Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Well, way to go for completely missing the point, which was to demonstrate to you the difference between opinion and fact, it is my opinion that a tiny percentage are anti Semitic, you seem content on relying on your imagination to base what you call fact on, I will leave you to that one.

 

There are direct comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israels treatment of Gaza, you would have to be ludicrously biased not to admit that, it does resemble it now.

 

It took a lengthy trial to determine whether there was genocide committed in Gaza, it was certainly close, certainly they broke many war crimes, but the jury decided not to call it genocide, incitement to genocide and an illegal detention and illegal bombardment using illegal weapons was the verdict.  It should also be noted that the prime minister did not condemn the officials statements which were inciting genocide, however this does not in itself amount to a endorsement, but again it is close.  Double standards, oh look a swan, sorry, no chance, we were talking about Israel, remember?

 

Israel is not innocent, this has been proven in court, they are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, fact.

 

and it is not that my only reference point is Nazi germany, it is that that regime is the most similar I know of, but by all means enlighten me if you know of a better comparison, judging by your last comment I can only assume that actually you can't and so you just attempt to bully your way out again.

 

The only comment made was "that some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views". In other words, I am not making a direct assessment of how prevalent this is, while also acknowledging a margin for interpretation. If your whole point lies on the usage of "some" vs. "tiny percentage", it's not much of a point.

 

There was nothing which happened in the Gaza Strip which resembles, or even comes close to the scope of genocide. If so, then a whole lot of armed conflict nowadays would fall under the category. A genocide, as most people understand it, and especially in the context of Nazi Germany refers to things on a much grander scale. Using "genocide" to describe other things, simply cheapens and devalues the term. You may quote the Russel Tribunals to your little heart's desire. They do no constitute a special authority in this matter and others, and the same goes for their "verdicts".

 

And no, you are talking about Israel, and like many other anti-Israel posters, deny any comparison to another country, unless it reflects negatively on Israel. So even more double standards, comparisons to Nazi Germany are fine, comparisons to Israel's foes making similar statements as Israeli politicians, isn't. Thanks for making my point.

 

There is a different between saying a country is not "innocent" (whatever that means, countries can rarely be termed "innocent") and between "not the slightest innocent". One allows a measure of balance, the other does not. If the "proven in court" was another reference to the Russel Tribunals, see the previous comment.

 

No, I do believe your historical view is askew if that's the closest example you can find, but then I'm not here to fill the gaps in your education. There is no lack of oppressive military occupation examples to go, so thanks for making another point - about the  usage being aimed at maxing PR through dissonance. Rejecting your opinions is not bullying, the same way were not actually accused of antisemitism.

 

Your insistence on being intentionally inflammatory is duly noted. Guess that's pretty much all you're about.

 

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, dexterm said:

You won't answer my very simple question which is on topic:  if the 2000 year old right of return is somehow OK for Jews, why is the 69 year old right of return not OK for Palestinians?

 

So I am certainly not going to be led off topic by addressing your repeated schtick about Palestinian leadership . Besides, Zionists can do their own dirty denigration work.

 

Most observers can see quite clearly what Kerry and many others conclude that Israel can be Jewish or democractic but not both.  I am simply bemused that the current Israeli right wing are undermining a two state solution that would allow Israel to remain predominantly Jewish and democratic.

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to tell them nay.

 

If moderate (sensible!) world Jewry and Israeli Jews prefer peace through a two state solution, I would suggest they get their skates on to voice their concern before a single state after a painful flown blown period of apartheid becomes inevitable.

 

The two peoples are geographic neighbors for eternity so they will end up living together anyway, and future generations will wonder why it took them so long.

 

No, it is you spinning the question round in an attempt to avoid a direct answer. Not the first time, probably not the last.  To remind you, the question had to do with your vehement rejection of Israeli immigration policies,  while keeping mum on Palestinian goals manifesting similar trends. That while self-congratulating yourself as a "humanist", going on about justice and ideals. Ever since this was raised - all you have are spins.

 

And it is neither a "schtick" nor off-topic - you seem perfectly alright with comparisons of Israel to other countries or even to the Palestinians as long as this serves your adopted narrative. Comparisons and references are only rejected when they do not support your point of view. Standard practice by now. And the usual cop out to avoid anything resembling criticism of the Palestinians.

 

There is wide gap between voicing concern and engaging in the kind of rhetoric you're in to, or supporting your extreme and hateful positions.

[Shawn0000]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The only comment made was "that some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views". In other words, I am not making a direct assessment of how prevalent this is, while also acknowledging a margin for interpretation. If your whole point lies on the usage of "some" vs. "tiny percentage", it's not much of a point.

 

There was nothing which happened in the Gaza Strip which resembles, or even comes close to the scope of genocide. If so, then a whole lot of armed conflict nowadays would fall under the category. A genocide, as most people understand it, and especially in the context of Nazi Germany refers to things on a much grander scale. Using "genocide" to describe other things, simply cheapens and devalues the term. You may quote the Russel Tribunals to your little heart's desire. They do no constitute a special authority in this matter and others, and the same goes for their "verdicts".

 

And no, you are talking about Israel, and like many other anti-Israel posters, deny any comparison to another country, unless it reflects negatively on Israel. So even more double standards, comparisons to Nazi Germany are fine, comparisons to Israel's foes making similar statements as Israeli politicians, isn't. Thanks for making my point.

