Who are Palestinians?

[Erikl]

palestine history from B.C to This certain day with all the details and events

Link Here

happy reading

Priceless thank you!

Exactly my point - I put here quotes and articles from wikipedia, while the pro-Palestinian side puts "palestineremember.com". Maybe I should start posting from "zionismisright.com" or something like that?

[Knight Of Shadows]

you already post from magazines and places that always refer to the " terrorist muslims or arabs "

or the " anti semtic " or " extremists " or " fanatics who want to destory israel " goes on the list

beside .. it's the value of the information it contents not how it sound ..

what's the matter cousin ? you don't like historic facts .. the things enlisted are historic facts

history always good and it's never too late to learn

especially reading with clear mind .. cup of tea and a cig truely priceless

[Wyvernkeeper]

This thread has launched off overnight while I was sleeping so it has sort of moved on from where I was... I may chip it later though, but probably only if somebody says something really stupid!

Holler if you need me kids...

[Erikl]

you already post from magazines and places that always refer to the " terrorist muslims or arabs "

or the " anti semtic " or " extremists " or " fanatics who want to destory israel " goes on the list

beside .. it's the value of the information it contents not how it sound ..

what's the matter cousin ? you don't like historic facts .. the things enlisted are historic facts

history always good and it's never too late to learn

Eh?

especially reading with clear mind .. cup of tea and a cig truely priceless

I would make that a cup of black coffee and arghile instead of a cig please

[Black Red Devil]

Outbursts? Not at all. It's just very tyring to repeat your own words every one or two days on the same thread just because none of you lots care to read anything. Q24 didn't even read the posts written to him, yet simply replied. I am very calmed, unfortunately for you. It is you who's coming here blaming everyone, automatically blaming me for calling you a racist or antisemitic (which I haven't, as proved by my quotes).

Do you suffer from paranoia? I guess so. It's either that, or you simply have no reading capability (or you deliberately try to twist my words, to suits your agenda). I didn't blame you, just as I didn't call you anti-Semitic (I was obviously referring to the Hamas covenant) or racist in terms you think (if you cared to read the thread, and not just storm in with pro-Palestinian propaganda, then you would have known what the term racist of low expectations mean). Claiming that the number "6 million was chosen" to suit Zionist means, as was raised in the previous page, borders Holocaust denial.

LOL. So despite the fact that I've explained to you how you cunningly labeled me as a racist and antisemitic (post 363), like in kindergarden, you still come back denying this. Also, I'll repeat it just in case you're thinking of having another go at it, I never said I supported Hamas.

You think you represent reason, yet none of you LittleDevil, Q24, Yamato etc. conducting in a reasonable matter. None of you addressed any of the facts I've presented here, the maps - all of which stem from neutral sources like wikipedia, or even Palestinian sources. Q24, for example, talked about Benny Morris, yet when I quote him in a manner that doesn't fit his world view - it's ignored. Your deduction skills have no grip with reality - you interpret reality as it suits you. Yamato, finally, admitted that he simply hates Israel, and went racist. Q24 haven't, which is why he's still here. However, he's totally misinformed, he's own agenda blind him from ever accepting anything he was indoctrinate into.

No, you interpret it to suit yourself, probably because you're in denial. Whether this is deliberate or it's been drilled into your upbringing only you know.

The situation is this;

1. Palestinians are being oppressed in both Gaza (through illegal Israeli sanctions) and the West Bank (illegal restrictions caused by the Israeli wall built on Palestinian territory, illegal settlements built on Palestinian territory, double standards in the legal system against Palestinians). All facts recognised by the UN and International Human Rights Organisations, not by pro Palestinian UM members. These Illegalities have also been condemned by Israel's closest allies.
2. Israel has shown the world they're not interested in progressing a peace solution. The fact that they've allowed an additional 100,000 settlers to build in the West Bank in the last decade proves this.

Anyhow, BlackLittleDevil, it seems that if you keep on conducting the way you do, simply spreading here single liners with baseless accusations on your rampage to bash Israel, the thread will get closed. So, for the fourth time now, I really suggest you calm down, sip a cup of tea or something, sit back and relax, and read the entire thread. Then come back and put your educated 5 cents.

What a ridiculous and childish response. It'll probably get closed because you keep on squawking racism, antisemitism in every post.. BTW, Sorry but I'm not interested in reading all your historical tripe showing ancient maps, maps from the 1920's etc.......I'm only interested in current world events and what the legitimate world community has to say about these.

