Preparing the next generations

[RoofGardener]

Unfortunately the map does show genocide when Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.

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

I'm familiar with the definition Yamato. I never challenged it. I DID (and still do) challenge your map, which is a muddle and shows nothing about anything, least of all genocide, for the reasons that I stated.

I note you have declined to comment on that ?

Edited May 12, 2014 by RoofGardener

[Yamato]

I'm familiar with the definition Yamato. I never challenged it. I DID (and still do) challenge your map, which is a muddle and shows nothing about anything, least of all genocide, for the reasons that I stated.

I note you have declined to comment on that ?

You can't deny meeting the definitions of words with reasons why a map isn't genocide. You can't have a national group if they don't have a nation to be one. I had to explain that to you? Likud cannot accept a state of Palestine west of the Jordan river, and their policies prove it.

[Yamato]

ok Yam, thanks for the history lesson, a couple of hundred years ago the Brits were the biggest villains on the planet,but now thats moved on.I don't like oppression any more than you do,but in a lot of cases its the Countries leaders that are suppressing their own people and feeding them b.s. as in China, Nth Korea ,Russia and a lot more, and there is nothing we can do about it.cheers.

You're welcome, and we're trading with China like gangbusters, so like Israel, fighting tyranny and defending human rights in the world is obviously not our interest.

[Skep B]

So if it doesn't affect me personally, love or hate, why do I care, right?

Think I might have just figured out where Yams and I split on personal philosophy.

[Yamato]

ok Yam, thanks for the history lesson, a couple of hundred years ago the Brits were the biggest villains on the planet,but now thats moved on.I don't like oppression any more than you do,but in a lot of cases its the Countries leaders that are suppressing their own people and feeding them b.s. as in China, Nth Korea ,Russia and a lot more, and there is nothing we can do about it.cheers.

I agree we can't do anything about it, except to stop doing what we're doing when we're contributing to oppressive regimes. Self determination includes what kind of govt we live with; all people should be free enough to have a political process of their own that isn't insanely collectively punished by one's disapproving neighbors.

[Yamato]

Think I might have just figured out where Yams and I split on personal philosophy.

That statement doesn't represent my philosophy. I was referring to what Spud said. I was asking him if that was his position.

[Skep B]

No i get what you mean.

I know you said that in a sarcastic manner.

When I say that it's not sarcastic.

therein lies our difference.

[Yamato]

No i get what you mean.

I know you said that in a sarcastic manner.

When I say that it's not sarcastic.

therein lies our difference.

Ahhh okay I follow you now lolz

[RoofGardener]

You can't deny meeting the definitions of words with reasons why a map isn't genocide.

The map fails because it proports to show a sequence - in this case (I presume) the loss of Arab land to the Jews. However, it manifestly fails to do this because the terms of measurement of each frame are different. (to say nothing of the misleading labels - see my mini-map for an illustration of that).

You can't have a national group if they don't have a nation to be one. I had to explain that to you?

Strangely enough, that is part of my objection to the use of the term "Palestinian" to describe the Arabs living in the region prior to ... hmm... around 1980 or so. (the precise date is open to debate). Hence the propaganda canard about "Palestinians" living there for hundreds of years. I have been raising that point in many previous posts, so NO, you didn't have to explain it to me, it simply wasn't relevant to your discussion on "Genocide".

Likud cannot accept a state of Palestine west of the Jordan river, and their policies prove it.

Well, you could argue that successive leaders of the Palestinians "can't accept" a state of Israel West of the Jordan. I suspect that most palestinians would be happy to accept such a state, if in return they got their own state, and fair recompense for any land lost in the previous 80 years of futile terrorism. (which the Israeli's are offering).

I suspect that both sides have their intransigent nutters, and I suspect that in both cases religious extremism is a driving force. However, I'm not aware of Likud having a current policy of denying a just peace with the palestinians, and the formation of the State of Palestine. Can you give me any examples of such a formal policy ?

[Yamato]

The map fails because it proports to show a sequence - in this case (I presume) the loss of Arab land to the Jews. However, it manifestly fails to do this because the terms of measurement of each frame are different. (to say nothing of the misleading labels - see my mini-map for an illustration of that).

It shows the loss of Palestine to Israel. Thank you for once again jamming the ethnicities in there. Palestine isn't an ethnic group, it's a nation so meeting the definition of Genocide.

"The terms of measurement of each frame are different?" What does that mean? "Proports to show a sequence?" It is a sequence.

Strangely enough, that is part of my objection to the use of the term "Palestinian" to describe the Arabs living in the region prior to ... hmm... around 1980 or so. (the precise date is open to debate). Hence the propaganda canard about "Palestinians" living there for hundreds of years. I have been raising that point in many previous posts, so NO, you didn't have to explain it to me, it simply wasn't relevant to your discussion on "Genocide".

That doesn't have anything to do with this. The map isn't hundreds of years old. Your Zionist meanderings about the word "Palestinian", irrelevant.