 

There is a different between saying a country is not "innocent" (whatever that means, countries can rarely be termed "innocent") and between "not the slightest innocent". One allows a measure of balance, the other does not. If the "proven in court" was another reference to the Russel Tribunals, see the previous comment.

 

No, I do believe your historical view is askew if that's the closest example you can find, but then I'm not here to fill the gaps in your education. There is no lack of oppressive military occupation examples to go, so thanks for making another point - about the  usage being aimed at maxing PR through dissonance. Rejecting your opinions is not bullying, the same way were not actually accused of antisemitism.

 

Your insistence on being intentionally inflammatory is duly noted. Guess that's pretty much all you're about.

 

 

What came close in Gaza was, for one, the officials inciting genocide before the bombardment, that is a red flag in any rational persons book, then the actual bombardment, of a people walled in, no means of escape from the relentless and indiscriminate bombing which they themselves referred to as collective punishment.  Over the same period, 7 Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire, and this was their only defence, that they were raining white phosphorus down onto residential areas, bombing hospitals and shelters, in retaliation to a homemade rocket attack that was only launched because they had been illegally constrained by Israel.  When officials make official statements calling for the destruction of Gazan people and it is followed up by a bombing campaign on people trapped behind a wall, there is something that resembles genocide, hence the court case.

 

You can pooh-pooh the Russel Tribunals all you like but it makes you sound like a soulless individual desperatly squirming away from the reality that Israel is guilty of atrocities that history will never forget. Do you deny the walls, do you deny the use of banned weapons, do you deny the Geneva convention where it makes clear that Gaza are within their rights to resist oppression but Israel is committing crimes against humanity for retaliating to their resistance?

Edited March 22, 2017 by Shawn0000

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The "demonisation" of Israel comes out of them walling people in and bombing them with banned weapons, and is not actually demonisation at all but condemnation, and the rhetoric used is tame in comparison to the atrocities they are guilty of, people can use whatever words they choose to describe that barbaric state, do you also call the condemnation of other atrocious regimes "demonising rhetoric" and "hyperbole" or are you only this defensive of Israel?

 

 

Here's the thing. This rhetoric is not used while discussing other conflicts, not even those including far worse things. There is no balance. Nothing resembling the vehemence and bile spewed on these topics.

 

And do me a favor, have a clue before posting garbage. I never defended all of Israel's actions and policies. And I do comment on other conflicts as well. On any occasion, I do my best to avoid the inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric many posters employ.

[Shawn0000]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Here's the thing. This rhetoric is not used while discussing other conflicts, not even those including far worse things. There is no balance. Nothing resembling the vehemence and bile spewed on these topics.

 

And do me a favor, have a clue before posting garbage. I never defended all of Israel's actions and policies. And I do comment on other conflicts as well. On any occasion, I do my best to avoid the inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric many posters employ.

 

Get a grip on yourself, go read a thread about ISIS and you will see some truly bile ridden posts, you are just blindly biased toward Israel, pathetically so to the point to where you need to constantly pull the victim card.  People say emotive things when they are upset by things, Israel upsets a lot of people with their disgraceful treatment of Gaza, get over it, it is nothing like the things you hear said about Muslims or Arabs, not even close.

 

 

[Ramen087]

Holy Mackerel.  This thread needs a 24 hour cooling off period...

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

What came close in Gaza was, for one, the officials inciting genocide before the bombardment, that is a red flag in any rational persons book, then the actual bombardment, of a people walled in, no means of escape from the relentless and indiscriminate bombing which they themselves referred to as collective punishment.  Over the same period, 7 Israeli civilians were killed by rocket fire, and this was their only defence, that they were raining white phosphorus down onto residential areas, bombing hospitals and shelters, in retaliation to a homemade rocket attack that was only launched because they had been illegally constrained by Israel.  When officials make official statements calling for the destruction of Gazan people and it is followed up by a bombing campaign on people trapped behind a wall, there is something that resembles genocide, hence the court case.

 

You can pooh-pooh the Russel Tribunals all you like but it makes you sound like a soulless individual desperatly squirming away from the reality that Israel is guilty of atrocities that history will never forget. Do you deny the walls, do you deny the use of banned weapons, do you deny the Geneva convention where it makes clear that Gaza are within their rights to resist oppression but Israel is committing crimes against humanity for retaliating to their resistance?

 

And you ignore that such statements are commonplace in the region, and are uttered by pretty much any extreme politician facing a microphone. With all the non-existent respect to your "account" of events, things were not quite as clear cut as claimed, nor were the Palestinians (as a whole) "innocent" as well. Now, since your obvious reply would be "what you're account then" or something inane thing like that - you're welcome to look up relevant topics, instead of derailing this one with your nonsense.

 

You may keep fantasizing that the Russel Tribunal amount to a "court case". But if to return to the issue of facts, they aren't quite what you make them to be.  And here we go with the "soulless individual"...denouncing anyone not seeing things your way. Quite the little zealot.

 

And no, launching unguided rockets at civilian population is not "within Palestinian rights". It is, in fact, a war crime. This was even conceded and commented upon by the Palestinians themselves (albeit, by the PA's people, among them UN representatives).

[Jingthing]

Holy Mackerel.  This thread needs a 24 hour cooling off period...

Peace in the middle east? Heck we can't even have peace on Israel related topics on Thaivisa. So what else is new.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Ramen087 said:

Holy Mackerel.  This thread needs a 24 hour cooling off period...

Hell no...I'm on a winning streak of personal bets left and right. Chalking up an self-allowed drinks for every reply correctly guessed in advance.

