactured.

How can Jewish claims to Israel be manufactured? why don't you take a trip over there and have a look at Jewish synagogues dating back 3,000 years. Israel is the birthplace of Judaism.

It's like saying Muslims have no right to be in Mecca.


I didn't "argue" that the 'palestinians' didn't have a country. That's a historical fact, there's no argument with that.

If you're interested in learning more, may I suggest Sir Martin Gilbert's historical account of Israel's creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3HoAhitiog

Very hard to find balanced documentaries, but Sir Martin Gilbert is well respected and is on the panel of the Iraq enquiry.

Pete M. wrote: »

This thread seems to have gone the way of the debate surrounding the tragic situation, for all, in Israel & Palestine.
Two sides intent on bickering over historical rights and inheritance,

Oh look guys, Pete M is coming in here all sensible and grown up. It appears he sees both sides, so I'm sure the rest of his post will be balanced

while people continue to die, at a ratio of around at least 500:1, palestinians to israelis.

Oh dear, so here you come in with your initial faux balanced view, only to turn it into another Israel bashing exercise.

Can I remind you that we the allies (I don't mean Ireland of course, they were on the Nazi side) killed more Germans than they killed us. Does that mean we were the bad guys?

Body count isn't an indication of who is right and who is wrong.

Some may refer to the anecdotal evidence (also known as propaganda) that the Palestinians train their children to be suicide bombers, while every child of Israel must serve in the IDF and are brainwashed and brutalised into hating their impoverished neighbours.

Can I just take you back to the opening of your post.

"This thread seems to have gone the way of the debate surrounding the tragic situation, for all, in Israel & Palestine.
Two sides intent on bickering "



Shame on us Pete. I mean you sure held up your side of being a neutral eh? :rolleyes:

Pete M. wrote: »

I'm not going to even bother getting stuck into anything with the likes of you, tis pointless and frustrating trying to have a rational debate with someone who has as much compassion as a prison guard in Sobibor....

Glad to see that you didn't miss an opportunity to use the Nazi comparisin. A favourite trick of the anti-semites, according to the EU guidelines on anti-semitism.

dlofnep wrote: »

Any chance you could halt from using Palestinians in quotation marks? It's quote despicable.

Not a chance I'm afraid. Just as I would say 'tooth fairy' or 'ghosts'.

They are Arabs. There has never been a 'palestinian' country. Therefore I'm not prepared to use the politically-motivated made up name of 'palestinians'. It's a fabrication and I won't be party to it.

In fact it was Jews who were originally referred to as 'Palestinians'

Other people agree with me:

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it."
Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937


"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not"
Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946

The fact remains.....

....In your head

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you feel that everyone who criticises Israel does so because they are anti-semites?

Not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, but much of it is rooted in anti-semitism.

Here are the EU guidelines. You might see yourself in there.

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non *Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self* determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

dlofnep wrote: »

They are Palestinians, and recognised as such by the United Nations. I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this matter.

The UN also thinks Lybia and Syria should chair the Human rights council.

The UN also defines every 'palestinian' as a refugee, even when born in another country.

I'm afraid the UN isn't much of an authority on these matters, given that it operates as a shop to buy and sell favours.

i.e. when African countries needed Arab Oil in the 70's and voted against Israel because of it.

You should read Chaim Herzog's autobiography. He was Israel's ambassador to the UN. He said he had ambassadors from countries who'd just voted against Israel come up to him and apologise, basically saying they had to for political reasons.

The UN is dominated by the IOC (Islamic organisation conference) made up of 56 nations. Given they had massive leverage in the 70's particularly with regards to energy, they could get just about any vote through against Israel. Many of the resolutions date back to that time.


Interesting to have a look at how the UN operates
http://www.youtube.com/user/HumanRightsUN


The 'palestinian people' is essentially a political fabrication in order to make claims. It was financed by the petro-dollar.

taconnol wrote: »

This argument is totally pointless. It isn't about history, it's about how humans are being treated today. I don't think any historical or ethnic argument you have, Sykes, can justify what is happening now.

