DOES ISRAEL WANT PEACE? Newly Announced Approval of More Israeli Residential Construction in East Jerusalem Furthers Undermines Mideast Peace Efforts.

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jul 12, 2010 8:03 PM GMT
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/council-approves-construction-of-32-new-homes-in-east-jerusalem-1.301535
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14350

    Jul 12, 2010 10:20 PM GMT
    It is very obvious that Israel does not want peace unless it is under its own terms regardless of what the international community thinks. Lets face reality, Israel wants the Palestinians off all of that land and it does not give a damn about the plight of the Palestinian people. Its only solution is the continued use of military force and violent brutality.
  • solak

    Posts: 493

    Jul 13, 2010 2:26 PM GMT
    [url][/url]

    stupid LA hippies haha.. too bad there are like 4 of them loll.. AIPAC lives and grows thanks to US taxpayers muaha
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWait a sec.... Let's add a new 120 GB hard drive to the RJ server so we can be ready for Caesarea4's next volume of information he'll be posting. icon_rolleyes.gif



    true. at least your bullshit is usually concise.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jul 13, 2010 2:42 PM GMT
    dancerjack said
    southbeach1500 saidWait a sec.... Let's add a new 120 GB hard drive to the RJ server so we can be ready for Caesarea4's next volume of information he'll be posting. icon_rolleyes.gif


    true. at least your bullshit is usually concise.


    dancerjack, you owe me a new pair of pants, I have soaked these in pee laughing at this post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2010 2:51 PM GMT
    oh, can i pick the pants?? i have a tight pair i'd love to get you into and out of... icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2010 10:05 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWait a sec.... Let's add a new 120 GB hard drive to the RJ server so we can be ready for Caesarea4's next volume of information he'll be posting. icon_rolleyes.gif


    SouthBeach-->Pot stirrer extraordinaire icon_rolleyes.gif
  • gaydocalex

    Posts: 80

    Jul 14, 2010 10:54 AM GMT
    Israel wants peace... but NOT at the expense of security.
    Do we have to go over this again?
    Israel had consistently shown a desire to compromise. The Arabs keep moving the goal posts. Israel captured lots of land in wars while trying to keep its people from being slaughtered by raging Arab armies more than 4 times already. Ultimately Israel has ceded back land to Arabs as part of various peace deals. But the Arabs keep claiming that its not enough .. unless Jerusalem is their capital. Of course there NEVER was an Arab capital in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was REcatured by the Jews in 1967. Since the Jews had been denied access to their holy places (which were used as latrines if not completely destroyed by the Arabs) they are not willing to go that route again. If the Arabs want a peace that will be stable and lasting they should be realistic. Give up dreams of taking over Israel and Jerusalem. Establish civic and political organizations that create jobs and a life for them in the West Bank. Get rid of Hamas ASAP and start on the long road to nationhood. If things are so bad in the Arab territories, why would any reasonable person hold out for Jerusalem as a capital when there is not a single mention of Jersalem in the Koran and most Arabs have never even been to Jerusalem? The answer is obvious. The Arabs know how important Jerusalem is to the Jews, and that is why they hope to take it back from them. The Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa were build on the EXACT spot where the Jewish temple stood. This is THE most venerated spot in the whole universe for Jews.. and WOW what a cooincidence .. Mohammed's horse stopped there on the way to heaven!!! Arab conquest is all about taking what belongs to other's and making it theirs. Israel knows this and will never give up a unified Jerusalem. Its time for the Arabs to get smart and learn that lesson already. They may win a battle now and then or even win a propaganda war. But ultimately, Israel does not need Meg Ryan, Elvis Costello, and Dustin Hoffman as much as it needs Jerusalem as its heart and soul. This is why there is no peace!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2010 12:23 PM GMT
    gaydocalex saidIsrael wants peace... but NOT at the expense of security.
    Do we have to go over this again?
    Israel had consistently shown a desire to compromise. The Arabs keep moving the goal posts. Israel captured lots of land in wars while trying to keep its people from being slaughtered by raging Arab armies more than 4 times already. Ultimately Israel has ceded back land to Arabs as part of various peace deals. But the Arabs keep claiming that its not enough .. unless Jerusalem is their capital. Of course there NEVER was an Arab capital in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was REcatured by the Jews in 1967. Since the Jews had been denied access to their holy places (which were used as latrines if not completely destroyed by the Arabs) they are not willing to go that route again. If the Arabs want a peace that will be stable and lasting they should be realistic. Give up dreams of taking over Israel and Jerusalem. Establish civic and political organizations that create jobs and a life for them in the West Bank. Get rid of Hamas ASAP and start on the long road to nationhood. If things are so bad in the Arab territories, why would any reasonable person hold out for Jerusalem as a capital when there is not a single mention of Jersalem in the Koran and most Arabs have never even been to Jerusalem? The answer is obvious. The Arabs know how important Jerusalem is to the Jews, and that is why they hope to take it back from them. The Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa were build on the EXACT spot where the Jewish temple stood. This is THE most venerated spot in the whole universe for Jews.. and WOW what a cooincidence .. Mohammed's horse stopped there on the way to heaven!!! Arab conquest is all about taking what belongs to other's and making it theirs. Israel knows this and will never give up a unified Jerusalem. Its time for the Arabs to get smart and learn that lesson already. They may win a battle now and then or even win a propaganda war. But ultimately, Israel does not need Meg Ryan, Elvis Costello, and Dustin Hoffman as much as it needs Jerusalem as its heart and soul. This is why there is no peace!