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Get a grip on yourself, go read a thread about ISIS and you will see some truly bile ridden posts, you are just blindly biased toward Israel, pathetically so to the point to where you need to constantly pull the victim card.  People say emotive things when they are upset by things, Israel upsets a lot of people with their disgraceful treatment of Gaza, get over it, it is nothing like the things you hear said about Muslims or Arabs, not even close.

 

 

 

I participate and read such topics regularly. There is nothing resembling the sustained diatribes and rants going on here. Considering I often post direct criticism on Israel's government, "blindly biased" is way off mark. The trouble is for most of the resident haters (which claim to be pro-Palestinian, but cannot usually say one intelligible thing about the Palestinians) create an atmosphere, where anything but total rejection of Israel is considered "blindly biassed". As I'm getting similar flak on other, supposedly pro-Israeli forums, guess all's well with my positions.

 

Quote

it, it is nothing like the things you hear said about Muslims or Arabs, not even close.

 

Who's playing the victim card, then?

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

No, it is you spinning the question round in an attempt to avoid a direct answer. Not the first time, probably not the last.  To remind you, the question had to do with your vehement rejection of Israeli immigration policies,  while keeping mum on Palestinian goals manifesting similar trends. That while self-congratulating yourself as a "humanist", going on about justice and ideals. Ever since this was raised - all you have are spins.

 

And it is neither a "schtick" nor off-topic - you seem perfectly alright with comparisons of Israel to other countries or even to the Palestinians as long as this serves your adopted narrative. Comparisons and references are only rejected when they do not support your point of view. Standard practice by now. And the usual cop out to avoid anything resembling criticism of the Palestinians.

 

There is wide gap between voicing concern and engaging in the kind of rhetoric you're in to, or supporting your extreme and hateful positions.

The OP report is about one racial group exerting its dominance over another and using oppression and demographic engineering to do so i.e. apartheid by creating an artificial Jewish majority...it cant be a Jewish state if the majority aint Jews.

So they manufacture ways of achieving this.  The main method is by claiming it is perfectly legitimate to invite any Jew of spurious lineage to come and claim Israeli citizenship after a massive 2000 year gap.

 

The first attempt at an artificial Jewish majority was achieved by ethnic cleansing. Those expelled Palestinians now simply want to come home after a mere gap of 69 years..they never actually wanted to leave in the first place, except through natural fear during war time at the hands of Jewish terrorist gangs. They have wanted to come home every single day since their expulsion. So why is that so wrong and is IMO far more valid than the Jewish Right of Return.

 

Besides all that the refusal to allow this right of return and Israel's transferring of its own population into their confiscated home and lands is a war crime under the Geneva Convention(*see below), it is denial of a simple human right.

 

Now if that upsets the Zionists' demographic engineering and their dream of a Jewish State, well tough, they should not have created the situation in the first place. And if gerrymandering populations and apartheid are the flimsy foundations of the Jewish state, perhaps it is telling you something about its illegitimacy.

 

You are embarrassingly transparent in talking the hind leg off a donkey simply not to admit that, and spinning this into some sort of Palestinian conspiracy. All part of the usual great Israeli victim hoax calling black white.You don't fool anyone. 

 

>>And it is neither a "schtick" nor off-topic
..So please show me in the OP (or full report) where this is mentioned.

*According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifically prohibits an occupying force from transferring its own civilian population on to territory it occupies.

The same Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory also forbids the occupying power from ethnically cleansing the existing Palestinian residents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

 

In UN Resolution 446, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

 

Reiterated in the recent December 2016 UN Resolution 2334

"Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
...Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761030

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[Shawn0000]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And you ignore that such statements are commonplace in the region, and are uttered by pretty much any extreme politician facing a microphone. With all the non-existent respect to your "account" of events, things were not quite as clear cut as claimed, nor were the Palestinians (as a whole) "innocent" as well. Now, since your obvious reply would be "what you're account then" or something inane thing like that - you're welcome to look up relevant topics, instead of derailing this one with your nonsense.

 

You may keep fantasizing that the Russel Tribunal amount to a "court case". But if to return to the issue of facts, they aren't quite what you make them to be.  And here we go with the "soulless individual"...denouncing anyone not seeing things your way. Quite the little zealot.

 

And no, launching unguided rockets at civilian population is not "within Palestinian rights". It is, in fact, a war crime. This was even conceded and commented upon by the Palestinians themselves (albeit, by the PA's people, among them UN representatives).

 

Statements amounting to inciting genocide may be commonplace in Israel but when an official makes an official statement inciting genocide, and the Prime Minister does not condemn that genocidal speak, it would be fair to draw a comparison to other states who spoke of annihilating a people before actually attempting to do just that, like, for instance, the Nazi's.

 

It was already decided by the ICC that Palestine will not be tried for war crimes as they are an oppressed state and thus they are negated of some responsibility, Israel does not have their excuse, they are getting fired upon by ineffectual rockets and having rocks  thrown at them, and solely because of the oppression they instill, and yet they react by bombing their houses, dropping white phosphorus onto children, burning their skin off, it is clear to anyone who is not biased that Israel is the guilty party.

 

 

[Shawn0000]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I participate and read such topics regularly. There is nothing resembling the sustained diatribes and rants going on here. Considering I often post direct criticism on Israel's government, "blindly biased" is way off mark. The trouble is for most of the resident haters (which claim to be pro-Palestinian, but cannot usually say one intelligible thing about the Palestinians) create an atmosphere, where anything but total rejection of Israel is considered "blindly biassed". As I'm getting similar flak on other, supposedly pro-Israeli forums, guess all's well with my positions.