Well, you could argue that successive leaders of the Palestinians "can't accept" a state of Israel West of the Jordan. I suspect that most palestinians would be happy to accept such a state, if in return they got their own state, and fair recompense for any land lost in the previous 80 years of futile terrorism. (which the Israeli's are offering).

I will argue that. It's in Hamas's charter too. Both sides have ruling political parties that are intolerant of one another. That doesn't decide right from wrong nor does it tell us who not to support. Who's oppressing who does.

I suspect that both sides have their intransigent nutters, and I suspect that in both cases religious extremism is a driving force. However, I'm not aware of Likud having a current policy of denying a just peace with the palestinians, and the formation of the State of Palestine. Can you give me any examples of such a formal policy ?

Any examples? Is there any end to the examples? The constant erosion of Palestinian land in the West Bank, the siege of Gaza, the destruction of private property, infringement of freedom of mobility, political process, free trade and exports, electricity and fuel, concrete and other raw materials, police stations and government buildings, private housing, weapons, humanity...we can go on and on.

[RoofGardener]

It shows the loss of Palestine to Israel. Thank you for once again jamming the ethnicities in there. Palestine isn't an ethnic group, it's a nation so meeting the definition of Genocide.

"The terms of measurement of each frame are different?" What does that mean? "Proports to show a sequence?" It is a sequence.

The first frame of the map proports to show land ownership in 1947. It shows "Jewish Settlements" in white. The entire of the rest of the Mandate territory is coloured green, and labelled "Palestinian Land". There are several lies in one here.

Firstly, it was not palestinian land because there where no such people as palestinians. Look at the text of UN Resolution 181, and the accompanying map. (reproduced below). Notice the label for the Orange area. Does it say "Palestinian" ? No, it does not. So why did the map that you posted ?

Secondly, the Arabs did NOT "own" the entire Mandate territory (excepting the jewish settlements), as the map tries to suggest. A large amount of the territory was "disorganised" ... e.g. nobody having any viable claim to it. This should be self evident. For example, please show me the Arab who "owned" the Negev desert.

So, the map lies with both incorrect labelling, and inconsistent terms. To be correct, it would have to have shown specific Arab-owned land in the same way that it showed "Jewish Settlements", and not just coloured everything green that wasn't Jewish.

The second frame is the UN map again. It SEEMS to show a 50-50 split of territory. However, much of the "Jewish" section was land deemed unusable. (desert, or land deemed infertile.). Some was mountains. Sure, the Arab allocation was only about 50% of the land area, but they had superior land (including access to many of the aquifers and mountain streams). In terms of "fair division", the map gives a misleading impression. (not because it is inherently faulty, but because it is being mis-used to show something that it was not designed to show.)

The third frame shows an expanded Israel, with the West Bank/Hebron area's - plus the Gaza strip - being labelled "Palestinian land". Once more, the "palestinian" thing is incorrect (for the given time period). Far worse, however, is the teeny tiny ommission that the West Bank/Hebron area had - at this point in time - been permanently annexed as a part of Jordan. All of the Arabs within the zone where "switched" to Jordanian citizenship (whether they liked it or not). Similarly, Gaza was occupied - and permanently annexed - as a part of Egypt.

So much, then, for a state of Palestine. It was snuffed out by Jordan and Egypt, NOT Israel.

.... but it gets better... MUCH better...

Now we move onto Frame 4, which is the only one even remotely correctly labelled. Note how the Israeli's have pushed out the Jordanians and Egyptians, and returned much of the land to its original Arab occupants, who subsequently where able to take the first steps toward Nationhood by forming a partial peace treaty (but still falling short of their Resolution 242 obligations)., and thence forming the Palestine National Authority. For the first time, a nascent Palestinian Nation is emerging; they merely have to complete their Res.242 obligations, and the Israeli's will remove the occupying forces, and the West Bank can flourish.

And all because the Israeli's protected the nascent Palestinian Nation against the land-grab by Egypt and Jordan.

And THAT, my dear Yamato, is why the map doesn't show genocide, or much of anything coherent.

That doesn't have anything to do with this. The map isn't hundreds of years old. Your Zionist meanderings about the word "Palestinian", irrelevant

I said ".... up to around 1980..." Hardly hundreds of years, old chap.

As for the term "Palestinian", it is most CERTAINLY relevant against the backdrop of a debate in which people make false claims, and try and project the false narrative of a Palestinian Identity having a history - and connection to the land - that simply doesn't exist.

Now, do please tell me... what is a "Zionist meandering" ? How does it differ from a Hindu meandering, or a Czechoslovakian meandering ?

I am SO keen to hear your answer, because otherwise that sentence might be read as accusing me of being a Zionist, which I am not.

But even if I where, why use that term ? Are Zionist meanderings somehow inferior to Czechoslovakian ones ? What PRECISELY did you mean there ? Call now with your answer on our toll-free number. Teams of lawyers are waiting for your call.

I will argue that. It's in Hamas's charter too. Both sides have ruling political parties that are intolerant of one another. That doesn't decide right from wrong nor does it tell us who not to support. Who's oppressing who does.