    If we're going to start with the Palestinian vs israeli bullshit all over again.. Post links to your socalled history lessons or it didn't happen.

    The use of caps is the super highway to cool btw.

    The use of sarcasm to diss anothers religion and prophet is extremely lame and was old about two years ago.

    If you can't have a serious debate and have to resort to sarcasm and badmouthing anothers religion and prophet, your argument has little / no merit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
    From today's NY Times: "Growing up in Gaza" (video):

    http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/14/world/middleeast/1247468440263/growing-up-in-gaza.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 5:17 AM GMT
    Israel made the biggest mistake when they DIDN'T kick out the people who lived in the land they conquered during war, or DIDN'T incorporate the people into their country (like U.S. did with Mexico). Now they're stuck with the Middle East "Mexicans" who breed...like Mexicans. There's really no solution to this problem. No one will take in the Palestinians because non-Palestinian Muslims don't want them. Eventually Palestine will burst at the seems with babies popping out of vaginas 20 per second, and Israelis will have no choice but to try to seek asylum in the few countries that aren't anti-Semetic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 5:21 AM GMT
    solak said[url][/url]


    Jews are mature enough to allow opposition within their community to verbally protest. If Muslims voiced their opinion in support for Israel on TV, they'd probably be killed. In fact the ones that do have bodyguards by them 24/7 so that they're not killed by a radical.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 5:23 AM GMT
    ObsceneWish saidFrom today's NY Times: "Growing up in Gaza" (video):

    http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/07/14/world/middleeast/1247468440263/growing-up-in-gaza.html


    That's awful that half of them are under 15. They're just going to grow up in poverty, blaming Israel while the Hamas indoctrinates them with so much hate.

    There won't be a resolution until the Palestinians leave, or Israel leaves. Neither side will get along with the other. I honestly don't care which happens anymore. I'd rather Israel just relocate to South Florida. It's the same weather.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidPalestinian former leader Yasser Arafat signed a law to make Jerusalem the capital of the future Palestinian state.


    What gave him the right to do that??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 5:50 AM GMT
    I'm not sure I understand how construction of 32 homes in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem - which under the Clinton compromise parameters would become part of Israel - undermines the peace process. (Does that make it: Israeli "occupied" Israel?)

    In a poll conducted last month by the Ramallah-based Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), 38.4% of the Palestinian Arabs agreed that:
    East Jerusalem will be the capital of the state of Palestine and West Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. Inside East Jerusalem, Palestinian areas will come under Palestinian sovereignty and in return for equal territorial swap Jewish neighborhoods will come under Israeli sovereignty.


    Wait, what "peace process"? Hamas isn't interested, Hizbullah isn't interested and 9 months into a 10 month "settlement" freeze announced by Netanyahu last November, the Palestinian Authority still refuses to engage in direct negotiations.

    It is tragic that the Palestinian Arabs can't negotiate in good faith, instead throwing one tantrum after another, leaving the table, and demanding unilateral concessions to bring them back to the table. (Or maybe they were just seeking pretenses to avoid negotiations?)