 

 

Who's playing the victim card, then?

 

You talk nonsense, go read a thread about ISIS and you will see racism, not the secret racism that you just suspect is behind peoples disdain for Israeli policy, but actual out and out racism, it is everywhere.

 

I don't care much for your comments on what other people say, and what you often say, or what is going on in other forums you are posting on, we are talking here and I am commenting on your comments here and now, do at least try to stop using these infantile distraction techniques.

 

I have no idea what you thought you meant with your final comment about the victim card, the fact is that Muslims and Arabs are suffering tremendous amounts of racism at the moment, whereas Jews are not, and your claim that you do not hear these things said about any issue other than Israel is just laughably pathetic.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

Errr, no. The OP is about a biased "report" claiming the sort of things you raise in your many posts. Similarly, it was rejected.

 

The usual "accounts" cited of how things happened, always fully supporting the adopted narrative. Not a chink in the armor. Ever. Doubt you even believe it yourself. In fact, I know you don't. You've said as much in the past.

 

There was nothing mentioned of a "Palestinian conspiracy". One more lie to the growing collection.

 

And again, allowing comparisons only when they suit your purposes is rather obvious. Perfectly willing to compare Israel to whatever as long as it vilifies, rejects any comparison which puts things in context. Same goes for any comparison showing your positions to be less than matching the ideals you claim to uphold.

 

All this deluge or repetitive hateful drivel and the same worn links and quotes are aimed at one thing, and one thing only - deflecting a question.

 

Here it is again: If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected? And how is this compatible with a self-described "humanist" position?

 

I wish I could say I'm waiting for an answer, but I'm actually expecting another deflection or a lengthy rant ignoring it.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Statements amounting to inciting genocide may be commonplace in Israel but when an official makes an official statement inciting genocide, and the Prime Minister does not condemn that genocidal speak, it would be fair to draw a comparison to other states who spoke of annihilating a people before actually attempting to do just that, like, for instance, the Nazi's.

 

It was already decided by the ICC that Palestine will not be tried for war crimes as they are an oppressed state and thus they are negated of some responsibility, Israel does not have their excuse, they are getting fired upon by ineffectual rockets and having rocks  thrown at them, and solely because of the oppression they instill, and yet they react by bombing their houses, dropping white phosphorus onto children, burning their skin off, it is clear to anyone who is not biased that Israel is the guilty party.

 

 

 

That's a rather clumsy spin. There were such statements directed at Israel from various regional leaders. As well as against each other. Some were followed by acts of war and violence. And no, even if you claim otherwise, nothing that happened in Gaza is on par with the actions or statements of the Nazi regime. Hard to tell if ignorant or trolling there.

 

And no, what actually happened was that Hamas leaders had to vow that they will take personal responsibility if such cases were brought to trial. This was partially the context alluded to before. As to whether or not this agreement will hold, or if it constitutes a valid defense, remains to be seen. It is certainly not as "decided" as you claim. This too, was thoroughly covered on a couple of previous topics.

 

That you consider launching unguided rockets at civilian populations as acceptable, as legally allowed and as morally right - puts the previous (and surely, upcoming) moralization on shaky ground. But if to get back to the real world of facts, your expert legal opinion is not actually an accepted legal norm, and the same goes for other sort of terrorist attacks. Not all is permitted. Even if you allow it.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You talk nonsense, go read a thread about ISIS and you will see racism, not the secret racism that you just suspect is behind peoples disdain for Israeli policy, but actual out and out racism, it is everywhere.

 

I don't care much for your comments on what other people say, and what you often say, or what is going on in other forums you are posting on, we are talking here and I am commenting on your comments here and now, do at least try to stop using these infantile distraction techniques.

 

I have no idea what you thought you meant with your final comment about the victim card, the fact is that Muslims and Arabs are suffering tremendous amounts of racism at the moment, whereas Jews are not, and your claim that you do not hear these things said about any issue other than Israel is just laughably pathetic.

 

Getting  a wee bit feisty there, Shawn.

 

Your whole involvement in the topic started from barging on a comment about what other people say, and went on to ascribe a general description of what other people say. Now you don't care for such. Great.

 

You bring up a rather off topic side issue, take it center stage and then whine about "distraction"? No problems

 

You go on about a "verdict", "court" and whatnot, while actually referring to nothing of the sort - while hectoring on "facts"? Sure thing.

 

As said on earlier occasions, nothing but an argumentative SJW troll.

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's a rather clumsy spin. There were such statements directed at Israel from various regional leaders. As well as against each other. Some were followed by acts of war and violence. And no, even if you claim otherwise, nothing that happened in Gaza is on par with the actions or statements of the Nazi regime. Hard to tell if ignorant or trolling there.

 

And no, what actually happened was that Hamas leaders had to vow that they will take personal responsibility if such cases were brought to trial. This was partially the context alluded to before. As to whether or not this agreement will hold, or if it constitutes a valid defense, remains to be seen. It is certainly not as "decided" as you claim. This too, was thoroughly covered on a couple of previous topics.

 

That you consider launching unguided rockets at civilian populations as acceptable, as legally allowed and as morally right - puts the previous (and surely, upcoming) moralization on shaky ground. But if to get back to the real world of facts, your expert legal opinion is not actually an accepted legal norm, and the same goes for other sort of terrorist attacks. Not all is permitted. Even if you allow it.