No... that is a BAD way of telling right from wrong. It is WAY too simplistic.

Prison is an oppressive regime. The act of imprisoning someone is an oppressive act. Does this mean you automatically assume that a prisoner is right, and the judiciary/legislature wrong ?

Any examples? Is there any end to the examples? The constant erosion of Palestinian land in the West Bank, the siege of Gaza, the destruction of private property, infringement of freedom of mobility, political process, free trade and exports, electricity and fuel, concrete and other raw materials, police stations and government buildings, private housing, weapons, humanity...we can go on and on.

You have just spent 61 words avoiding the question. Not a personal best by any means, but a creditable effort nonetheless. Well done ! Nowhere did you show where the above is Likud government policy for the sake of oppression. Do try again ? Just a SINGLE example of official policy ? I don't think I'm asking for too much there ?

[Yamato]

The first frame of the map proports to show land ownership in 1947. It shows "Jewish Settlements" in white. The entire of the rest of the Mandate territory is coloured green, and labelled "Palestinian Land". There are several lies in one here.

Firstly, it was not palestinian land because there where no such people as palestinians. Look at the text of UN Resolution 181, and the accompanying map. (reproduced below). Notice the label for the Orange area. Does it say "Palestinian" ? No, it does not. So why did the map that you posted ?

Secondly, the Arabs did NOT "own" the entire Mandate territory (excepting the jewish settlements), as the map tries to suggest. A large amount of the territory was "disorganised" ... e.g. nobody having any viable claim to it. This should be self evident. For example, please show me the Arab who "owned" the Negev desert.

So, the map lies with both incorrect labelling, and inconsistent terms. To be correct, it would have to have shown specific Arab-owned land in the same way that it showed "Jewish Settlements", and not just coloured everything green that wasn't Jewish.

The second frame is the UN map again. It SEEMS to show a 50-50 split of territory. However, much of the "Jewish" section was land deemed unusable. (desert, or land deemed infertile.). Some was mountains. Sure, the Arab allocation was only about 50% of the land area, but they had superior land (including access to many of the aquifers and mountain streams). In terms of "fair division", the map gives a misleading impression. (not because it is inherently faulty, but because it is being mis-used to show something that it was not designed to show.)

The third frame shows an expanded Israel, with the West Bank/Hebron area's - plus the Gaza strip - being labelled "Palestinian land". Once more, the "palestinian" thing is incorrect (for the given time period). Far worse, however, is the teeny tiny ommission that the West Bank/Hebron area had - at this point in time - been permanently annexed as a part of Jordan. All of the Arabs within the zone where "switched" to Jordanian citizenship (whether they liked it or not). Similarly, Gaza was occupied - and permanently annexed - as a part of Egypt.

So much, then, for a state of Palestine. It was snuffed out by Jordan and Egypt, NOT Israel.

.... but it gets better... MUCH better...

Now we move onto Frame 4, which is the only one even remotely correctly labelled. Note how the Israeli's have pushed out the Jordanians and Egyptians, and returned much of the land to its original Arab occupants, who subsequently where able to take the first steps toward Nationhood by forming a partial peace treaty (but still falling short of their Resolution 242 obligations)., and thence forming the Palestine National Authority. For the first time, a nascent Palestinian Nation is emerging; they merely have to complete their Res.242 obligations, and the Israeli's will remove the occupying forces, and the West Bank can flourish.

And all because the Israeli's protected the nascent Palestinian Nation against the land-grab by Egypt and Jordan.

And THAT, my dear Yamato, is why the map doesn't show genocide, or much of anything coherent.

I said ".... up to around 1980..." Hardly hundreds of years, old chap.

As for the term "Palestinian", it is most CERTAINLY relevant against the backdrop of a debate in which people make false claims, and try and project the false narrative of a Palestinian Identity having a history - and connection to the land - that simply doesn't exist.

Now, do please tell me... what is a "Zionist meandering" ? How does it differ from a Hindu meandering, or a Czechoslovakian meandering ?

I am SO keen to hear your answer, because otherwise that sentence might be read as accusing me of being a Zionist, which I am not.

But even if I where, why use that term ? Are Zionist meanderings somehow inferior to Czechoslovakian ones ? What PRECISELY did you mean there ? Call now with your answer on our toll-free number. Teams of lawyers are waiting for your call.

No... that is a BAD way of telling right from wrong. It is WAY too simplistic.

Prison is an oppressive regime. The act of imprisoning someone is an oppressive act. Does this mean you automatically assume that a prisoner is right, and the judiciary/legislature wrong ?

You have just spent 61 words avoiding the question. Not a personal best by any means, but a creditable effort nonetheless. Well done ! Nowhere did you show where the above is Likud government policy for the sake of oppression. Do try again ? Just a SINGLE example of official policy ? I don't think I'm asking for too much there ?

"Likud having a current policy of denying a just peace with the palestinians, and the formation of the State of Palestine. Can you give me any examples of such a formal policy ?" ?

Those 61 words are examples of exactly that.

