To Zionists (Pro-Israel)

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

    Sep 08, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    Palestinian existing as a people before the State of Israel was established, I recommend highly everyone to watch this eloquent video with Miko Peled.

    Hopefully it brings some clarifications icon_smile.gif

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 08, 2012 9:10 PM GMT
    Israel today.
    Israel tomorrow.
    Israel forever.

    2h7zy40.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 08, 2012 11:52 PM GMT
    Wow powerful.

    Sadly when I was growing up down under in the 60s and 70s, the Palestinians where misrepresented in the media, even down here in Oz, and promoted as being the terrorists, and as the truth is now starting to coming out, we are starting to see the wrongs that in fact have been done to those people of Palestine; give them their land back.

    Even in parts of Oz there are Jewish enclaves that they would turn into walled cities if they could, too keep us out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 12:03 AM GMT
    tru_blu_auzzie saidWow powerful.

    Sadly when I was growing up down under in the 60s and 70s, the Palestinians where misrepresented in the media, even down here in Oz, and promoted as being the terrorists, and as the truth is now starting to coming out, we are starting to see the wrongs that in fact have been done to those people of Palestine; give them their land back.Thats NOT a republican/conservative ideology.. hush your mouth!

    Even in parts of Oz there are Jewish enclaves thats they would turn into walled cities if they could, too keep us out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 3:50 AM GMT
    Clarifications?

    Get back to a factual discussion when/if you can:

    "Palestine" is the Latin/European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland
    and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

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

    The Palestine Paradox
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2652202

    Arabs are not indigenous to Israel - now confirmed by Hamas
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

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

    The two-state solution: Revisiting the Clinton Compromise Parameters.
    I support this. How come the war-mongering anti-Israel trolls can't honestly discuss it?

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313
  • gooddude1583

    Posts: 100

    Sep 09, 2012 1:08 PM GMT
    A very one sided view of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't dispute many of the claims made in this video about the injustice of occupation and the need to give the Palestinians equal rights. I still believe a two-state solution is the right solution due the great animosity between the two groups.
    The main question which needs to be asked is where do go from here. Both sides need to make concessions to reach a just compromise. Both sides made mistakes in the past and some are doing so at the present. But after putting all trust issues and anger aside, I still believe both Israelis and Palestinians want a two-state solution.
    As a conflicted Zionist, I am against the oppressive steps that are taken today against the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and I feel shame and regret for some of the actions made by the state of Israel throughout its short history. Yet I believe that we need to move forward and accept the rights of each other to live in this land. GalilleePal we all need to let go of the past and move on to a better future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 5:16 PM GMT
    gooddude1583>Both sides need to make concessions to reach a just compromise. Both sides made mistakes in the past and some are doing so at the present.

    GalileePal>Agreed.

    gooddude1583> still believe a two-state solution is the right solution due the great animosity between the two groups.

    GalileePal>False, If Israel wants a two state solution, then ISRAEL must end their illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Otherwise, there is a one state solution. Miko Peled was right!

    gooddude1583>A very one sided view of the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    GalileePal>Obviously, that is your opinion. It is not a one sided view.


    gooddude1583>we all need to let go of the past and move on to a better future.

    GalileePal>Agreed. It is about human rights! Palestinians want justice while ISRAEL continues with their brutal and illegal military occupation on Palestinian lands.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 5:27 PM GMT
    Zionism = Racism
    YESTERDAY and TODAY in Palestine
    Top Ten C4's (Wolverine4) Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
    Al Nakba - Palestine
    How can Israel ever make peace when Palestinians indoctrinate their children into hatred?
    Not All Israeli Citizens Are Equal
    Israel's Racism
    Inhumanity of Israeli Apartheid Checkpoints
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2012 5:23 AM GMT
    ^ once again we see that ianct/GP is more interested in demonizing Israel than in making peace let alone advancing his Palestine.


    gooddude1583> Both sides need to make concessions to reach a just compromise.

    GalileePal> Agreed.

    So can you finally answer the question I asked 2 if not 3 years ago?

    On what are YOU willing to compromise?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2012 4:03 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 wants to destroy Palestinians. That is his anti-Palestinian compromises. He don't cares about peace, but showing us his racist remarks saying that Palestinians aren't originally/ indigenous from Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip. He has brutally denied Palestinians' right to exist!