 

And you want to talk about spin?  I didn't say that Hamas rockets were acceptable, legally allowed or morally right, you just made all that up, all by yourself.

 

The statements made before the attack were very Naziesque, that much is a given, as for the bombardment, quite different, but also attrocious, and leaning toward genocide when it is an indiscriminate attack on civilians who have no means of escape, so the parallel is clear whether you want to deny that or not.

 

I do not condone the Hamas rocket attacks or any other violence, but I also see Israels crimes for the far greater severity that they are, they targetted Hamas TV stations, the police, even the university, there is no justification for the crimes they have committed, Hamas rockets are indiscriminate by nature of their simplicity, that is a problem, but Israels rockets hit their intended targets and their targets are illegal, can you not see the difference?

 

 

[Shawn0000]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Getting  a wee bit feisty there, Shawn.

 

Your whole involvement in the topic started from barging on a comment about what other people say, and went on to ascribe a general description of what other people say. Now you don't care for such. Great.

 

You bring up a rather off topic side issue, take it center stage and then whine about "distraction"? No problems

 

You go on about a "verdict", "court" and whatnot, while actually referring to nothing of the sort - while hectoring on "facts"? Sure thing.

 

As said on earlier occasions, nothing but an argumentative SJW troll.

 

Youre getting increasingly desperate, just try to address the topic, if you can.

[dexterm]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

Errr, no. The OP is about a biased "report" claiming the sort of things you raise in your many posts. Similarly, it was rejected.

 

The usual "accounts" cited of how things happened, always fully supporting the adopted narrative. Not a chink in the armor. Ever. Doubt you even believe it yourself. In fact, I know you don't. You've said as much in the past.

 

There was nothing mentioned of a "Palestinian conspiracy". One more lie to the growing collection.

 

And again, allowing comparisons only when they suit your purposes is rather obvious. Perfectly willing to compare Israel to whatever as long as it vilifies, rejects any comparison which puts things in context. Same goes for any comparison showing your positions to be less than matching the ideals you claim to uphold.

 

All this deluge or repetitive hateful drivel and the same worn links and quotes are aimed at one thing, and one thing only - deflecting a question.

 

Here it is again: If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected? And how is this compatible with a self-described "humanist" position?

 

I wish I could say I'm waiting for an answer, but I'm actually expecting another deflection or a lengthy rant ignoring it.

The spin is in claiming that Palestinians desire to return to their homes from which they were expelled in living memory has somehow less justification than the Zionist desire to people Palestine with Jews, whoever they are ...even Ivanka Trump qualifies. 

 

Calling the report biased is just your transparent cop out for not addressing the important issues raised.

 

The spin of a Palestinian conspiracy you repeat in your self same reply, saying " If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected?" So are we going to have another 2 pages of verbose semantics pedantry now, saying "the goal" is not the same as a conspiracy. 

 

Because Palestinians are coming home from refugee camps to a place they were illegally kicked out of just a few decades ago and still have the documentation to their land, while Jews are immigrating from New York and London mainly as religious nutjobs. Most world Jewry have voted with their feet and prefer to practise their religion where they are doing very nicely thank you. They don't need Israel, but Israel needs them.

 

Hence the Zionists' desperate measures at demographic engineering and apartheid to prevent Palestinians outnumbering them.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

And you want to talk about spin?  I didn't say that Hamas rockets were acceptable, legally allowed or morally right, you just made all that up, all by yourself.

 

The statements made before the attack were very Naziesque, that much is a given, as for the bombardment, quite different, but also attrocious, and leaning toward genocide when it is an indiscriminate attack on civilians who have no means of escape, so the parallel is clear whether you want to deny that or not.

 

I do not condone the Hamas rocket attacks or any other violence, but I also see Israels crimes for the far greater severity that they are, they targetted Hamas TV stations, the police, even the university, there is no justification for the crimes they have committed, Hamas rockets are indiscriminate by nature of their simplicity, that is a problem, but Israels rockets hit their intended targets and their targets are illegal, can you not see the difference?

 

 

 

No spins. Or maybe you should be clearer when posting. You said Palestinians had a right to resist, you said they will not be tried for war crimes, you said rockets were ineffectual and that they were an Israeli excuse. If you want to make another, accurate comment, that's fine.

 

The statements made in regard to the Gaza War were, for the most part, nothing on par things stated and said by the Nazis. It is not a given to anyone not insisting on an inane point. There was nothing carried out by Israel on the Gaza War that did not feature on other conflicts in the ME. If this was about "genocide" casualties would have been way higher than that, and there wouldn't have been any ceasefires as well. But sure, go with the hyperbole comparisons, that's what you're here for.

 

So you feel that Israel should not target Hamas militants and installations unless they are standing out in the open carrying big signs saying "Hamas". There is no shred of responsibility attributed to the Hamas for placing their people and hardware among the civilian population, thus putting them at harm's way? There's nothing to say about Hamas spending millions in Aid money and building materials to construct tunnels kept for their own use, rather than protect the population?

 

And no, not all of Israel's targets were illegal, that is the point. Balance. If you wish to claim some of what Israel did was wrong, fair enough. Look up my old posts and you'll find such thoughts, even with regard to specific instances. If you wish to claim that Hamas ought to enjoy immunity due to whichever reasons - you're quite out there.