"The Arabs" and yada yada. Zionist meanderings. Your words in quotes don't apply to anything I was talking about.

Firstly, it was not palestinian land because there where no such people as palestinians. Look at the text of UN Resolution 181, and the accompanying map. (reproduced below). Notice the label for the Orange area. Does it say "Palestinian" ? No, it does not. So why did the map that you posted ?

So if a map doesn't say Palestinians on it then the "Palestinians" don't exist. But the maps that do are mislabeled. Right.

[RoofGardener]

"Likud having a current policy of denying a just peace with the palestinians, and the formation of the State of Palestine. Can you give me any examples of such a formal policy ?" ?

Those 61 words are examples of exactly that.

No they where not. They where just accusations, without any linkage to any Likud government policy statement.

"The Arabs" and yada yada. Zionist meanderings. Your words in quotes don't apply to anything I was talking about.

You used the map to illustrate a point about genocide. My comments where critiques of your map, showing how it illustrated.. well... nothing at all, other than propaganda.

So if a map doesn't say Palestinians on it then the "Palestinians" don't exist. But the maps that do are mislabeled. Right.

You have mis-represented my position. Either you haven't read my post, or you are being deliberately jejune.

It was the propaganda maps that YOU posted that raised the whole issue of the term "palestinian", by deliberately using the term during periods where no such people existed under that name , in order to give a false impression of historic continuity.

When you choose to post supporting evidence of your belief/position, you can't be upset - or cry 'not relevant' - when a debater challenges the veracity of that evidence.

So far, we have no Genocide (just the opposite: Israel rescued the would-be state of Palestine from extinction at the hands of the Jordanians and Egyptians.)

.. and no government policies advocating oppression.

[spartan max2]

From my understanding modren day Isreal was created because the U.N kind of just plopped them there. That was wrong.

But the fact is that they are now there and the people alive now are not the same people who first showed up. So both sides should learn how to live with each other because neither of them are going anywhere

And brainwashing to indoctrinate hatred is not going to bring peace.

[Yamato]

No they where not. They where just accusations, without any linkage to any Likud government policy statement.

You used the map to illustrate a point about genocide. My comments where critiques of your map, showing how it illustrated.. well... nothing at all, other than propaganda.

You have mis-represented my position. Either you haven't read my post, or you are being deliberately jejune.

It was the propaganda maps that YOU posted that raised the whole issue of the term "palestinian", by deliberately using the term during periods where no such people existed under that name , in order to give a false impression of historic continuity.

When you choose to post supporting evidence of your belief/position, you can't be upset - or cry 'not relevant' - when a debater challenges the veracity of that evidence.

So far, we have no Genocide (just the opposite: Israel rescued the would-be state of Palestine from extinction at the hands of the Jordanians and Egyptians.)

.. and no government policies advocating oppression.

I didn't raise "the whole issue of the term "palestinian"". That isn't even an issue. You can't even use the word without putting it in quotes demonstrating how intractably Zionist you really are.

You think the violation of every civil liberty on the list in the encyclopedia is "rescued"? Israel is wiping Palestine off the map, literally. With or without accurate labels.

The way Egypt and Jordan have handled this oppression has been a disaster. They're foreign sweethearts getting US taxpayer moneys to keep the Greater Israel Zionist real estate development project going strong.

And brainwashing to indoctrinate hatred is not going to bring peace.

"Bring peace"? If they're at war, why bemoan when they fight? Because they hate their oppressors? You can only agree to stop oppressing people with tyrannical force control when they don't hate you? Really? I'm stunned, I must hardly know you.

[spartan max2]

"Bring peace"? If they're at war, why bemoan when they fight? Because they hate their oppressors? You can only agree to stop oppressing people with tyrannical force control when they don't hate you? Really? I'm stunned, I must hardly know you.

Im not saying Israel is innocent of doing the same thing, hell im not even saying Israel is not being oppressive but that does not mean it is right for both of them to indoctrinate

Read some of And Thens link

Hamas TV: Giant, cuddly bee teaches children to "shoot Jews" and "smash them"

Explain to me how this helps the situation? This is war propaganda just like every nation does with every war.

It cant be a good thing when both sides are indoctrinating their youth to hate the other side and count as subhuman.

Edited May 18, 2014 by spartan max2

[RoofGardener]

I didn't raise "the whole issue of the term "palestinian"". That isn't even an issue. You can't even use the word without putting it in quotes demonstrating how intractably Zionist you really are.

Hmmm..... OK then.....

Firstly; the term "Palestinian". Strictly speaking, up until around... umm.. what... 1974 ?? 1988 ?? ... that term simply meant "a resident of the former Mandate of Palestine". Hence the Israeli's where also Palestinian. The term was a geographical denomination, not a National one. Up until 1988 there where no such thing as "Palestinian territory" - Jordan and Egypt had occupied most of the original Mandate "Arab Zone", with Israel holding a pocket up near Syria, who was still at war with Israel. (though - confusingly - not vica-versa). Arabs in the former Arab Zone where now either Egyptian or Jordanian, under the laws of their respective conquerors.