    Then spamming in here with his Zionist propaganda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    On what are YOU willing to compromise?

    GalileePAL saidWolverine4 wants to destroy Palestinians. That is his anti-Palestinian compromises. He don't cares about peace, but showing us his racist remarks saying that Palestinians aren't originally/ indigenous from Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip. He has brutally denied Palestinians' right to exist!

    There is nothing "racist" by pointing out that Arabs are not indigenous here.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    That's no different than saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americas.
    It does NOT imply that they have to "go back" to Europe.
    Which is what you've said about Jews - making you the racist.

    Unlike you, I support a workable solution along the Clinton compromise parameters.
    Which would establish an independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    Unlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.
    Either a two-state solution where both are Arab states.
    Or a sham one-state solution which is an Arab state.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2530572

    Let me repeat the question, because right now your answer is - still - "nothing":


    On what are YOU willing to compromise on for peace?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 12:12 AM GMT
    Wolverine4> "There is nothing "racist" by pointing out that Arabs are not indigenous here."

    GalileePal>Yes it is! You're denying the existence of Palestinian history.

    Wolverine4> I support a workable solution along the Clinton compromise parameters.

    GalileePal> I support for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. You support a non-militarized Palestinian state. Ridiculous! Every state has the right to self-defense.

    Wolverine4> Unlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.

    GalileePal> Non-sense like always!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 1:20 AM GMT
    There is nothing "racist" by pointing out that Arabs are not indigenous here.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    It is no different than saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americas.


    GP> You're denying the existence of Palestinian history.

    Does saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americans deny US history?
    Of course not.

    Of course, if someone speaks of European history in the Americas 2000 or 3000 years ago....

    Which is why when sxydrkhair was asked to detail "Palestinian history" prior to 500 CE, all he could do was say Masada, Tzippori, etc., - attempting to steal Jewish history.

    Disagree? Then teach me and RJ about this history. How did the Palestinians interact with the Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks or Romans? Did they pay a tribute? Make a treaty? Fight and Revolt?


    It does NOT imply that they have to "go back" to Europe.
    Which is what you've said about Jews - making you the racist.


    GP> ?


    Unlike you, I support a workable solution along the Clinton compromise parameters.
    Which would establish an independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    GP> You support a non-militarized Palestinian state. Ridiculous! Every state has the right to self-defense.

    Japan was non-militarized after WW II.
    Looks like you'd rather spend money to build an army than a state.
    Showing us once again that you hate Israel/Jews more than you love Palestine.


    Unlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.
    Either a two-state solution where both are Arab states.
    Or a sham one-state solution which is an Arab state.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2530572

    GP> ?


    Let me repeat the question, because right now your answer is - still - "nothing":

    On what are YOU willing to compromise on for peace?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 2:01 AM GMT
    W>Does saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americans deny US history?
    Of course not.


    GP> You're denying the existence of Palestinian history. Do you believe there are Palestinians' ancestors? What make you think Jews are indigenous to Israel? It was Canaan way before Israel! People that living there were Canaanites.


    Which is why when sxydrkhair was asked to detail "Palestinian history" prior to 500 CE, all he could do was say Masada, Tzippori, etc., - attempting to steal Jewish history.


    G> Approximately 80% of Palestinians have Jewish ancestry and mixed with other conquers. Why don't you admit you are racist?


    W>It does NOT imply that they have to "go back" to Europe. Which is what you've said about Jews - making you the racist.


    GP> Where did I say that?


    W>Japan was non-militarized after WW II.

    G> Japan invaded or attacked Burma, China, Indochina, the Philippines, Malaysia, Manchuria, Wake Island, Hong Kong, Singapore and other countries during the WW II. Zionism is a form of white supremacy and European colonialism in Palestine. Israel should be non-militarized state.

    W>Showing us once again that you hate Israel/Jews more than you love Palestine.

    G>Your repetition of a straw man argument which was already exposed. I have many Jewish friends.

    W>Unlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.

    G> Again non-sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 3:20 AM GMT
    There is nothing "racist" by pointing out that Arabs are not indigenous here.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/979648

    It is no different than saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americas.


    GP> Do you believe there are Palestinians' ancestors?