 

Any war carried out in urban surrounding carries a toll of civilian lives. That is a fact. It doesn't stop them from happening not in Gaza nor anywhere else in the world. The ME got a rich history of such, insisting that Israel is the worst of the bunch is nowhere near close. Commenting on these issues without any context or reference, while focusing on one party is a no go.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Youre getting increasingly desperate, just try to address the topic, if you can.

 

Why don't you take a pill of the your own prescription - The topic was not about antisemitism, nor the validity of vile comparisons, nor the Gaza War. That is, until you came along and made those to be focal points.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The spin is in claiming that Palestinians desire to return to their homes from which they were expelled in living memory has somehow less justification than the Zionist desire to people Palestine with Jews, whoever they are ...even Ivanka Trump qualifies. 

 

Calling the report biased is just your transparent cop out for not addressing the important issues raised.

 

The spin of a Palestinian conspiracy you repeat in your self same reply, saying " If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected?" So are we going to have another 2 pages of verbose semantics pedantry now, saying "the goal" is not the same as a conspiracy. 

 

Because Palestinians are coming home from refugee camps to a place they were illegally kicked out of just a few decades ago and still have the documentation to their land, while Jews are immigrating from New York and London mainly as religious nutjobs. Most world Jewry have voted with their feet and prefer to practise their religion where they are doing very nicely thank you. They don't need Israel, but Israel needs them.

 

Hence the Zionists' desperate measures at demographic engineering and apartheid to prevent Palestinians outnumbering them.

 

So a deflection then. Bummer. Was betting on a rant.

 

Keep dodging.

 

There was nothing said about the level of justification of either side . That's you putting words in my mouth. I merely asked why the Israeli immigration policies are to be denounced as racist, while ignoring that the Palestinian goal of achieving an extreme version of their own in their future state. That while presenting oneself as a "humanist". Try again.

 

The "report" is biased. It was rejected by the UNSG in a statement that clearly said that the views included represent those of the authors. There is a rather long public record of the authors views, and they can be termed as nothing but biased. According to your reasoning, this should be ignored, and the "report" taken at face value as an objective document. No particular reason as to why the authors views are to be ignored.

 

As for the "Palestinian conspiracy" falsely attributed to me - are you for real? There is nothing secretive about this, rather out in the open for all to see. It is not a conspiracy at all, but an obvious goal. Under a two-state solution, the future state of Palestine will not include Jews. Where is the conspiracy, exactly? And yes, it will be more extreme than the Israeli version, which will still support a large Palestinian minority, and will is expected to accept even more. No conspiracy, and not too hard to figure out. You go on about Israeli policy being racist, nothing to say about this one. Mind, I did not even say that I object to such an arrangement, quite the other way around. But then I don't have much issues with anything which sorts things out in a way decreasing the risk of violence. Unlike adhering to unrealistic absolute justice nonsense.

 

Deflect some more, why don't ya.

[Shawn0000]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No spins. Or maybe you should be clearer when posting. You said Palestinians had a right to resist, you said they will not be tried for war crimes, you said rockets were ineffectual and that they were an Israeli excuse. If you want to make another, accurate comment, that's fine.

 

The statements made in regard to the Gaza War were, for the most part, nothing on par things stated and said by the Nazis. It is not a given to anyone not insisting on an inane point. There was nothing carried out by Israel on the Gaza War that did not feature on other conflicts in the ME. If this was about "genocide" casualties would have been way higher than that, and there wouldn't have been any ceasefires as well. But sure, go with the hyperbole comparisons, that's what you're here for.

 

So you feel that Israel should not target Hamas militants and installations unless they are standing out in the open carrying big signs saying "Hamas". There is no shred of responsibility attributed to the Hamas for placing their people and hardware among the civilian population, thus putting them at harm's way? There's nothing to say about Hamas spending millions in Aid money and building materials to construct tunnels kept for their own use, rather than protect the population?

 

And no, not all of Israel's targets were illegal, that is the point. Balance. If you wish to claim some of what Israel did was wrong, fair enough. Look up my old posts and you'll find such thoughts, even with regard to specific instances. If you wish to claim that Hamas ought to enjoy immunity due to whichever reasons - you're quite out there.

 

Any war carried out in urban surrounding carries a toll of civilian lives. That is a fact. It doesn't stop them from happening not in Gaza nor anywhere else in the world. The ME got a rich history of such, insisting that Israel is the worst of the bunch is nowhere near close. Commenting on these issues without any context or reference, while focusing on one party is a no go.

 

Of course Palestine has a right to resist, they have been walled in, what greater right could a nation have to resist their oppressors than Palestine?

 

The comments were exactly on a par with the Nazi's, the law maker, Ayelet Shaked, called for the destruction of Palestine, including its elderly and its women, in what way is that different from the speeches by Hitler calling for the final solution other than the fact that it is clearer than Hitler who was at least a little careful with his words?  And what did the prime minister do when she said this?  Did he condemn her comments?  No, he appointed her as justice minister.

 

You keep trying to distract, this is not about other conflicts in the Middle East, this is about the conflict between Israel and Gaza, it matters not if another country is also guilty of war crimes, how could that detract from Israels crimes?  Did you think I would just accept that everyone is bombing civilians with banned weapons, so it's OK for Israel?

 

Hamas are far from perfect, but it would seem from your comment that you support targeting the police, the TV stations and the university, all war crimes, because Hamas misspent funds.  How does that work in your mind?

 

Many of Israels targets were illegal, and not through mistakes, theirs were chosen illegal targets, you choose to ignore that point and instead talk about balance, well there are homemade rockets against gun ships raining down white phosphorus, there is no balance.