[Black Red Devil]

Probably because the Turks built illegal settlements as well. But of course, that is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, In fact it's a good point. The fact that Northern Turkey is unrecognised and an illegal nation (except for Turkey of course) proves that the world community has condemned this occupation. If you'd have to fit your analogy into the Israeli-Palestinian situation, Israel would also have to be declared as an illegal nation. Correct?

[Wyvernkeeper]

No, it's not irrelevant, In fact it's a good point. The fact that Northern Turkey is unrecognised and an illegal nation (except for Turkey of course) proves that the world community has condemned this occupation. If you'd have to fit your analogy into the Israeli-Palestinian situation, Israel would also have to be declared as an illegal nation. Correct?

I think the point Mike is makeing is not trying to fit the I/P situation into every possible analogy, but just recognising that Israel is not solely to blame for all the region's ills, neither is it unique in the actions it has undertaken. Turkey also has a questionable presence in Northern Cyprus, a still divided country, also the scene of atrocities - yet to you this is just another reason to attack Israel.

I don't know what you mean by illegal nation, perhaps you could explain?

I don't think you are knowingly anti-semitic BRLD, but you seem to have a need to use any piece of information as ammo against Israel, which does come across as a little bit prejudiced.

In response to the two points you made earlier,

1) Palestinians are also being oppressed by their own government, as well as in other Arab countries. Here is a taster - http://cnpublications.net/2011/09/28/arabs-oppress-palestinian-brethren/

Now this does not excuse Israeli actions in Gaza/WB, but it is suspicious how often these facts are ignored by those who attack Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians, (of course forgetting the million or so Arabs in Israel with full rights.)

2) The Israelis have demonstrated willingness for peace at some times, less at others... Rather like the Palestinians... Is firing 680 rockets into Israel from Gaza last year truly 'demonstrating a desire for peace.'

I think you might have a little trouble if you were to hold the Palestinians to the same standards you hold the Israelis.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Erikl]

LOL. So despite the fact that I've explained to you how you cunningly labeled me as a racist and antisemitic (post 363), like in kindergarden, you still come back denying this. Also, I'll repeat it just in case you're thinking of having another go at it, I never said I supported Hamas.

Here's what you said:

"Hamas has a history as extremists, but in recent times they have toned down a lot and made some improvements to the population in Gaza. "

Here's my exact response, word by word, to that:

"So you openly whitewash Hamas? What kind of tone down, exactly? it's still hold onto it's antisemitic covenant. Another racist of low expectations here, guys"

A. It's quite obvious I was referring to Hamas' convenant, and did not call you an anti-Semite. Yet you keep on claiming I did. Who's cunning who?

B. As for the term "racist of low expectations", I refer you to post #243, that if you listened to my advice (which you have no intention to, because you're here on a crusade to bash Israel and ignore everything that has been said so far), you have understood it's meaning:

"The full phrase is "soft bigotry of low expectations", which means you do not expect the same standards from what you perceived as less qualified people. Many pro-Palestinians turn a blind eye on how the Palestinians behave, their blatant racism against Jews, their call for the destruction of Israel and creation of a state on top of it, while judging Israel harshly on a normal, democratic behavior, labeling it as a fascist state. This has been done here on this board as well. Thus, nothing is expected of the Palestinians, and everything is justified - this is bigotry/racism of low expectations."

Obviously I did not blame you for either anti-Semitism or racism against Israel. But you keep on hearing whatever you want.

Palestinians are being oppressed in both Gaza (through illegal Israeli sanctions)

How I love it that the pro-Palestinians not only abuse history as they suit, they also ignore international law when it suits them:

UN report backs Israel's naval blockade.

Israel has full right to put on a blockade on an enemy entity, as proved again by the UN Palmer report.

West Bank (illegal restrictions caused by the Israeli wall built on Palestinian territory, illegal settlements built on Palestinian territory, double standards in the legal system against Palestinians).

The correct, unbiased legal term is "disputed territories", as these territories have never been part of a Palestinian state (or of Israel for that matter). However, the vast majority including the current government of Israel, acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians to their own state in Gaza and the West Bank. The wall, regardless of what you and your like-minded claim, is a security wall and not segregation wall, no more than the Mexican-US border or the eastern european border. Actually, the real reason why you object the wall (or Palestinians for that matter) is that it actually lowered vastly the ability of Palestinian terrorists to carry out attacks against Israeli cities.