    Israel has successfully negotiated peace with Egypt and Jordan (once each of those was, finally, ready to come to the table). When the PLO gave up terrorism (for the first time, when it was politically weak for having sided with Saddam during his 1990 invasion of Kuwait - alienating his benefactors in the Gulf), they found a willing peace partner in Israel. Israel has since granted the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (today 97% of the Arabs in the disputed territories live not under Israeli administration/"occupation" but under the rule of either the PA or, in Gaza, Hamas. Note that Hamas refuses to recognize and accept the 1993 Oslo Accords).

    Ten years ago, in July of 2000, Israel was willing to accept the Clinton compromise parameters. Arafat, according to Clinton, "said no to everything". He then walked out of Camp David and started the Arab violence and terrorism known as the "intifada". At best he was trying to extract unilateral concessions to return to the table (sound familiar?) or perhaps (in accordance with the 1974 "Phased Plan") he figured he had gotten what he could by feigning peace and was then ready to fight for the rest of it what he wanted - all of Israel. Consider that he had rejected an internationally recognized state on a net 97% of the disputed territories in favor of a unilateral declaration of independence on only 40% of the territory. Why? Because the former would have required the termination of the conflict and of further claims.

    Oh, speaking of which, in that same PCPSR poll, it turns out that:
    35% oppose a compromise on ending the conflict that would state that when the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples.
    The silver lining is that this is down from 44% last August.


    Anyhow, like we really needed another mideast topic to rehash the same stuff again?!

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    - and Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/349491

    Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people.
    (Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/494893

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691

    In search of a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: UNSCR 242, Oslo and Camp David/Taba
    (Or: I support the Clinton COMPROMISE parameters. Do you?!)

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/354843

    Free Gaza from what truly afflicts it: Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/973888

    Countries that support gays or kill them
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/984797
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 6:08 AM GMT
    MenschPress said
    sxydrkhair saidPalestinian former leader Yasser Arafat signed a law to make Jerusalem the capital of the future Palestinian state.


    What gave him the right to do that??


    His sense of self-righteousness. He essentially invented this "Palestinian" concept too. Most Palestinians are really just mostly bunch of Jordanians.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 6:11 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidLets face reality, Israel wants the Palestinians off all of that land and it does not give a damn about the plight of the Palestinian people. Its only solution is the continued use of military force and violent brutality.


    Who hit you with the retard wand?

    If Israel wanted Palestinians off the land they'd kick them off. It's neighboring Muslim countries that are willing to watch Palestinians suffer, instead of TAKING them into their OWN countries, just to pressure the world into thinking Israel shouldn't exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 6:16 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair saidThat is why many American Jews (anti-Israeli government) are more educated on this topic than Israelis. People in the U.S. starting to understand a lot better than they were 10 years ago.


    Funny...after having sex with a non-Palestinian Muslim I asked him his thoughts on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He was like, "bitch I ain't no Palestinian. I don't care about that." Sounds like your own kind don't even love you.

    There's some Palestinian-hating Muslims out there just like there's some Israeli-hating Jews. So your point isn't valid. It just applies to both sides. Using someone on the other side who agrees with your side doesn't invalidate the other side. It just shows more diversity on the way the other side thinks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 6:18 AM GMT
    Hey, has anyone really thought to get rid of Hamas in order to LIFT THE EGYPT-ISRAELI blockade?

    Just a fucking thought. Maybe some Palestinians can make a fucking correlation here.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Jul 15, 2010 10:01 AM GMT
    JakeBenson saidHey, has anyone really thought to get rid of Hamas in order to LIFT THE EGYPT-ISRAELI blockade?

    "After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever."

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 1:29 PM GMT
    Thanks for spamming that conspiracy theory again. To remind you: Somene pointing to someone else pointing to someone else saying they've seen "evidence" (but can't reproduce it) is a conspiracy theory. You couldn't support it in a topic where it was relavent to the subject:

    Free Gaza from what truly afflicts it: Hamas

    It's actually funny, because previously tokugawa denied that Hamas had illegally seized power in a violent coup.
    Now he's stuck trying to rationalize and justify that violent coup!