Then in 1988 Jordan formally dropped its claims on the West Bank, and switched the nationality of the residents from Jordanian to ... taa daa.... Palestinian, recognising the region as the home of a Nation of Palestine, with its Arab citizens being "Palestinians", and its leadership being the Palestinian Liberation Organisation under Yasser Arrafat.

Hence the precise meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the last 100 years.

Jolly good - but why does this matter ?

Well, it has been a common propaganda technique of the anti-Israel brigade to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to the Arab population PRIOR to 1988. They do this to give a false sense of historic continuity from the original displaced Palestinian Arabs to the modern Palestinians (citizens of the nation of Palestine).

So the word itself has become a battleground, and that is why I am careful when I use it. Of course, I could always use the construct "residents of the Mandate Arab Zone under UN resolution 181", but its a bit clumsy, so I usually just use the term "Palestinians" in speech marks when reffering to the pre-1988 Arab population, and WITHOUT speech marks for the Palestinian population AFTER 1988. (in recognition of them as a peoples aspiring to nationhood).

Who brought this up ? YOU did Yamato, when you posted a series of maps that incorrectly labelled the Arab population of the entire Mandate zone as "Palestinians", when referring to the pre-1988 change. The maps also labelled Jordanian and Egyptian territory (by right of conquest) as being "Palestinian". This is a deliberate technical inaccuracy made in order to propagate a specific political agenda. e.g. propaganda, and I challenged you over it.

I note that you never challenged my challenge, so I can only presume that you agree with me on this point ?

You think the violation of every civil liberty on the list in the encyclopedia is "rescued"? Israel is wiping Palestine off the map, literally. With or without accurate labels.

If Israel hadn't forced the Jordanians (and Egyptians) out in 1967, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Palestine National Authority wouldn't exist, and there would be no Palestinian territory. So YES, Israel liberated the territory and made moves to return it to local Arab control, and paved the way for those Arabs to declare their Nation.

As for civil liberties: the PLO where continuing to incite Palestinians to cross into Israel and bomb/kill Israeli citizens. Under those circumstances, International Law pertaining to occupied territories DOES allow a measure of "military law", and DOES permit the curbing of some liberties. PROVIDING the occupying power is making genuine attempts to disengage. (which Israel has been doing since 1988 - remember the Oslo Accords ? Israel gave Yasser Arrafat almost everything he wanted... or that he CLAIMED he wanted. He couldn't even respond to the offer without revealing his TRUE agenda.... the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all of the Jews... so he never responded at all, and just walked away and started the first Infitada. Nice. Thank you, Muslim Brotherhood.

Is Israel trying to wipe Palestine (the nation) off the map ? No, of course not. Mind you, the West Bank settlements are a STUPID thing for Israel to do, and should be torn down. (indeed, some of them are).

The way Egypt and Jordan have handled this oppression has been a disaster.

No arguments THERE !!

It cant be a good thing when both sides are indoctrinating their youth to hate the other side and count as subhuman.

I agree wholeheartedly Spartan.

But bear one thing in mind - the Anti-Israeli hatred taught in Palestinian schools (it's NOT just HAMAS) is NOT echoed on the Israeli side.

Israel has its fair share of nutters, particularly in the Clergy, but Israeli schools do NOT teach hatred of the Arabs.

[Yamato]

Im not saying Israel is innocent of doing the same thing, hell im not even saying Israel is not being oppressive but that does not mean it is right for both of them to indoctrinate

Read some of And Thens link

Hamas TV: Giant, cuddly bee teaches children to "shoot Jews" and "smash them"

Explain to me how this helps the situation? This is war propaganda just like every nation does with every war.

It cant be a good thing when both sides are indoctrinating their youth to hate the other side and count as subhuman.

That's perfectly reasonable and I'm not even saying Israel is guilty of doing the same thing! If it was, that wouldn't help me to support the status quo either. Quite the opposite.

But I've never heard of a war before where one side isn't allowed to fight against the other side or hate what the other side has done to you. If they're at war, how are they supposed to fight it? With carnations and strawberries, two of the only things they're actually allowed to export? What's the shelf life on a carnation btw? What's the strategy here you expect from Palestinian kids that's helpful to the war effort? Yes that video spectacle with the little girl is ugly, if it's true, and if it wasn't taken out of context.

But "when they're coming for you" sounded pretty ominous to me. I would hope the kids, when grown up into adults, would fight back when that day came.

The oppression causes hate. The hate causes war. The war causes the propaganda when it's war propaganda. It's deplorable and sad. We should be asking ourselves how it ever came to this, and make sweeping reforms immediately to undo what's being done. But starting with one side's propaganda and then making policy decisions over it doesn't sound like the best idea for understanding or handling the situation over there.

What price should tyranny pay, spartan max? From one American to the other, you tell me.

[Yamato]

Israel has its fair share of nutters, particularly in the Clergy, but Israeli schools do NOT teach hatred of the Arabs.

The Israeli government teaches Israelis their hatred. That's bad enough.