As for the settlements, the current, hawkish government of Israel actually halted the settlements (which is actually shooting in their own feet, as many settlers vote for right wing parties in Israel) for 10 months, with no response what's so ever from the Palestinian side. The settlements are a result of the conflict, not the reason, as the PLO and Fatah existed and attacked Israel before the 1967 Israeli acquisition of the territories (the Fatah was established in the 1960s, the PLO in 1964), and they are built on a very, very small part of the disputed territories. As Wyvernkeeper quoted here, on post #346, the construction of settlements on privately owned Palestinian lands is illegal in Israel, and the IDF enforces this law.

Any oppression the Palestinians feel in the disputed territories is the direct result of the conflict, and has nothing to do with what you and others here try to establish as some sort of ethnic cleansing (Palestinian population in Israel and the disputed territories have just grown, not exactly an expected result of ethnic cleansing) or racism (Israeli Palestinians, which are some 20% of the Israelis, are equal and free citizens of Israel).

No matter how hard you try, these are the facts.

What a ridiculous and childish response. It'll probably get closed because you keep on squawking racism, antisemitism in every post..

Again, you are not even capable of reading posts that have been addressed to you few pages ago, so how can anyone here expect from you to conduct a mature debate.

BTW, Sorry but I'm not interested in reading all your historical tripe showing ancient maps, maps from the 1920's etc.......I'm only interested in current world events and what the legitimate world community has to say about these.

Another one who's not interested in history when it's stops serving his need .

As Wyv said to Q24, don't expect people here to take you seriously if you do not take the time to study a subject you reply on, which so far based only on a very biased and misinformed sources.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Erikl

[Black Red Devil]

I think the point Mike is makeing is not trying to fit the I/P situation into every possible analogy, but just recognising that Israel is not solely to blame for all the region's ills, neither is it unique in the actions it has undertaken. Turkey also has a questionable presence in Northern Cyprus, a still divided country, also the scene of atrocities - yet to you this is just another reason to attack Israel.

Really?! So, he makes the analogy and I'm accused of finding a reason to attack Israel?

No it's not unique. In fact, both are building illegal settlements and due to this action, both have been condemned by the world community. So where's the problem?

I don't know what you mean by illegal nation, perhaps you could explain?

Northern Cyprus have self declared themselves to be a legitimate nation. The international community instead recognises it as occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus.

I don't think you are knowingly anti-semitic BRLD, but you seem to have a need to use any piece of information as ammo against Israel, which does come across as a little bit prejudiced.

LOL, I mean, you guys just can't help yourselves. You know, because it's coming from you I'll take it as an honest attempt to make a level judged opinion. Just a suggestion, try to rationalise what you've just said and then try to figure out who's being prejudicial.

In response to the two points you made earlier,

1) Palestinians are also being oppressed by their own government, as well as in other Arab countries. Here is a taster - http://cnpublication...inian-brethren/

Now this does not excuse Israeli actions in Gaza/WB, but it is suspicious how often these facts are ignored by those who attack Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians, (of course forgetting the million or so Arabs in Israel with full rights.)

2) The Israelis have demonstrated willingness for peace at some times, less at others... Rather like the Palestinians... Is firing 680 rockets into Israel from Gaza last year truly 'demonstrating a desire for peace.'

I think you might have a little trouble if you were to hold the Palestinians to the same standards you hold the Israelis.

Point 1) Riiight. An article from Israelbehindthenews and the Managing Editor of the Publication is called Israel Zwick (). Don't want to burst your bubble but it doesn't give the impression of coming from an unbiased source. But hey, whatever makes your world tick. Anyhow, I don't deny there are some oppressive problems in other Arab countries. The consequences of being refugees and not being allowed self determination in your own State being the main reason IMHO.

Point 2) So what would be your response if your enemy keeps on breaching international law by building settlements? Are you trying to tell me that Israel is allowing illegal settlements to continue in retaliation to the 680 rockets? If you said yes that would be a big fat lie. No, they're doing it to grab land and Hamas is retaliating. The whole world knows this, which is also the reason peace process talks have discontinued.

In truth, I don't mind the way you come across and the way you try to rationalise the situation from a jewish point of view. Unfortunately, you probably need to expand your knowledge base reading material to less biased sources of information.