Israel is facing a de-legitimisation campaign by Muslims and their supporters (the left wing).

Trying to break Jewish ties to the land of Israel.

I'm afraid historical truth is very much a factor in this.

We had Jews who up until 1929 had lived in Hebron only to be slaughtered and driven out by 'palestinians' - why is that not a factor that the UN or you lot seemed bothered about?

The Jews were driven out of their homes in East Jerusalem when Jordan annexed it in 1948. Why is it that it's Arab now and considered theirs, when it was taken in war?

There is a massive double standard.

There was no 'palestinian people' when Jordan controlled the West Bank. It was only when Israel captured the land that suddenly they sprang up as a 'people'.

It's ALL about history.

And if you lot think this is about 'occupation', then you need to have a look at the terrorist attacks that took place against Jews by 'palestinians' before Israel's reestablishment and before the so-called 'occupation'.

hinault wrote: »

I don't buy this line of "thinking".

My own view would be that Israel needs to start interacting with it's neighbouting countries, instead of playing their duplicitous games, if it really wishes to survive and prosper.

I agree they need to interact, but I don't agree they're being duplicitous. The ONLY thing stopping Israel being best mates with Lebanon, are the Muslims.

The Israeli's and Christian Lebanese get on great. Unfortunately Lebanon was hijacked by Iran in the early 80's. Militant Islam is the problem here.

Israel has no conflict with Iran for example. They were allies against Arab nationalist pre-1979. Iran was terrified of Nasser and his pan-Arabist nationalism.

Then the Islamists came to town in Iran and that was it. Overnight it was "death to Israel" purely on religious grounds. There is no territorial conflict with Iran. They made themselves an enemy of Israel purely because of religion. They aren't even Arab and don't even share the same branch of Islam as the majority of 'Palestinians.

It should be noted that since the 1960's, Israel has instigated more wars in the ME than any other ME country.

Well let's see. Nasser and his crew spent two years prior to 1967 telling the world they were going to destroy Israel and amassed an invasion force, prompting Israel to strike pre-emptively.

In 1973 the Arabs attacked Israel

In 1982 Israel finally retaliated after decades of terrorist attacks from Lebanon and invaded.

I don't quite follow your train of 'thought'.

History shows that their elitest attitude has brought problems on their heads throughout the centuries.
Perhaps a change of attitude would ensure a more peaceful future than their tortured past?

Ah, here we go again. It really is funny how you lot roll your eyes when you're accused of anti-semitism, only to then go on to say that the Jews have brought on their persecution by acting 'elitist'.

Yes you're right. Half the Jewish race was wiped out and it was their own fault.

Do you think the Irish were acting a bit 'elitist' which is why we had to kick your arse several times? Maybe because of your 'elitist' attitude, we didn't feel like helping you out too much with the lack of potatoes.

Maybe the Muslims were being a bit 'elitist' or just acting like twits in Srebrenica?

Oh what, are you offended? you don't like it when the same is said back to you?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

YAWN, good luck mate am finished making any comments here. Hope you have a nice life, if albeit a deluded one.

Not nice, is it?

When your own words against Israel and Jews are turned against you.

It brings it home how extremist you are.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

One of these tiresome anti-israeli threads pops up every now and then but this is by far the worst, the quality of debate on both sides just seems pretty lousy.

Its not worth wasting any time on beyond what I've said before about the settlements, that they're a huge waste of resources and Israel should disengage from them.

regular as clockwork Blaas, regular as clockwork.

Cue an anti US thread soon, anti anyone who tries to make a difference in this world and see a sense of fair play and freedom.

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

I thought we were occupied by Britain and they were quite aggressive and violent towards us for a couple of hundred years.

They let you take over Liverpool without so much as a 'thank you' from you lot.