As for civil liberties: the PLO where continuing to incite Palestinians to cross into Israel and bomb/kill Israeli citizens. Under those circumstances, International Law pertaining to occupied territories DOES allow a measure of "military law", and DOES permit the curbing of some liberties. PROVIDING the occupying power is making genuine attempts to disengage. (which Israel has been doing since 1988 - remember the Oslo Accords ? Israel gave Yasser Arrafat almost everything he wanted... or that he CLAIMED he wanted. He couldn't even respond to the offer without revealing his TRUE agenda.... the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all of the Jews... so he never responded at all, and just walked away and started the first Infitada. Nice. Thank you, Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel has no legitimacy under international law for occupying the territories in the first place. You can't start appealing to international law now over details and historical trivia.

If Israel hadn't forced the Jordanians (and Egyptians) out in 1967, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Palestine National Authority wouldn't exist, and there would be no Palestinian territory. So YES, Israel liberated the territory and made moves to return it to local Arab control, and paved the way for those Arabs to declare their Nation.

Arabs Arabs and more Arabs. Jordanians and Egyptians don't have to smell of flowers and fruit for me to decide what I know about human rights also applies to the human rights of Palestinians.

Hence the precise meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the last 100 years.

Again, while you're meandering about what the precise definition of words are, I'm afraid you'll have to defer to the resources available to us, like dictionaries and encyclopedias.

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

Who brought this up ? YOU did Yamato, when you posted a series of maps that incorrectly labelled the Arab population of the entire Mandate zone as "Palestinians", when referring to the pre-1988 change. The maps also labelled Jordanian and Egyptian territory (by right of conquest) as being "Palestinian". This is a deliberate technical inaccuracy made in order to propagate a specific political agenda. e.g. propaganda, and I challenged you over it.

All this nonsense about 1988 and your painful attempts at changing the definitions of words hasn't led you anywhere productive. There's nothing inaccurate about it. The propaganda is yours; the encyclopedia will show you what you're missing.

[+and-then]

Hmmm..... OK then.....

Firstly; the term "Palestinian". Strictly speaking, up until around... umm.. what... 1974 ?? 1988 ?? ... that term simply meant "a resident of the former Mandate of Palestine". Hence the Israeli's where also Palestinian. The term was a geographical denomination, not a National one. Up until 1988 there where no such thing as "Palestinian territory" - Jordan and Egypt had occupied most of the original Mandate "Arab Zone", with Israel holding a pocket up near Syria, who was still at war with Israel. (though - confusingly - not vica-versa). Arabs in the former Arab Zone where now either Egyptian or Jordanian, under the laws of their respective conquerors.

Then in 1988 Jordan formally dropped its claims on the West Bank, and switched the nationality of the residents from Jordanian to ... taa daa.... Palestinian, recognising the region as the home of a Nation of Palestine, with its Arab citizens being "Palestinians", and its leadership being the Palestinian Liberation Organisation under Yasser Arrafat.

Hence the precise meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the last 100 years.

Jolly good - but why does this matter ?

Well, it has been a common propaganda technique of the anti-Israel brigade to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to the Arab population PRIOR to 1988. They do this to give a false sense of historic continuity from the original displaced Palestinian Arabs to the modern Palestinians (citizens of the nation of Palestine).

So the word itself has become a battleground, and that is why I am careful when I use it. Of course, I could always use the construct "residents of the Mandate Arab Zone under UN resolution 181", but its a bit clumsy, so I usually just use the term "Palestinians" in speech marks when reffering to the pre-1988 Arab population, and WITHOUT speech marks for the Palestinian population AFTER 1988. (in recognition of them as a peoples aspiring to nationhood).

Who brought this up ? YOU did Yamato, when you posted a series of maps that incorrectly labelled the Arab population of the entire Mandate zone as "Palestinians", when referring to the pre-1988 change. The maps also labelled Jordanian and Egyptian territory (by right of conquest) as being "Palestinian". This is a deliberate technical inaccuracy made in order to propagate a specific political agenda. e.g. propaganda, and I challenged you over it.

I note that you never challenged my challenge, so I can only presume that you agree with me on this point ?

If Israel hadn't forced the Jordanians (and Egyptians) out in 1967, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the Palestine National Authority wouldn't exist, and there would be no Palestinian territory. So YES, Israel liberated the territory and made moves to return it to local Arab control, and paved the way for those Arabs to declare their Nation.

As for civil liberties: the PLO where continuing to incite Palestinians to cross into Israel and bomb/kill Israeli citizens. Under those circumstances, International Law pertaining to occupied territories DOES allow a measure of "military law", and DOES permit the curbing of some liberties. PROVIDING the occupying power is making genuine attempts to disengage. (which Israel has been doing since 1988 - remember the Oslo Accords ? Israel gave Yasser Arrafat almost everything he wanted... or that he CLAIMED he wanted. He couldn't even respond to the offer without revealing his TRUE agenda.... the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all of the Jews... so he never responded at all, and just walked away and started the first Infitada. Nice. Thank you, Muslim Brotherhood.