[Q24]

Another one who's not interested in history when it's stops serving his need .

As Wyv said to Q24, don't expect people here to take you seriously if you do not take the time to study a subject…

I’m afraid that reading your “historical tripe”, as BlackRedLittleDevil accurately described it, is not the same as to “study a subject” – a fact that any neutral researcher will conclude. When one engages on your skewed version of history with the full facts in hand, it quickly becomes apparent that all you have is an extremely shallow pro-Zionist argument (perhaps “argument” is too kind, “propaganda” would not be unfair). When this is exposed, you duck out of the discussion and repeat the same pattern on another tangent.

It seems you will even tell extreme untruths to make Israel appear innocent: -

This is your problem of reading again, as I've explained on several occasions that none of the early Zionists actually expected to have a country…

“Ohhh it wasn’t the Zionists’ fault – they never expected for a country!”, you deceive.

Yet from the father of Zionism: -

• “The idea I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one: It is the restoration of the Jewish State.”
  
• “Let me repeat once more my opening words: The Jews who will it shall achieve their State.”
  
• “At Basle I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today l would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”
  

Erikl, you do Israel no favour by attempting to conceal facts.

This thread has launched off overnight while I was sleeping so it has sort of moved on from where I was... I may chip it later though, but probably only if somebody says something really stupid!

Holler if you need me kids...

I was looking forward to your input on the “six million” discussed yesterday. I’m interested to know if you will take this estimated and coincidental figure, with no conclusive evidence in its support, and simply declare me a Jew-hating Holocaust denier (aka the Erikl method) for pointing it out. Though I’m more hoping you might consider my view a logical possibility rather than the “problem” you first stated.

[Erikl]

“Ohhh it wasn’t the Zionists’ fault – they never expected for a country!”, you deceive.

Yet from the father of Zionism: -

“The idea I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one: It is the restoration of the Jewish State.”

“Let me repeat once more my opening words: The Jews who will it shall achieve their State.”

“At Basle I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today l would be greeted by universal laughter. In five years perhaps, and certainly in fifty years, everyone will perceive it.”

I decieve no one. As there is a difference between dream and realistic expectations, up until the Balfour declaration and the British Mandate which started in 1920, that's 40 years since the beginning of Zionist immigration and the majority of the time Zionism existed before the state of Israel, Zionists didn't expect that they'll be able to achieve a state. Even Jabotinsky, the leader of the right wing Zionism, spoke as following:

• In 1925, Jabotinsky formed the Revisionist Zionist Alliance, in the World Zionist Congress to advocate his views, which included increased cooperation with Britain on transforming the entire Mandate for Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River into a sovereign Jewish state, loyal to the British Empire. To this end, Jabotinsky advocated for mass Jewish immigration from Europe and the creation of a second Jewish Legion to guard a nascent Jewish state at inception. A staunch anglophile, Jabotinsky wished to convince Britain that a Jewish state would be in the best interest of the British Empire, perhaps even an autonomous extension of it in the Middle East.
  

And Ben Gurion, on commenting on the first proposal for the division of the land in 1937 and the removal of the Arabs from the small Jewish state to the large Palestinian state offered then:

• ". ... We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imagination. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty---this is a national consolidation in a free homeland. ... if because of our weakness, neglect or negligence, the thing is not done, then we will have lost a chance which we never had before, and may never have again."
  

Which shows that even though they dreamed of a Jewish state, they've never really expected it, even during the first days of the British Mandate, let alone before the dismantle of the Ottoman empire.

The idea was an autonomy of some sort where Jews could live safely, or even part of another major state that will defend it.

Events occur that the Zionists understood two things:

1. The Arabs have no wish to exist with them.

2. The Holocaust taught them that no one will defend them but themselves.

That's it.

[Wyvernkeeper]

I was looking forward to your input on the “six million” discussed yesterday. I’m interested to know if you will take this estimated and coincidental figure, with no conclusive evidence in its support, and simply declare me a Jew-hating Holocaust denier (aka the Erikl method) for pointing it out. Though I’m more hoping you might consider my view a logical possibility rather than the “problem” you first stated.

Very basically, before the war there were approx 18 million Jews in Europe.

After the war there were less than 12 mil.

Now, 18 - 12 = 6, so thats a start for you.

___

As a primer, you can start with Wikipedia.... But I really don't want to argue with you over numbers... I mean, even if only 2 million Jews died, would it be much less of a tragedy?

Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Six_million . Feel free to check out the references at the bottom of the page if the article is not thorough enough for you.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Black Red Devil]

How I love it that the pro-Palestinians not only abuse history as they suit, they also ignore international law when it suits them:

UN report backs Israel's naval blockade.

Israel has full right to put on a blockade on an enemy entity, as proved again by the UN Palmer report.

The report also found the naval blockade of Gaza by Israel legal.

As the occupying power over the Gaza Strip, Israel has the right to determine where and how goods and people should enter the territory it occupies so the maritime blockade as a tactic is legal. The report did not make a ruling on the entire closure regime or blockade on the Gaza strip.

The Palmer report's finding that the naval blockade is lawful should NOT be interpreted to mean that the entire closure regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip is legal. An excellent analysis of this can be found on the 'Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement' website.

My link

There goes your credibility again. By posting inaccurate rubbish such as this just proves that you're either, totally unaware or genuinely deceitful.

The correct, unbiased legal term is "disputed territories", as these territories have never been part of a Palestinian state (or of Israel for that matter). However, the vast majority including the current government of Israel, acknowledge the rights of the Palestinians to their own state in Gaza and the West Bank. The wall, regardless of what you and your like-minded claim, is a security wall and not segregation wall, no more than the Mexican-US border or the eastern european border. Actually, the real reason why you object the wall (or Palestinians for that matter) is that it actually lowered vastly the ability of Palestinian terrorists to carry out attacks against Israeli cities.

Us like minded would like to know why the wall is built on Palestinian territory (up to 20 miles within) and specifically, encompassing illegal settlements? If it's only a security concern why wasn't it built on Israeli land?

And, as far as the bolded part goes, now it appears I'm supporting terrorist activities! Instead of making a clown of yourself by posting ad hominem attacks all the time, why don't you just give up. You're just embarrassing yourself with every post by claiming people are pro palestinian, racists, anti-this, anti-that, terrorist supporters etc. As I've already suggested to you, give the Jewish Library a miss and try a dictionary. Look up the word objective and then look up opinion

the construction of settlements on privately owned Palestinian lands is illegal in Israel, and the IDF enforces this law.

How about the Sasson report identifying 24 illegal outposts built after 2001? Doesn't the Israeli Govt call them illegal outposts when they're built on Palestinian land?

Again, you are not even capable of reading posts that have been addressed to you few pages ago, so how can anyone here expect from you to conduct a mature debate.

Ha, look who's talking.

Another one who's not interested in history when it's stops serving his need .

As Wyv said to Q24, don't expect people here to take you seriously if you do not take the time to study a subject you reply on, which so far based only on a very biased and misinformed sources.

Unbelievable. You're the one people are supposed to take seriously? You might want to look up my links in posts 335 and 343 and advise me which are based on biased and misinformed sources.

[Wyvernkeeper]

LOL, I mean, you guys just can't help yourselves. You know, because it's coming from you I'll take it as an honest attempt to make a level judged opinion. Just a suggestion, try to rationalise what you've just said and then try to figure out who's being prejudicial.

_________________

In truth, I don't mind the way you come across and the way you try to rationalise the situation from a jewish point of view. Unfortunately, you probably need to expand your knowledge base reading material to less biased sources of information.

I have written for many different websites and organisations ranging from the Jewish Chronicle (fairly centrist) where I was public enemy number 1 to the right wing, pro-Israeli contributors and readers. They thought I was a full on left wing anti-Zionist, whereas you think I am prejudiced against your point of view. If anything, they have a more accurate picture than yourself. I have also written Guardian blogs, (left wing) where I got accused of being a Zionist neo-con. So I think I can argue that I have a reasonably wide ranging outlook, with the ability to adjust myself accordingly. Your suggestion that I am 'prejudicial,' well.... ever heard what the pot called the kettle?

I assure you too, I have read accounts of the situation from all kinds of viewpoints, from sources ranging across countries and decades. I have also lived in Israel for a while and visited other middle eastern countries too. Yet still, I stand where I stand.... When I read biased sources of information I take into full account their source and agenda. I think you have taken a cheap shot in suggesting I am prejudiced. I state my opinions clearly and that's all they are, opinions... I don't need to 'rationalise' opinions, they are not facts.... Any fact I cite - please be assured that it is true - and I will be the first to apologise if proved wrong.