    Do you believe that American Europeans didn't have ancestors?


    GP> What make you think Jews are indigenous to Israel? It was Canaan way before Israel! People that living there were Canaanites.

    Historical, archeological, linguistic and modern genetic science.
    The Israelites were a confederacy of Canaanite and regional migratory tribes.


    GP> You're denying the existence of Palestinian history.

    Does saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americans deny US history?
    Of course not.

    Of course, if someone speaks of European history in the Americas 2000 or 3000 years ago....

    Which is why when sxydrkhair was asked to detail "Palestinian history" prior to 500 CE, all he could do was say Masada, Tzippori, etc., - attempting to steal Jewish history.

    Disagree? Then teach me and RJ about this history. How did the Palestinians interact with the Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Greeks or Romans? Did they pay a tribute? Make a treaty? Fight and Revolt?

    GP> [can't]


    It does NOT imply that they have to "go back" to Europe.
    Which is what you've said about Jews - making you the racist.


    GP> Where did I say that?

    You no longer agree with Helen Thomas?


    Unlike you, I support a workable solution along the Clinton compromise parameters.
    Which would establish an independent, sovereign and internationally recognized Palestinian Arab state.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2271313

    GP> You support a non-militarized Palestinian state. Ridiculous! Every state has the right to self-defense.

    W4> Japan was non-militarized after WW II.
    Looks like you'd rather spend money to build an army than a state.
    Showing us once again that you hate Israel/Jews more than you love Palestine.

    GP> Japan invaded....

    Just as it was the Arab parties who violently rejected the UN partition compromise and started a war - which they lost.

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


    Unlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.
    Either a two-state solution where both are Arab states.
    Or a sham one-state solution which is an Arab state.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2530572

    GP> ??


    Let me repeat the question, because right now your answer is - still - "nothing":

    On what are YOU willing to compromise on for peace?


    GP> [silence = nothing]

    Each time ianct/GP responds but can't even be bothered to address this point, he proves me right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 4:57 AM GMT
    gooddude1583> Both sides need to make concessions to reach a just compromise.

    GalileePal> Agreed.

    So can you finally answer the question I asked 2 if not 3 years ago?

    On what are YOU willing to compromise for peace?

    GP/IanCT> [silence = nothing]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 7:22 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    W4 said"There is nothing "racist" by pointing out that Arabs are not indigenous here."

    Funny. You yourself regularly cry racism when the tenuous Jewish claim to indigeneity in Palestine is scrutinised.

    W4 saidI support a workable solution along the Clinton compromise parameters.

    Really? Why not the Allon "compromise parameters"? Or the Olmert "compromise parameters"? Or better yet, the PA "compromise parameters"??

    W4 saidUnlike you, who seek to destroy Israel by hook or by crook.

    Let's face it: a nuclear weapon or the birth of an Arab baby could just as easily do that.

    W4 saidDoes saying that Europeans aren't indigenous to the Americans deny US history?

    Laughable.
    Historians of the question, on the other hand, generally get their analogies right:

    "The great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history."

    -- Benny Morris (on the 1948 War)

    "The Israeli College for National Security is the local 'West Point' for the most senior officers in the army and the officials in the security services, both for the domestic secret service, the Shabak, and for the famous (or infamous, as the case may be) Mossad, The future heads of the army and these security apparatuses have to graduate from this college, which works very closely with the University of Haifa's Center for National Security Studies and Geostrategy. Year after year they issue papers warning of the threat of 'Arab' takeover of land in the north and south of Israel. Arab here means the Palestinians citizens of Israel. This is the equivalent of the FBI warning the US government that the Native American citizens of the USA are buying flats and houses in increasing numbers."

    -- Ilan Pappé (on the Palestinian citizens of Israel)

    W$ saidWhich is why when sxydrkhair was asked to detail "Palestinian history" prior to 500 CE, all he could do was say Masada, Tzippori, etc., - attempting to steal Jewish history.

    Oh dear. It would appear that if there's no evidence of a Palestinian national movement 1500 years ago, then there could have been no "Palestinian people" for Herzl to fret about in 1882.

    W4 saidIt does NOT imply that they have to "go back" to Europe. Which is what you've said about Jews

    Why of course, since Palestinians don't come from Europe do they?