 

I do not think Hamas should have immunity, I think they should have the full backing of the UN in their struggle against their oppressors.

 

Yes, all conflicts involve some loss of civilians, however Israel has advanced weaponry and has specifically targeted civilians, that is a war crime, the difference between accidentally killing a civilian and targeting them is clear, dropping banned weapons, white phosphorus on civilians is on a par with the worst atrocities this world has seen, but I never said that Israel was the worst, let alone insisted on it, you again are just making things up.  As for focusing on one party, well that was what we were talking about, sorry for not following your tangents but they were all off topic.   

 

 

 

 

[Shawn0000]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Why don't you take a pill of the your own prescription - The topic was not about antisemitism, nor the validity of vile comparisons, nor the Gaza War. That is, until you came along and made those to be focal points.

 

The topic is about one of those "vile comparisons" being made by the UN, do try to keep up.

[CharlieK]

28 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Calling the report biased is just your transparent cop out for not addressing the important issues raised.

 

The report was by 18 Arab countries, some of who's human rights are even more questionable, the point is, could you reasonably expect 18 Arab countries not to be biased. Consider, the jewish populations of those countries which were kicked out as revenge for losing the 1948 war and the declaration of the state of Israel. Would they be allowed to return to their homes?

 

The Palestinians were a byproduct of the 1967 war, as in 1948 Jordan annex the west bank  and east Jerusalem. There is no such country as Palestine. Israel captured that land from Jordan. Now there is a group of Jordanians trying to lay claim to land that is not theirs. 

 

Maybe the Jordanians should go back to Jordan, and stop calling themselves Palestinians. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Of course Palestine has a right to resist, they have been walled in, what greater right could a nation have to resist their oppressors than Palestine?

 

The comments were exactly on a par with the Nazi's, the law maker, Ayelet Shaked, called for the destruction of Palestine, including its elderly and its women, in what way is that different from the speeches by Hitler calling for the final solution other than the fact that it is clearer than Hitler who was at least a little careful with his words?  And what did the prime minister do when she said this?  Did he condemn her comments?  No, he appointed her as justice minister.

 

You keep trying to distract, this is not about other conflicts in the Middle East, this is about the conflict between Israel and Gaza, it matters not if another country is also guilty of war crimes, how could that detract from Israels crimes?  Did you think I would just accept that everyone is bombing civilians with banned weapons, so it's OK for Israel?

 

Hamas are far from perfect, but it would seem from your comment that you support targeting the police, the TV stations and the university, all war crimes, because Hamas misspent funds.  How does that work in your mind?

 

Many of Israels targets were illegal, and not through mistakes, theirs were chosen illegal targets, you choose to ignore that point and instead talk about balance, well there are homemade rockets against gun ships raining down white phosphorus, there is no balance.

 

I do not think Hamas should have immunity, I think they should have the full backing of the UN in their struggle against their oppressors.

 

Yes, all conflicts involve some loss of civilians, however Israel has advanced weaponry and has specifically targeted civilians, that is a war crime, the difference between accidentally killing a civilian and targeting them is clear, dropping banned weapons, white phosphorus on civilians is on a par with the worst atrocities this world has seen, but I never said that Israel was the worst, let alone insisted on it, you again are just making things up.  As for focusing on one party, well that was what we were talking about, sorry for not following your tangents but they were all off topic.   

 

 

 

 

 

A right to resist does not imply an free pass to take whatever means or target whomever. Indiscriminate rockets launched at civilian concentrations, bombs and other terrorist attacks against civilians, suicide attacks - all are not allowed. There are constraints there. As much as I do not see Palestinian violence as assisting their struggle for self determination, I have less objections when such attacks are carried out against Israeli security personnel, as compared when directed at civilians.

 

Ayelet Shaked, as are the other members of her party, are fascists. They do not, at this point, represent the whole state of Israel, and do not dictate IDF operations and policy. If you were to apply the comparison to her statement, rather than try to generalize it to the whole of Israel, I'd have no problems with that. Matter of fact, pretty much the same was posted at the time. That it reflects badly on Israel, sure. But making Israel equivalent to Nazi Germany, nope. Still hyperbole. Goes back to a point made earlier about balance - the comments rejected are not those warning that Israel might be sliding down a slippery slope, but the ones alleging that it is already there. You say you never claimed Israel is the worst. Why, then, compare it to the worst?

 

No distractions. If it is legitimate to compare Israel as above, why is it a distraction to carry out other comparisons? Or is that sort of labeled bashers-only? And no, this topic is not about "the conflict between Israel and Gaza", not by a long shot. Wasn't really much discussed previously. And yes, it does matter what happens in other conflicts and other countries. Not because it exempts anyone, but because it shows how conflicts involving Israel receive greater attention regardless of their magnitude.

 

Hamas operates using the cover of civilians and civilian installations to carry out attacks. In a prefect world, they would not do so, and civilian lives would be less at risk. You either misrepresent or misunderstood my comment about Hamas use of funds. This had to do with another issue, of not providing security to the civilian population, but preferring to invest in facilities to protect themselves or those used to carry out operations against Israel. There are no easy answers when combating militants using civilians as a shield. And no, attacking  installations such as described is not automatically a war crime, especially so if there they are used by the Hamas as staging grounds, storage places or rocket launcher pads.