Frankly, I don't think you are justified in telling others to look up 'objective' in the dictionary.

Also, I'm getting pretty bored with the increasingly personal nature of this thread.

Edit: On a side issue, (for the benefit of Q24,) on the link between anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, here is a quote from a psychologist that goes some way to explaining the implications that Holocaust deniers may not have even noticed in their agenda.

According to Walter Reich, psychiatrist and then senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, one-time director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and now professor of international affairs at George Washington University:

'The primary motivation for most deniers is anti-Semitism, and for them the Holocaust is an infuriatingly inconvenient fact of history. After all, the Holocaust has generally been recognized as one of the most terrible crimes that ever took place, and surely the very emblem of evil in the modern age. If that crime was a direct result of anti-Semitism taken to its logical end, then anti-Semitism itself, even when expressed in private conversation, is inevitably discredited among most people. What better way to rehabilitate anti-Semitism, make anti-Semitic arguments seem once again respectable in civilized discourse and even make it acceptable for governments to pursue anti-Semitic policies than by convincing the world that the great crime for which anti-Semitism was blamed simply never happened— indeed, that it was nothing more than a frame-up invented by the Jews, and propagated by them through their control of the media? What better way, in short, to make the world safe again for anti-Semitism than by denying the Holocaust?[72]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Himmler.27s_speeches_and_.22ausrottung.22

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Q24]

Very basically, before the war there were 18 million Jews in Europe.

After the war there were less than 12 mil.

Now, 18 - 12 = 6, so thats a start for you.

___

As a primer, you can start with Wikipedia.... But I really don't want to argue with you over numbers... I mean, even if only 2 million Jews died, would it be much less of a tragedy?

Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Six_million . Feel free to check out the references at the bottom of the page if the article is not thorough enough for you.

Thank you.

It seems you didn’t get around to reading the link you requested from me: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=181818&view=findpost&p=3420877

(post #74, response to Moon Monkey’s 5th quote box)

“18 – 12 = 6”, or “17 – 11 = 6” as I put it in that post, does not prove six million Jews died in the Holocaust.

I also stated in the following post that, “even 1 million would be far too many” so we completely agree there. I just wanted to clear it up because you first stated to have “a real problem” with my view that it is the policy which drives the figure, i.e. that Zionists were prepared to inflate the tragedy to make Jewish deaths standout from the millions of others suffered in the death camps in support of the pre-existing agenda.

[Wyvernkeeper]

I also stated in the following post that, “even 1 million would be far too many” so we completely agree there. I just wanted to clear it up because you first stated to have “a real problem” with my view that it is the policy which drives the figure, i.e. that Zionists were prepared to inflate the tragedy to make Jewish deaths standout from the millions of others suffered in the death camps in support of the pre-existing agenda.

Yeah, I do have a problem with that attitude, read the quote in my previous post... That's part of the reason.

The maths was me being facetious, it was not a serious comment.

Prove to me that the 6 million figure is inflated, then we can talk about this. I love this idea that Europeans can murder millions of Jews yet the problem nowadays that people seem to have is that the Jews were overly sensitive about this murder of a third of their population, and cynically exploited and used it. Dunno where you are from, but if a third of your people were murdered, wouldn't you seek safety in a new place.

Did you read the wiki criticism of Holocaust denial page that I floated?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Q24]

Yeah, I do have a problem with that attitude, read the quote in my previous post... That's part of the reason.

The maths was me being facetious, it was not a serious comment.

Prove to me that the 6 million figure is inflated, then we can talk about this. I love this idea that Europeans can murder millions of Jews yet the problem nowadays that people seem to have is that the Jews were overly sensitive about this murder of a third of their population, and cynically exploited and used it. Dunno where you are from, but if a third of your people were murdered, wouldn't you seek safety in a new place.

Did you read the wiki criticism of Holocaust denial page that I floated?

It seems you do have a problem with anyone who doesn’t auto-accept the figure and imply they must all be anti-semitic holocaust deniers - that is what your post and quote appear to say.

There was no indication your “18 – 12 = 6” was “not a serious comment” and indeed that is how researchers come to the six million figure through the census record. It is incorrect because it does not account for Jews killed in the normal course of the war or those who fled Europe. The figure established by Nazi documentation is 3-4 million and even that is in question. Further than that, it is not up to me to disprove the mystical six million figure which happened to be significant to Jews long before the holocaust ever occurred.

Yes I read the holocaust denial page – it does not support six million.

What I am saying makes sense – it was necessary for the figure to standout from the other 60 million+ deaths of all races and religions for it to carry particular significance with the international community who would go on to grant the Jews their state.

I did not say Jews are “overly sensitive” though like many I do believe Zionists have “cynically exploited” much to their advantage. Based on your response, I don’t think I’m going to get a sensible evidence/fact based discussion here so I’ll leave you to it.

[Erikl]

The report also found the naval blockade of Gaza by Israel legal.

As the occupying power over the Gaza Strip, Israel has the right to determine where and how goods and people should enter the territory it occupies so the maritime blockade as a tactic is legal. The report did not make a ruling on the entire closure regime or blockade on the Gaza strip.

The Palmer report's finding that the naval blockade is lawful should NOT be interpreted to mean that the entire closure regime imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip is legal. An excellent analysis of this can be found on the 'Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement' website.

My link

Don't worry, we have pro-Palestinian Israelis as well. That's the unfortunate bad of democracy. However, far-left sources aren't credible, just as far-right sources wouldn't be. Yet, you don't see me ever on this board quoting biased websites. However, both you and KoS, and even Q24, result into doing so. Your logic goes as follow - you have an opinion, which you rant about for several posts, and then you go on justify it using questionable sources. While I always, accompany my posts with sources, and then go on and stick to those facts. You claim the facts I base on are "radical Zionists", yet you fail to see they are all from wikipedia, or the sorts. Hardly Zionist. And 99% of the things I've raised here and backed up with info, are left with no response, just ranting on and on your own opinions.

Us like minded would like to know why the wall is built on Palestinian territory (up to 20 miles within) and specifically, encompassing illegal settlements? If it's only a security concern why wasn't it built on Israeli land?

Nowhere in the history of the world were fences, that were support to defend a territory, were built inside the territory, living part of it outside of the area. Basic strategic logic. The fact that the fence doesn't include many of the parts that would be, under every agreement, part of future Israel, is suffice to prove that it's not there to annex anything. Plus, as much as you'd like to claim and as much as the far-left machine will try Orwellian tactics to change the lingo - the territories are disputed, not "Palestinians". The last sovereign power there was the Ottoman, then British - and being that the Arabs refused the creation of a Palestinian state in 1947, there is no Palestine as a country. This is just biased talking, and any source using them, is, I'm afraid, biased by default, whether intentionally or as a result of a very well organized propaganda.

How about the Sasson report identifying 24 illegal outposts built after 2001? Doesn't the Israeli Govt call them illegal outposts when they're built on Palestinian land?

It may well be, but that's 11 years ago, and the quote Wyv gave here is from recent times. Israel dismantle illegal outposts, as much as it can. Btw, only Jewish outpost - illegal Palestinian construction is left untouched.

[Erikl]

Am I the only here who's horrified from the discussion prompted by Q24? Wyv, don't you see where it's heading to?

[Q24]

Am I the only here who's horrified from the discussion prompted by Q24? Wyv, don't you see where it's heading to?

I’m horrified by views from a position of race, religion and censorship before science, reason and open debate.

This is the 21^st century right?

So the same to you as Wyvern – if you cannot present a logical, rather than emotional, response to what I’ve said then I’ll leave you to it.

[MichaelW]

No, it's not irrelevant, In fact it's a good point. The fact that Northern Turkey is unrecognised and an illegal nation (except for Turkey of course) proves that the world community has condemned this occupation. If you'd have to fit your analogy into the Israeli-Palestinian situation, Israel would also have to be declared as an illegal nation. Correct?

No. Israel is already a state recognised by the majority of the nations in the world. Israeli's settlements are not. Turkey is widely recognised as a state. Northern Cyprus isn't. That's the similarities I wanted to make.

What makes my point even better is that Turkey condemned the building of Israeli settlements in Palestine, yet continues to relocate Anatolian peasants into Northern Cyrpus, thus outnumbering those Greek Cypriots still left. That is fairly hypocritical on Turkey's part is it not?

[MichaelW]

So the same to you as Wyvern – if you cannot present a logical, rather than emotional, response to what I’ve said then I’ll leave you to it.

Bye-bye then. We don't need your "logic" anymore.

Hey, you're just like Yamato in his blatant denial of forum behaviour.

[Q24]

Bye-bye then. We don't need your "logic" anymore.