    However:

    T1. The lack of military preparedness of Fatah troops when they were attacked makes this theory pretty batty - a point tokugawa inadvertantly admited when he said: "Abbas' forces did not put up much of a fight in Gaza".

    T2. The fact that it was within Abbas' constitutional powers to fire the P.M. precludes the need for a "violent overthrow" (unless Hamas was going to violently oppose that).

    T7. Hamas did not win the Presidential election (the executive branch), it won a majority of parliamentary seats (the legislative branch). There was no need for a "planned coup" given that Hamas was unable to put together a coalition. After the Mecca Agreement, Hamas illegally seized power (all branches of government) in a violent coup. While tokugawa vapidly pays lip service to "democratically elected government", he neglects to point out that Hamas refuses to hold further elections, routed the opposition (dropping people off roof-tops) and runs a totalitarian dictatorship that lacks an independent judiciary or free press.

    T13. tokugawa neglects that Hamas has rejected calls for further elections.

    T14. Yet tokugawa pretends that these murderous terrorists are the "democratically elected" government?

    T15. tokugawa neglects that only 28% of the Palestinian Arabs support Hamas.
    (Making him an extremist like them.)

    Forced into a corner, tokugawa began the usual argument from conflicting premises. First it was "a small group of Fatah men who served Israel and the United States", then all of Fatah was a "Quisling regime". (Reality noted in my previous post in this topic: Obama can't even get Fatah to engage in direct negotiations with Israel.)

    Still siding with Hamas, tokugawa then spoke of Fatah/Abbas' "weakness".
    Yet a poll cited by his source:

    || If new presidential elections are held today, Abbas would receive the vote of 54% and [Hamas'] Haniyeh 39%

    || If the presidential elections were between [Fatah's] Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, the former would receive 65% and the latter would receive 30%

    Even the former is a huge victory (15%) which in the US would be considered a "landslide".
    In legistlative elections, the poll gives Fatah a whopping 19 point lead over Hamas.

    What possibly could blind tokugawa to such an extent that, unable to address the above last month, he repeats this nonsense here?
    What feeds his motivation to defend these Hamas thugs rather than condemn them?
    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    tokugawa is another of those people who hates Israel more than he cares for the Palestinian Arabs (despite that being his pretense for his anti-Israel uber alles mentality).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2010 6:06 PM GMT
    samxr (who is such the pathological/compulsive liar that he can't even tell the truth about his name, saying "it's not Samer but Samir" and then saying "it's not Samir but Samer") fails to realize that his "explanations" based on lies are futile and useless.

    For example:

    SDH> I already talk to him about Hamas and their history... still in denial.

    samxr claimed that Hamas was established by Israel in the 1970s, but Hamas didn't form until 1987. After reiterating the discredited lie a few more times, he finally realized that what he said made no sense, so he adjusted it to claiming that Israel founded Hamas in 1987 (lying further that it armed it). The reality is that Israel did support Islamic charities (not Hamas as we know it today) who were engaged in bona fide social services (running orphanages, schools, etc) - something which samxr should applaud if he cared for his people. The type of services that the PLO couldn't perform because its sole focus was terrorism. It is true that Israel attempted to support an alternative leadership to the PLO terrorists (true also in the 1970s, then with a secular leadership, an effort that was sabotaged by the PLO attacking them) - again something which an honest person would applaud. Note how samxr's original lie blends in grains of truth from both the 1970s and 80s but completely twists them to create a completely false picture (as if Israel had created Hamas like the CIA created the Mujahadeen).

    Here's another pattern of samxr's lies-for-the-cause when his first lie doesn't flops:
    SDH1> Israel started the war in 1948
    Shown wrong, we get:
    SDH2> The Arabs were justified in starting the 1948 war because [new lies]
    and yet a week or month later:
    SDH3> Israel started the war in 1948....

    Not only does samxr shop for sources that are "yes men", we've frequently seen that when not selectively quoted his own sources refute his larger talking points. Other sources, no matter how credible, that dispute what he desperately wants to believe (or rather, wants others to believe) are automatically a bad source to be disregarded (and he talks of "denial"?!).


    SDH> caesarea4 post some of his useless threads to pointed out that he is "right".

    The issue isn't if I'm "right" but what is true.
    I've started other topics so we can focus on a particular subject.
    While you've posted the same (often verbatim) spam propaganda in many of those topics, in none have you managed to refuge the OP.