Is Israel trying to wipe Palestine (the nation) off the map ? No, of course not. Mind you, the West Bank settlements are a STUPID thing for Israel to do, and should be torn down. (indeed, some of them are).

No arguments THERE !!

I agree wholeheartedly Spartan.

But bear one thing in mind - the Anti-Israeli hatred taught in Palestinian schools (it's NOT just HAMAS) is NOT echoed on the Israeli side.

Israel has its fair share of nutters, particularly in the Clergy, but Israeli schools do NOT teach hatred of the Arabs.

Exactly. With the possible exception of the ultra orthodox. The settler communities firmly believe in their right to the land and may give the Palestinians a run for their money on preaching hate but I've never seen any proven examples of it. There can be no doubt that on the Palestinian side it is approached systematically. Anyone who doubts it just need google PMW.org - Palestinian Media Watch .org

[+and-then]

That's perfectly reasonable and I'm not even saying Israel is guilty of doing the same thing! If it was, that wouldn't help me to support the status quo either. Quite the opposite.

But I've never heard of a war before where one side isn't allowed to fight against the other side or hate what the other side has done to you. If they're at war, how are they supposed to fight it? With carnations and strawberries, two of the only things they're actually allowed to export? What's the shelf life on a carnation btw? What's the strategy here you expect from Palestinian kids that's helpful to the war effort? Yes that video spectacle with the little girl is ugly, if it's true, and if it wasn't taken out of context.

But "when they're coming for you" sounded pretty ominous to me. I would hope the kids, when grown up into adults, would fight back when that day came.

The oppression causes hate. The hate causes war. The war causes the propaganda when it's war propaganda. It's deplorable and sad. We should be asking ourselves how it ever came to this, and make sweeping reforms immediately to undo what's being done. But starting with one side's propaganda and then making policy decisions over it doesn't sound like the best idea for understanding or handling the situation over there.

What price should tyranny pay, spartan max? From one American to the other, you tell me.

It is a false comparison Yam. I know you don't believe it, but it is. The Jews were given (rightly or no) they were GIVEN this land by the international community. A 2 state solution was offered from the beginning but because of the hatred of Arab for Jew, it has never been accepted by those of the M.E. It is an unsolvable conflict in that the Palestinians (supported by their 'brotherly Arab neighbors') will never accept Israel and have consistently said they want Palestine from the river to the sea. Since diplomacy has been found to be impossible, the issue will eventually be solved through other means. It's sad but human nature often is. You refuse to see the other side as legitimate yourself so how can you not be considered as a sympathizer to the murders they commit just as others are sympathizers to the forceful answers Israel gives when attacked.

[RoofGardener]

The Israeli government teaches Israelis their hatred. That's bad enough.

I don't believe that is true Yamato. Could you give me some examples of the Israeli government teaching Israeli's to hate Palestinians ?

If it IS true, then it would be a national disgrace and shame on Israel, in my opinion.

Israel has no legitimacy under international law for occupying the territories in the first place. You can't start appealing to international law now over details and historical trivia.

Ummm..... "International Law" doesn't say anything about occupation AT ALL. So the occupation is neither permitted, or forbidden. The only "international law" that applies is that relating to the treatment of residents of the occupied territories. (the Geneva Conventions). Israel is deemed to be breaking International Law purely and exclusively when it builds settlements in Palestinian territory. On THAT issue, I think Israel is WRONG... bordering on lunacy.

[quote

Arabs Arabs and more Arabs. Jordanians and Egyptians don't have to smell of flowers and fruit for me to decide what I know about human rights also applies to the human rights of Palestinians.

Again, while you're meandering about what the precise definition of words are, I'm afraid you'll have to defer to the resources available to us, like dictionaries and encyclopedias.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Palestinians

That's a very good definition, from the post-1988 perspective. Where Wikipedia to have existed prior to 1988, it would have a VERY different definition, because the political State of Palestine had not yet been created, and the former "Palestinians" where now either Egyptian, Jordanian, or Israeli. The mischief of the anti-Israeli brigade is to try and project the modern political status back into time to give a sense of political continuity, usually to grant - or reinforce - an artificial right to certain territories, and to de-legitimise the State of Israel. THAT is why the term "Palestinian" - in the modern sense of Nationality - has become such a propaganda weapon.

Recall George Orwell's warning in the book "1984". Control the language, and you control the people. The Soviet Union used this technique extensively, and the marxist-influenced PLO lapped it up in spades, and use it effectively even today.

All this nonsense about 1988 and your painful attempts at changing the definitions of words hasn't led you anywhere productive. There's nothing inaccurate about it. .....

I don't believe I'm changing the definition of words. Rather, I am trying to RESTORE them to lexical neutrality, and to resist the marxist-style distortions that modern anti-Israeli propagandists try and impose on them.

Yamato, you state that your viewpoint on Palestine is based on a perspective of Human Rights. Why, then, did you pollute and deflect the Human Rights perspective on the debate by introducing such a crude propaganda map ? And from such a poisoned source as http://www.ifamericansknew.org , for goodness sake ? Your HR points are good enough to stand on their own. They don't need that sort of underhand tactic.