Hey, you're just like Yamato in his blatant denial of forum behaviour.

Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic and is a personal attack on two posters.

Hey, you’re just like someone with no argument.

[Black Red Devil]

I have written for many different websites and organisations ranging from the Jewish Chronicle (fairly centrist) where I was public enemy number 1 to the right wing, pro-Israeli contributors and readers. They thought I was a full on left wing anti-Zionist, whereas you think I am prejudiced against your point of view. If anything, they have a more accurate picture than yourself. I have also written Guardian blogs, (left wing) where I got accused of being a Zionist neo-con. So I think I can argue that I have a reasonably wide ranging outlook, with the ability to adjust myself accordingly. Your suggestion that I am 'prejudicial,' well.... ever heard what the pot called the kettle?

I assure you too, I have read accounts of the situation from all kinds of viewpoints, from sources ranging across countries and decades. I have also lived in Israel for a while and visited other middle eastern countries too. Yet still, I stand where I stand.... When I read biased sources of information I take into full account their source and agenda. I think you have taken a cheap shot in suggesting I am prejudiced. I state my opinions clearly and that's all they are, opinions... I don't need to 'rationalise' opinions, they are not facts.... Any fact I cite - please be assured that it is true - and I will be the first to apologise if proved wrong.

Frankly, I don't think you are justified in telling others to look up 'objective' in the dictionary.

Also, I'm getting pretty bored with the increasingly personal nature of this thread.

Look, it's as simple as this. I don't doubt for one second that both Erikl and yourself have profound knowledge on the subject. Even more so, since you're attached by cultural ties, you live, have lived and and/or grew up in the area. The thing is, in the age of technology most people in the western world go to a school, learn how to read, have TV's, computers, have access to library's etc. and learn how to rationalise day to day decisions at an early age.

You DO need to rationalise your opinions because they can be drawn from facts known to most but which you (purposely or not) interpret differently and this is where I have a problem with the likes of Erikl and others that have come along. The objective way these facts and the information are being conveyed across the forum are inaccurate to say the least. A typical example of this is the deceitful way the "blockade is legal" was presented. Then, when someone highlights the "inaccuracy" he's bombarded with a barrage of epitaphs (you don't need to go far, just look up Erikl's previous post where I was labelled a terrorist supporter).

So, I fully understand you getting bored with the increasing personal nature happening in this thread. The problem is you're directing your thought to the wrong person.

Edited January 21, 2012 by BlackRedLittleDevil

[Black Red Devil]

Don't worry, we have pro-Palestinian Israelis as well. That's the unfortunate bad of democracy. However, far-left sources aren't credible, just as far-right sources wouldn't be. Yet, you don't see me ever on this board quoting biased websites. However, both you and KoS, and even Q24, result into doing so. Your logic goes as follow - you have an opinion, which you rant about for several posts, and then you go on justify it using questionable sources. While I always, accompany my posts with sources, and then go on and stick to those facts. You claim the facts I base on are "radical Zionists", yet you fail to see they are all from wikipedia, or the sorts. Hardly Zionist. And 99% of the things I've raised here and backed up with info, are left with no response, just ranting on and on your own opinions.

. Here's a better one directly from the Amnesty International site.

The Palmer report's finding that the naval blockade is lawful should not be interpreted to

mean that the entire closure regime imposed on Gaza is legal. As the occupying power in Gaza,

Israel has an obligation to protect all those under its jurisdiction.

My link

And, Wikipedia = reliable source. You are aware that even someone from Hamas could post something on Wikipedia as long as they're registered?

Give up while you can before you embarrass yourself even further.

Nowhere in the history of the world were fences, that were support to defend a territory, were built inside the territory, living part of it outside of the area. Basic strategic logic. The fact that the fence doesn't include many of the parts that would be, under every agreement, part of future Israel, is suffice to prove that it's not there to annex anything.

That's the first I've ever heard of something as weird as this. All medieval forts and castles were built on their own property and walls were built around them (again on their own property) to protect from invaders. They knew if they dared build the walls on enemy territory they would have been subject to constant attacks. Huh, funny analogy.

Plus, as much as you'd like to claim and as much as the far-left machine will try Orwellian tactics to change the lingo - the territories are disputed, not "Palestinians".

That's not the world's opinion. But we know Israel is in a world of it's own, oblivious to what all the racist and antisemitic people that inhabit the rest of the world think.