    SDH> the Palestinian territories

    As per UNSCR 242 and the Oslo Accords, the borders of Arab Palestine-to-be need to first be determined through negotiations. You can't say that it is the territories illegally seized by Jordan and Egypt in their 1948 invasion. You can't say that it is the areas allocated by the 1947 UN partition compromse which you then violently rejected (and which the UN thus abandoned in search of new solutions). Note also that this definition would exclude eastern Jerusalem from the "Palestinian territories". The last legal division of this territory was the League of Nations Mandate document (later incorporated into the UN trustee system) which allocated all of western Palestine (then the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland) to the Jewish state. Arab Palestine at the time was the 77% of the Palestine Mandate that was east of the Jordan river, or Trans-Jordanian Palestine (today Jordan).


    If all the above isn't bad enough, samxr has been caught vandalizing Wikipedia entries (removing inconvenient facts. His explanation? The article wasn't "fair"!) and explaining that there are "good lies", i.e. lies-for-the-cause.

    It is clear that samxr's "integrity" isn't to the truth or to justice, but for his cause.

    While as a community we tend to treat him with kids' gloves for obvious reasons, I'm not sure that anyone (other than IanCT, raised and drunk on the same Kool-Aid) believes what he says in these topics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2010 8:03 AM GMT
    JakeBenson said
    sxydrkhair saidThat is why many American Jews (anti-Israeli government) are more educated on this topic than Israelis. People in the U.S. starting to understand a lot better than they were 10 years ago.


    Funny...after having sex with a non-Palestinian Muslim I asked him his thoughts on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He was like, "bitch I ain't no Palestinian. I don't care about that." Sounds like your own kind don't even love you.

    There's some Palestinian-hating Muslims out there just like there's some Israeli-hating Jews. So your point isn't valid. It just applies to both sides. Using someone on the other side who agrees with your side doesn't invalidate the other side. It just shows more diversity on the way the other side thinks.



    What Muslims have to do with Palestinians? If you talk to any Palestinians except Hamas, they will not talk about religions. They see themselves Palestinian nationality come first then religion come second. Palestinians are found in many religions.

    Any Israelis or Jews fighting justice for Palestinians and against Israeli occupation aren't self-hating Jews. Try to remember that because all Palestinian supporters come in many religions and all the Zionist supporters come in many religions too.

    You should know Hamas was started out by Israel because of Israel is occupying them. Your pal C4 think there is no such thing "Occupation." icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2010 8:14 AM GMT
    I like this one...

    214417158_05c84dfdd5.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2010 10:31 AM GMT
    ROTFL. See what I meant about the SDH/IanCT "yes men" show?
    Guys, no one here takes you seriously, not even the people who somewhat agree with your side.


    SDH> I already talk to him about Hamas and their history... still in denial.

    samxr claimed that Hamas was established by Israel in the 1970s, but Hamas didn't form until 1987. After reiterating the discredited lie a few more times, he finally realized that what he said made no sense, so he adjusted it to claiming that Israel founded Hamas in 1987 (lying further that it armed it). The reality is that Israel did support Islamic charities (not Hamas as we know it today) who were engaged in bona fide social services (running orphanages, schools, etc) - something which samxr should applaud if he cared for his people. The type of services that the PLO couldn't perform because its sole focus was terrorism. It is true that Israel attempted to support an alternative leadership to the PLO terrorists (true also in the 1970s, then with a secular leadership, an effort that was sabotaged by the PLO attacking them) - again something which an honest person would applaud. Note how samxr's original lie blends in grains of truth from both the 1970s and 80s but completely twists them to create a completely false picture (as if Israel had created Hamas like the CIA created the Mujahadeen).

    SDH> That doesn't make me a liar if I messed up the years. You refused to admit that Hamas was created by Israel against PLO

    Because it wasn't, as discussed above.
    Messing up an occassional fact wouldn't make you a liar.
    Repeating "messed up" "facts", let alone constantly and incessantly, does.
    Lying about your name makes you a liar, too.


    Here's another pattern of how you follow-up one lie with another and then repeat the first:

    SDH1> Israel started the war in 1948
    Shown wrong, we get:
    SDH2> The Arabs were justified in starting the 1948 war because [new lies]
    and yet a week or month later:
    SDH3> Israel started the war in 1948....