Edited May 18, 2014 by RoofGardener

[jeem]

How do you prove genocide with a map ?

How does Zionist amnesia differ from regular amnesia ?

Is that... like... you build settlements, but then forget where you left them ?

You go out each day and attempt to oppress the Panamanians ?

You frequently demand that Israel is a Jewish Nation, with Johannesburg as its capital ?

I see. Well, being an "old timer" I seem to recall a time when the Nazis exterminated like rats, about 6 million human beings in gas chambers - then burned their bodies in industrial type ovens - with the specific intent of completely removing their kind from the earth. When I was learning of this it was specifically called "GENOCIDE". The definition that those kind, helpful and completely unbiased folks at the UN created doesn't much agree with that tidbit I learned 40 years ago. So you call someone with hurt feelings a victim and I'll call what's happening in Israel genocide when you can produce bodies or graves en mass. No one in any way at any time has ever attempted much less perpetuated a genocide on Palestinians. Those who tell that lie just make themselves appear foolish.

Actually I have already established how Israel is running slow motion genocide against Palestinian.In case you forget lets remind you

In the article 2 of UN genocide convention they said

“Intent to destroy in whole or in part" - sustained (and frequently asserted) intent over about 150 years of the Zionist colonial project; 0.75 million Palestinian refugees in 1948; currently 7 million Palestinian refugees, and 4.2 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN in the Middle East; over 40 years of illegal Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; 0.1 million 1948-2011 violent Palestinian deaths, post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million; post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; 3,600 under-5 year old Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) infants die avoidably EACH YEAR in the OPT "Prison" due to Apartheid Israeli war crimes

a) Killing - about 5100,000 Palestinians killed since 1948; post-1967 excess deaths 0.3 million; post-1967 under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million; 3,600 under-5 year old Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) infants die avoidably EACH YEAR in the OPT "Prison" due to Israeli ignoring of the Geneva Convention; 254 OPT Palestinians killed by the Israeli military in the LAST 2 MONTHS OF 2008 ALONE, 301 killed thus last year (latest UNRWA data; see above).

Causing serious bodily or mental harm - see (a) and the shocking UNICEF reports of the appalling conditions psychologically scarring OPT children: http://www.unicef.or...ountry/oPt.html .

© Conditions to cause destruction in whole or in part - see (a) and ( ; Professor Noam Chomsky describes the OPT as a highly abusive "Prison"; others use the valid term "Concentration Camp" and make parallels with the Warsaw Ghetto; one has to turn to US-guarded Vietnamese hamlets and the Nazi era atrocities to see routine, horrendously violent and deadly military policing of civilian concentration camps.

(d) Measures intended to prevent births - see (a), ( and © above; dozens of pregnant women dying at road blocks; other killing of pregnant Palestinian women; huge infant mortality in the OPT with the Occupier in gross violation of the Geneva Convention.

(e) Forcible transferring of children – irreversible transferring by killing of children - 0.2 million post-invasion infant deaths; 27 OPT children violently killed in the LAST WEEK ALONE; mass imprisonment of 2 million OPT children; hundreds of Palestinian children in abusive Israeli high-security prisons in Israel; forcible separation of families by racist Israeli Apartheid Laws, marriage laws and immigration laws

source:https://sites.google.com/site/palestiniangenocide/

[+and-then]

Jeem do you really mean to put forward a number like half a million deaths of Palestinians since 1948? Is it your stance that every Palestinian who has passed away since 5/14/48 has died at Israeli hands? Arguments like this severely weaken your standing as a serious person. 100,000 killed by violence? The number is simply unsupportable. Even if you count the dead from all Arab countries in the wars of attempted annihilation against Israel it would not come to 100,000.

[Yamato]

Only 500,000 Palestinians have died since 1948? I can't believe that.

It is a false comparison Yam. I know you don't believe it, but it is. The Jews were given (rightly or no) they were GIVEN this land by the international community. A 2 state solution was offered from the beginning but because of the hatred of Arab for Jew, it has never been accepted by those of the M.E. It is an unsolvable conflict in that the Palestinians (supported by their 'brotherly Arab neighbors') will never accept Israel and have consistently said they want Palestine from the river to the sea. Since diplomacy has been found to be impossible, the issue will eventually be solved through other means. It's sad but human nature often is. You refuse to see the other side as legitimate yourself so how can you not be considered as a sympathizer to the murders they commit just as others are sympathizers to the forceful answers Israel gives when attacked.

The political will of Israel's founders created Israel first and foremost. The international community gave the land to Israel and Palestine, two autonomous states. But the Israelis forbade "the Arabs" from returning to their homes and created a new refugee crisis after just escaping from one themselves in Europe. Treating innocent people like they're guilty, denied every right in the book.

Denying people their self determination, property, mobility, economy, state, territory, materials -pretty much everything we take for granted- is a bold exhibition of hypocrisy and a slap in the face of humanity.