    W4 saidJapan was non-militarized after WW II.

    Congratulations on (narrowly) avoiding the Hitler analogy, on this occasion.
    Sane readers can decide (chances are they live in a country supporting the PA statehood cause) whether Palestine should be treated like Imperial Japan.

    W4 saidShowing us once again that you hate Israel/Jews more than you love Palestine.

    Maybe the fault is in me, but I find myself increasingly convinced that this oft-repeated mantra of yours contains about the same dialectical insight as Ronald Reagan's "there he goes again".


    I guess W4 couldn't see that...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 4:34 AM GMT
    No one cares what AyaTrollah pouncer writes - no one reads his endless propaganda channeled from the Iranian regime.


    gooddude1583> Both sides need to make concessions to reach a just compromise.

    GalileePal> Agreed.

    So can you finally answer the question I asked 2 if not 3 years ago?

    On what are YOU willing to compromise for peace?

    GP/IanCT> [silence = nothing]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 5:17 AM GMT
    I believe you already know my answer.

    I SUPPORT:

    1967 BORDERS (WEST BANK AND GAZA STRIP)
    CAPITAL: AL QUDS



    Do I need to repeat that over again?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 6:29 AM GMT

    On what are YOU willing to compromise for peace?

    GP> I support...

    That wasn't the question.

    On what are you willing to COMPROMISE for peace?

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

    Sep 13, 2012 4:04 PM GMT
    West Bank doesn't belongs to the Zionist entity. There is nothing to compromise the West Bank to the Zionist entity. Palestinians owned land where 80% of it was confiscated by the Zionist terrorist gangs... Now you expecting the Palestinians to compromise with the filthy Zionist thieves to take more lands in the West Bank?

    Seriously, you are a terrible peace maker.

    214wphv.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 7:38 PM GMT
    Why should I have him on ignore?

    1. Because I have to repeat my post over and over again with W4's lies?

    ... or

    2. RJ Admin is too lazy to ban W4's racist posts and threads about Palestinian people?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2012 1:45 AM GMT
    It's funny how some people are trying to shut up ianct/GalileePal.
    For damage control, lest he continue to put his foot in their mouths:

    GP> I support...

    That wasn't the question.
    On what are you willing to COMPROMISE for peace?

    GP> There is nothing to compromise

    So there you have it.

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

    Sep 14, 2012 2:10 AM GMT
    I don't care what other have to say. There's definitely something annoying about w4's rhetoric and giving everyone a headache.

    GP> I support pre-June 1967 borders with al Quds as a Palestinian capital.

    W> That wasn't the question. On what are you willing to COMPROMISE for peace?

    GP> There is nothing to compromise

    W> So there you have it.

    GP> Again, there is nothing to compromise because the West Bank doesn't belongs to the Zionist entity.

    Zionist terrorists have two options:

    1. Give all 80% of the historical Palestine back to Palestinians.

    or

    2. End Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and accept the Palestinian state with the 1967 borders and al Quds.

    W4 said, "He supports Clinton plan" which mean take more lands in the West Bank and Palestinian state will be non-militarized.

    Do Palestinians accept that? Of course not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2012 3:06 AM GMT
    GP> Zionist terrorists have two options....

    Looks like GP confuses "compromise" as "ransom demands".


    GP> W4 said, "He supports Clinton plan" which mean take more lands in the West Bank

    Not only isn't there anything that GP will compromise on, there's plenty he'd rather fight over. Under the Olmert plan, land swaps would have meant nearly no loss of territory (maybe something like 10 square miles. To help with the math, that's not even a 10mi x 10mi area, but roughly a 3mi x 3mi area).

    Does anyone believe that GP would rather fight over 10 square miles rather than compromise and have a peace dividend?
    Or is it just a pretense to justify not making peace and continue with "war forever" until total victory?


    GP> and Palestinian state will be non-militarized. Do Palestinians accept that? Of course not.

    As if you only want what Palestinian Arabs accept?
    Yet you're for a so-called "one-state 'solution'" - which 65% of Palestinian Arabs oppose.

    If GP is serious about making peace... why would he consider having an army more important than achieving peace?
    Wouldn't it be better to spend resources building the state and helping the people rather than building an army?

    Does GP sound like a peace-maker... or a war-monger?