    SDH now> I never say that... "The Arabs were justified in starting the 1948 war."

    So you are admitting that the Arabs were NOT justified in starting the 1948 war?
    If you fail to say that explicitly, then you confirm that you are, again, LYING.



    Not only does samxr shop for sources that are "yes men", we've frequently seen that when not selectively quoted his own sources refute his larger talking points. Other sources, no matter how credible, that dispute what he desperately wants to believe (or rather, wants others to believe) are automatically a bad source to be disregarded (and he talks of "denial"?!).

    We see this again with his nonsense that a "Jewish source" (no matter how random) must be right if it agrees with him.


    SDH> caesarea4 post some of his useless threads to pointed out that he is "right".

    The issue isn't if I'm "right" but what is true.
    I've started other topics so we can focus on a particular subject.
    While you've posted the same (often verbatim) spam propaganda in many of those topics, in none have you managed to refuge the OP.


    SDH> [no contest]


    SDH> article was written by George Szamuely - a Hungarian Jewish

    So what? When will you finally understand that just because a Jew writes something you want to believe that doesn't make it automatically correct.

    You are no different than the homophobes who pretend that a "cured" homosexual automatically speaks the truth (while all other gays lie).


    SDH> the Palestinian territories

    As per UNSCR 242 and the Oslo Accords, the borders of Arab Palestine-to-be need to first be determined through negotiations. You can't say that it is the territories illegally seized by Jordan and Egypt in their 1948 invasion. You can't say that it is the areas allocated by the 1947 UN partition compromse which you then violently rejected (and which the UN thus abandoned in search of new solutions). Note also that this definition would exclude eastern Jerusalem from the "Palestinian territories". The last legal division of this territory was the League of Nations Mandate document (later incorporated into the UN trustee system) which allocated all of western Palestine (then the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland) to the Jewish state. Arab Palestine at the time was the 77% of the Palestine Mandate that was east of the Jordan river, or Trans-Jordanian Palestine (today Jordan).

    SDH> Resolution 242 states that Israel must return the territories it captured in 1967.

    Why are you LYING again?
    Can't help yourself?

    UNSCR 242 established the "land for peace" formula but did not dictate the extent of Israel's withdrawal.
    It explicitly did NOT require a withdrawal from "all" territories, leaving the extent (and future border) open to negotiation.

    Furthermore your statement has nothing to do with "the Palestinian territories".
    If Israel is to "return" the territories it captured in a defensive war in 1967, it would be to EGYPT and JORDAN.
    If you wish to consider these territories as "occupied", then they are "occupied Egypt" and "occupied Jordan".
    Except that Egypt and Jordan have rescinded their claims so that's no longer true.
    Note that they were not considered "occuped 'Palestine'" between 1948-1967.
    By the Fourth Geneva Conventions (Article 2), only territory of a High Contracting Party (existing State) can be considered "occupied".
    (The alternative is a stateless territory and legally that is a different animal.)


    SDH> Israel argues that because it does not mention the West Bank and Gaza, it can keep the territories. Israel's argument is not very valid in my opinion, and its kind of awkward to tell the United Nations "this is what you guys meant when you wrote this".

    Why do you keep SPAMMING this LIE, verbatim, again and again?
    The above is not Israel's argument but a straw man.
    You offer it precisely because you can't refute what I argued above (and previously).

    It's not at all "awkward to tell the UN" what it meant - it is what the Resolution itself says and what the AUTHORS said it meant. Lord Caradon: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear" - said in response to Arab parties which stated that they would mis-interpret the resolution as if it said that Israel must withdraw from "all" territories. He later added: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial." The American ambassador who co-authored the Resolution with Lord Caradon is also on record stating: "The notable omissions — which were not accidental — in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

    How many more times will you LIE about this?!

    The question remains: what defines the so-called "Palestinian Arab territories"?


    If all the above LIES aren't bad enough, samxr has been caught vandalizing Wikipedia entries (removing inconvenient facts. His explanation? The article wasn't "fair"!) and explaining that there are "good lies", i.e. lies-for-the-cause. It is clear that samxr's "integrity" isn't to the truth or to justice, but for his cause.

    SDH> [stands mute]