 

You may claim whatever you like about many of Israel's targets being "illegal", it still wouldn't make them so. Many people do not realize that contrary to common belief, a whole lot of things are  in fact legally allowed. And again, if you wish to bring up legality, then this doesn't square with Hamas's usage of civilian facilities in general, and with using the population as shield as well. 

 

War isn't fair. This isn't some pistols at dawn thing. One doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight. The Hamas knew how this will end, and  still carried on. Can't say that shows a whole lot of care for their own people. I do not think that "Israel specifically targeted citizens" is a good description of events. No doubt that such things did happen during the fighting, but to as a general statement - If Israel was targeting civilians, there would have been a whole lot more casualties.

 

Hamas getting full back up from the UN. Well...that's a whole different topic right there. One which touches also upon the Palestinian divide and the Palestinian attitude toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Goes much further than the scope of the current topic. For someone bringing up antisemitism, Nazi comparisons and the Gaza War, or Hamas - all of which did not feature much on this topic, you sure do have an interesting take on what counts as going on tangent.

 

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The topic is about one of those "vile comparisons" being made by the UN, do try to keep up.

 

No, the UN did not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. You did. The "report" was rejected as representing the views of his authors. The authors biased was already referred to.

[Morch]

Mrs. Morch just informed me that Thursday is actually tomorrow, and not the day after. So as much as I'd like to stick around, a project must be finished, and a white night awaits. Apologies for participants, trolls included. Rest assured your valued opinionated opinions will be addressed in good time.

 

 

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

So a deflection then. Bummer. Was betting on a rant.

 

Keep dodging.

 

There was nothing said about the level of justification of either side . That's you putting words in my mouth. I merely asked why the Israeli immigration policies are to be denounced as racist, while ignoring that the Palestinian goal of achieving an extreme version of their own in their future state. That while presenting oneself as a "humanist". Try again.

 

The "report" is biased. It was rejected by the UNSG in a statement that clearly said that the views included represent those of the authors. There is a rather long public record of the authors views, and they can be termed as nothing but biased. According to your reasoning, this should be ignored, and the "report" taken at face value as an objective document. No particular reason as to why the authors views are to be ignored.

 

As for the "Palestinian conspiracy" falsely attributed to me - are you for real? There is nothing secretive about this, rather out in the open for all to see. It is not a conspiracy at all, but an obvious goal. Under a two-state solution, the future state of Palestine will not include Jews. Where is the conspiracy, exactly? And yes, it will be more extreme than the Israeli version, which will still support a large Palestinian minority, and will is expected to accept even more. No conspiracy, and not too hard to figure out. You go on about Israeli policy being racist, nothing to say about this one. Mind, I did not even say that I object to such an arrangement, quite the other way around. But then I don't have much issues with anything which sorts things out in a way decreasing the risk of violence. Unlike adhering to unrealistic absolute justice nonsense.

 

Deflect some more, why don't ya.

My posts are completely on topic. Please explain how I am deflecting, or are you just using slogans to distract from the fact that you refuse to address the issues in the OP. The best form of defense of course is to accuse your opponent of precisely your own deflectionary tactics. Sneaky!

 

The OP report points out how Israel uses its immigration laws to create an artificial Jewish majority, by allowing unlimited Jewish immigration while denying Palestinians the same right. ...Are we still on the same on topic page, Morch?

 

OK..here's a Tale of Two returnees.

Consider if you would two potential candidates..

 

The Jewish Candidate

need not even regard himself as a Jew
need not observe any religious traditions
needs only to have a Jewish grandmother
need never to have set eyes on Israel before
his ancestors? have been absent for 2000 years
need have no direct ancestry to ancient Israel after millenia of intermarriage and conversion
may only have recently converted to Judaism by marriage such as Ivanka Trump.

looks more European Caucasian than Semitic

 

The Palestinian Candidate

born in Israel
may still have keys and title deeds to his confiscated home and land
lives in the West Bank in a refugee camp a few short miles away from his ancestral home , but forbidden to visit there
may have family in Israel
regards himself as Palestinian
looks Middle Eastern
was illegally ethnically cleansed
is entitled to return according to Geneva Convention

 

Morch wrote..

>>There was nothing said about the level of justification of either side . 

 

So are these two cases equally justified? Zionist under present apartheid immigration laws appear to believe that the Jew has more right than the Palestinian.

So here's your chance to say something.

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, CharlieK said:

The report was by 18 Arab countries, some of who's human rights are even more questionable, the point is, could you reasonably expect 18 Arab countries not to be biased. Consider, the jewish populations of those countries which were kicked out as revenge for losing the 1948 war and the declaration of the state of Israel. Would they be allowed to return to their homes?

 

The Palestinians were a byproduct of the 1967 war, as in 1948 Jordan annex the west bank  and east Jerusalem. There is no such country as Palestine. Israel captured that land from Jordan. Now there is a group of Jordanians trying to lay claim to land that is not theirs. 

 

Maybe the Jordanians should go back to Jordan, and stop calling themselves Palestinians. 

>>The report was by 18 Arab countries
...the report was written by two academics with specialized knowledge in international law.

>>Consider, the jewish populations of those countries which were kicked out as revenge for losing the 1948 war and the declaration of the state of Israel. Would they be allowed to return to their homes?
...if true, then blame the Arab countries, not the Palestinians. Why should Palestinians be the scapegoats for others? I would suggest that Jews who can genuinely prove they were involuntarily expelled from anywhere should receive compensation.

 

The rest of your post is an old chestnut nothing to do with the present topic.

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm