Democrats Backpedal on God and Israel

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

    Sep 09, 2012 3:29 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob> the UN divided the city which was wrong.

    The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.


    sxydrkhair> E. Jerusalem is located in the Palestinian territories

    False. Eastern Jerusalem is located in the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.


    sxydrkhair> Palestinians and Israelis both are living together in Jerusalem (undivided).

    Yet you do want to re-divide the city?


    sxydrkhair> there is already a One State Solution.

    False.


    sxydrkhair> It is interesting how London Olympics did not list Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but it did list Jerusalem as Palestine's capital

    What is so "interesting" about a clerical ERROR that was corrected?
    (Not by the Olmpics but by the BBC.)

    BBC lists Israel's capital as Jerusalem after complaint
    No capital had been listed on BBC's Israel Olympic country profile

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2591596


    sxydrkhair> Mayors of Jerusalem

    That tired argument, again?

    Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s.
    (Had it not been massacred in the 17th century, this would have been true even further back.)

    The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 4:48 PM GMT
    Won't anyone say it was wrong of the democrat leadership to force the issue in a very UN-democratic fashion?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2012 5:06 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob> the UN divided the city which was wrong.

    The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.


    sxydrkhair> E. Jerusalem is located in the Palestinian territories

    Wolverine4 >False. Eastern Jerusalem is located in the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    GalileePal> False, East Jerusalem is located in the West Bank. What about the West Jerusalem illegally seized by Israel in 1948?
    http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/images/jer_maps/PartitionedJerusalem.html

    sxydrkhair> Palestinians and Israelis both are living together in Jerusalem (undivided).

    Wolverine4>Yet you do want to re-divide the city?

    GalileePal> I don't think he said he wants to re-divide Jerusalem. It all in your crazy head man.


    sxydrkhair> there is already a One State Solution.

    Wolverine4> False.

    GalileePal> There is... I have to agree with sxydkhair on that one. False? That is your argument? Most Israelis don't see it as a one state solution. Most Israelis are against a one state solution like you.


    Wolverine4>What is so "interesting" about a clerical ERROR that was corrected? (Not by the Olmpics but by the BBC.)

    BBC lists Israel's capital as Jerusalem after complaint. No capital had been listed on BBC's Israel Olympic country profile
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2591596

    GalileePal>They took all the capitals down because we have pro-Israel like you whining a lot...

    sxydrkhair> Jerusalem Mayor

    Wolverine4>That tired argument, again?

    Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s. (Had it not been massacred in the 17th century, this would have been true even further back.)

    The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    GalileePal> That argument was mine, not sxydrkhar. Majority of the landowners were Palestinians. I don't care if Jews were majority. Large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine and later Israel began in 1882 Some were illegal immigrants after 1930s.

    The Population of Jerusalem by Communities (1800-1870) (approximate figures)

    Year __ Jews __ Muslims ___ Christians __ All Non-Jews __ Total
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    1800 __ 2,250 __ 4,000 ____ 2,750 ______ 6,750 _____ 9,000

    1836 __ 3,250 __ 4,500 ____ 3,250 ______ 7,750 _____ 11,000

    1840 __ 5,000 __ 4,650 ____ 3,350 ______ 8,000 _____ 13,000

    1850 __ 6,000 __ 5,400 ____ 3,600 ______ 9,000 _____ 15,000

    1860 __ 8,000 __ 6,000 ____ 4,000 ______ 10,000 _____ 18,000

    1870 __ 11,000 __ 6,500 ____ 4,500 ______ 11,000 _____ 22,000

    [Yehoshua Ben Arieh, Jeusalem in the 19th Century, Vol. 1, The Old City
    (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1984; New York: St Martin's Press), p 279]

    Facts about Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/884102/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 10, 2012 5:10 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob> the UN divided the city which was wrong.

    The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.

    GalileePal> ?


    sxydrkhair> E. Jerusalem is located in the Palestinian territories

    False. Eastern Jerusalem is located in the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    GP> East Jerusalem is located in the West Bank

    That's the West Bank OF TRANS-JORDAN.
    As I said, the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.


    sxydrkhair> there is already a One State Solution.

    False.

    GalileePal> Most Israelis don't see it as a one state solution. Most Israelis are against a one state solution like you.

    And the same is true of most Palestinian Arabs.
    The majority "don't see it as a one state solution".
    And the majority are against a one state solution.


    sxydrkhair> It is interesting how London Olympics did not list Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but it did list Jerusalem as Palestine's capital

    What is so "interesting" about a clerical ERROR that was corrected?
    (Not by the Olympics but by the BBC.)


    BBC lists Israel's capital as Jerusalem after complaint
    No capital had been listed on BBC's Israel Olympic country profile

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2591596

    GalileePal> They took all the capitals down because we have pro-Israel like you whining a lot...

    Not only are you the one constantly whining, you are also lying.
    Who is "they"?
    Not the Olympics as sxydrkhair mis-represented.
    Follow the link.


    sxydrkhair> Mayors of Jerusalem

    Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s.
    (Had it not been massacred in the 17th century, this would have been true even further back.)


    GP> 1870 __ 11,000 __ 6,500 ____ 4,500 ______ 11,000 _____ 22,000

    Let's not forget that ianct/GP is the propagandist who claimed that 9 out of 100 is less than 5%.
    Getting all 3 figures wrong.
    Is it any wonder he doesn't realized he just proved me right?


    The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    GP> ?

    Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 1:18 AM GMT
    W>The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.

    G>Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city according to the United nations partition plan. It was actually both Israelis and Arabs. Some Palestinians were caught in the middle.


    W>That's the West Bank OF TRANS-JORDAN.
    As I said, the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    G> Today, West Bank is no longer controls by Jordan. As I said, the area of West Jerusalem was illegally seized by Israel in 1948

    W>And the same is true of most Palestinian Arabs. The majority "don't see it as a one state solution". And the majority are against a one state solution.

    G> Palestinians don't see it because Israel discriminates against Palestinian everyday and treated them unequal citizens to Israelis. Even though, Palestinians living under the Israeli military rules.


    W>Who is "they"?

    G>I was talking about BBC... Ok Lady Tremaine?

    W> Jews were majority in 1870.

    G>Zionist Jewish migrations increased in Jerusalem by 1870, while you ignore the majority of the land owners were PALESTINIANS!

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

    Sep 11, 2012 2:02 AM GMT
    Pouncer saidMore seedy propaganda I see, from the honesty-impaired troll:

    roadbikeRob> the UN divided the city which was wrong.

    Wolverine4> The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.

    False. The "division" of Jerusalem resulted from it being conquered through force by Israel and Jordan.
    Of course, the Arab "rejection" of a non-binding UNGA partition proposal, which awarded a majority of Palestine to a minority settler community, was not "violent", but represented the aspirations of most of Palestine's inhabitants.
    Also, Israel's professed "acceptance" of the proposal was acknowledged privately by the Yishuv leadership to be disingenuous (a carve-up had already been arranged with Jordan, in any case), and the feeble Arab initiative to salvage what was left of the Palestinians - six months of ethnic cleansing too late - presented an asymmetric balance of forces from the start.


    W4> Eastern Jerusalem is located in the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    A slightly more accurate answer to point #1. Though evidently still only a half-truth, at best.


    sxydrkhair> Palestinians and Israelis both are living together in Jerusalem (undivided).

    Wolverine4> Yet you do want to re-divide the city?

    Isn't this a part of the "compromise parameters" you keep talking about?


    sxydrkhair> there is already a One State Solution.

    Wolverine4> False.

    Oh? Well it's true that Israel evacuated about 4,000 settlers from the Sinai in 1982, and about 8,000 from Gaza and Gush Qatif in 2005. But has it ever tried evacuating 400,000 raving Americans from the "biblical heartland" of East Jerusalem and the West Bank? Because last time I looked, that was the most generous Palestinian offer on the table (which would - entirely unjustifiably - maintain about 60% of the illegal settlers in situ). Who's to say the Israeli army will always obey orders, in any case?
    Time to stop building?


    Wolverine4>What is so "interesting" about a clerical ERROR that was corrected? (Not by the Olmpics but by the BBC.)

    I dunno. I'd have thought what would matter would be the international community's stance, not the BBC's.
    But it should be noted that the BBC's "correction" listed Jerusalem as Israel's "seat of government", noting that foreign embassies are located in Tel Aviv (all other nations listed boast a "capital").


    Wolverine 4>Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s. (Had it not been massacred in the 17th century, this would have been true even further back.)

    Obviously misleading.
    It would appear the Jews constituted a RELIGIOUS plurality (in the Old City, that is) since the 1840s, not the 1820s. The Jerusalem area in general, ie. all the districts outside the Old City and all the satellite towns and villages that constitute the immediate area, had been Arab for 1400 years. Had it not been for the Zionist expulsions and massacres of 1948, and the illegal settlement enterprise of the last 45 years, this would still be the case today.
    So if your point is merely to say that Jews constituted an ethnic majority in a fraction of modern-day East Jerusalem between 1870 and 1948, this would appear to be correct.


    Wolverine4> The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    I had no idea the Ottomans were so mean. Could it maybe have something to do with the fact that the Jewish population of the mutasarrifate in question reached an all-time high of 5% in 1917?
    And as for the British, having wrested Palestine from Istanbul through Arab force of arms during WWI, and subsequently promising (according to the Zionist version at least) a state to the Jews stretching from the Mediterranean to the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, you'd think Israel's "defenders" might count the Zionists among the fortunate in this regard. The thousands of Arabs killed by the British in Palestine and in other parts of the Arab World during the "Mandate" years might be considered also.

    For instance, I wonder what fate would have befallen the Arabs, had they murdered scores of international citizens by blowing up the British military headquarters in Jerusalem?
    Let's just say, I doubt it would have mattered a whit that, unlike the Zionists, they actually OWNED the land the empire happened to be occupying against the wishes of its population. Indeed, it would have been Malaya and Amritsar all over again...


    Facts about Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/884102/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are just talk when it comes to the capital of Israel being Jerusalem. Both parties agree that the capital of Israel is/should be Jerusalem, yet the US embassy is still in Tel Aviv. So I wouldn't put too much stock in what the two parties say in their platforms on the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 2:35 AM GMT
    W>Who is "they"?

    G>I was talking about BBC... Ok Lady Tremaine?

    W> Jews were majority in 1870.

    G>Zionist Jewish migrations increased in Jerusalem by 1870, while you ignore the majority of the land owners were PALESTINIANS!

    sfbayguy> I'm not sure why political rights should be connected to personal land ownership.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 2:37 AM GMT
    tru_blu_auzzie said
    19Chris91 said
    tru_blu_auzzie said
    coolarmydude saidMeanwhile, Republicans back-pedal on gay rights on the basis of God.


    and many democrats are stll blinded by hope and change.


    Why do you give a fuck, Australian?


    Well if America gets a cold, it has infected other countries with pneumonia, and since the 1980s I've had an interest in American gay culture, as they back then looked like being world leaders on gay issues and progress. But...... that was not to, come to pass; if anything Oz had surpassed you. Also my man of 20+ years is a yank..


    Again, why do you care enough to insult US Democrats? You seriously think Romney would be better "on gay issues and progress" than Obama?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 3:03 AM GMT
    sxydrkhair> It is interesting how London Olympics did not list Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but it did list Jerusalem as Palestine's capital

    What is so "interesting" about a clerical ERROR that was corrected?
    (Not by the Olympics but by the BBC.)


    BBC lists Israel's capital as Jerusalem after complaint
    No capital had been listed on BBC's Israel Olympic country profile

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2591596

    GalileePal> They took all the capitals down because we have pro-Israel like you whining a lot...

    W4> Not only are you the one constantly whining, you are also lying.
    Who is "they"?

    GP> BBC

    Right, not the "London Olympics" as sxydrkhair lied.
    And the BBC corrected its error, contrary to your lie.

    If your cause is "just", how come you are constantly caught in propaganda lies?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 3:07 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob> the UN divided the city which was wrong.

    The division of Jerusalem resulted from the violent Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and the war they started.

    GalileePal> Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city according to the United nations partition plan.

    Right. And it was the Arab parties which violently rejected this.


    sxydrkhair> E. Jerusalem is located in the Palestinian territories

    False. Eastern Jerusalem is located in the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    GP> East Jerusalem is located in the West Bank

    W4> That's the West Bank OF TRANS-JORDAN.
    As I said, the area illegally seized by Trans-Jordan in 1948.

    GP> Today, West Bank is no longer controls by Jordan.

    Right. So how does eastern Jerusalem become part of the "Palestinian territories"?


    sxydrkhair> there is already a One State Solution.

    False.

    GalileePal> Most Israelis don't see it as a one state solution. Most Israelis are against a one state solution like you.

    W4> And the same is true of most Palestinian Arabs.
    The majority "don't see it as a one state solution".

    GP> Palestinians don't see it because Israel discriminates against Palestinian everyday and treated them unequal citizens to Israelis.

    False on numerous counts.
    Palestinians don't live in Israel and aren't Israeli citizens.
    98% of them live under PA or Hamas rule.
    Thanks for again confirming that sxydrkhair's comment was at best delusional nonsense.

    The majority of Palestinian Arabs are against a one state solution.

    GP> ?


    sxydrkhair> Mayors of Jerusalem

    Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality since the 1820s and an outright majority since the 1870s.
    (Had it not been massacred in the 17th century, this would have been true even further back.)


    GP> 1870 __ 11,000 __ 6,500 ____ 4,500 ______ 11,000 _____ 22,000

    W4> Let's not forget that ianct/GP is the propagandist who claimed that 9 out of 100 is less than 5%.
    Getting all 3 figures wrong.
    Is it any wonder he doesn't realized he just proved me right?

    GP> Zionist Jewish migrations increased in Jerusalem by 1870

    Really? I thought the Zionist era began in 1881.
    That the Jews born before that don't have to go "back" to "Europe".

    You do realize that 1870 is before 1881, right?
    (Hoping you do have at least 2nd grade math skills.)


    The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    GP> ??

    Jerusalem
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/887747
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 11, 2012 10:38 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidI'm not sure why political rights should be connected to personal land ownership.

    You'd prefer they be connected to, say, "biblical rights"?
    I'd say when a people are offered a mere 44% of their country, despite owning almost all the land, while a settler immigrant minority is rewarded 56%, despite owning only 5.8% of the land, that ownership, if not the democratic principle of majoritarian politics, is indeed the issue.


    Not biblical rights either. What are you talking about?

    Anyway, a person shouldn't have more rights than someone else just because the former owns land while the latter does not. The democratic principle of majoritarian politics is NOT about personal land ownership.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 5:00 AM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidI'm not sure why political rights should be connected to personal land ownership.

    You'd prefer they be connected to, say, "biblical rights"?
    I'd say when a people are offered a mere 44% of their country, despite owning almost all the land, while a settler immigrant minority is rewarded 56%, despite owning only 5.8% of the land, that ownership, if not the democratic principle of majoritarian politics, is indeed the issue

    What are you talking about?

    AyaTrollah pouncer doesn't really have a clue what he's talking about, but that doesn't stop him from spouting his propaganda.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1443151

    44%? The 1947 UN partition compromise apportioned 54% of western (cis-Jordanian) Mandate Palestine to a Jewish state and 46% to an Arab state. This after the 1922 partition allocated ALL of western Palestine (22%) to a Jewish state with the other 78% to be an exclusive (no Jews allowed) Arab state.

    From the Mandate document:
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
    Article 2: The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions....

    Article 25: In the territories lying between the Jordan [River] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions

    The "eastern boundary of Palestine" was "ultimately determined" by the western border of Iraq.

    Then in 1923 that became Trans-Jordanian Mandate Palestine, the Palestinian Arab state to be, covering 78% of the territory. Trans-Jordanian Palestine (today known as Jordan) was granted independence in 1946.

    In 1947, the UN partitioned the western "half" (22%) of Mandate Palestine, allocating to the Jewish state only 54% of the territory apportioned to it after WW I. That's only 12%!

    As for land ownership, resident Arabs owned only 3.3% of this 12% while Jews owned 8.6%. The vast majority of it was not privately owned - heck, nearly 70% of it was the Negev Desert!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 6:03 PM GMT
    See what I mean about propaganda pouncer just spewing on and on?
    Like the Energizer bunny of lies and misinformation?

    pp> 56% of mostly Arab land

    Already refuted above.
    Only 3.3% was privately owned by Arabs.
    Nearly 70% was the Negev Desert.
    And the Arabs would keep their land,


    pp> the Arab complaint about this being thereafter labelled as a "rejection" of reasonable compromise?

    The reality is that 54% of the land (of western Mandate Palestine) was allocated to 53% of the population (of western Mandate Palestine).

    And the Arabs would keep their privately owned land under the partition compromise,

    None other than the secretary general of the Arab League admitted that:
    The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely... that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.

    Note further how he compares Palestine to other Arab colonial acquisitions (Spain & Iran).

    None of which excuses, rationalizes or justifies the VIOLENT Arab rejection of the UN partition compromise and their attacks on the Jewish community which started immediately after the UN vote.


    pp> Indeed, the largely unsuccessful Zionist initiative in the early 20th Century to to "buy" Palestinian land was usually done by cutting deals/buying the estates of wealthy landlords, then turfing out the landless Arab peasants.

    False. As David Ben Gurion said (1920):
    under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them...
    Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.

    At least AyaTrollah pouncer has given up on the kangaroo court charge that Jews "stole land".

    The "displacement" ("turf[ed] out") lie has also been repeatedly refuted.
    The 1937 Peel Commission of Inquiry wrote:

    The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

    ...The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.

    Rather than being "displaced" or "turf[ed] out", the Arab population INCREASED "remarkably".
    And it did so precisely in those areas of Jewish development.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 6:17 PM GMT
    sfbayguy said
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidI'm not sure why political rights should be connected to personal land ownership.

    You'd prefer they be connected to, say, "biblical rights"?
    I'd say when a people are offered a mere 44% of their country, despite owning almost all the land, while a settler immigrant minority is rewarded 56%, despite owning only 5.8% of the land, that ownership, if not the democratic principle of majoritarian politics, is indeed the issue.


    Not biblical rights either. What are you talking about?

    Anyway, a person shouldn't have more rights than someone else just because the former owns land while the latter does not. The democratic principle of majoritarian politics is NOT about personal land ownership.


    Here you go bro

    Al Nakba - Palestine
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 6:57 PM GMT
    In other news, problems in America need more attention than the problems unrelated to America in Israel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 7:14 PM GMT
    W> Right. And it was the Arab parties which violently rejected this.

    G>Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a recommendation. UN has recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Zionists and Palestinians, which it was not. The partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a “the Zionist entity”. Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”.

    W> Right. So how does eastern Jerusalem become part of the "Palestinian territories"?

    G> In international law, al Quds is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank. "The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers’ country in the occupied territory." Palestinians claim at al Quds is parts of the West Bank which were not part of Israel prior to June 1967.

    W> False on numerous counts. Palestinians don't live in Israel and aren't Israeli citizens. 98% of them live under PA or Hamas rule. The majority of Palestinian Arabs are against a one state solution.

    G> Support among Palestinians for a one-state solution is increasing... Israel also controls people live there in the West Bank.

    "Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders... The one-state solution... neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal * Christian and Muslim character. For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing."- Michael Tarazi
    source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04tarazi.html?_r=1


    W> Let's not forget that ianct/GP is the propagandist who claimed that 9 out of 100 is less than 5%.

    G> Have no clue what W4 was talking about. Me propagandist? LMAF....What a joke. W4 believe Jews have right to the land because the bible said so. He denies that Palestinian people do exist. Palestinian people have ancestors too that dated back in the Bible time. They also have culture and history as well.


    W> Really? I thought the Zionist era began in 1881. That the Jews born before that don't have to go "back" to "Europe". You do realize that 1870 is before 1881, right? (Hoping you do have at least 2nd grade math skills.)

    G> I never mention anything about the Zionist era began in 1881 in my posts. It was all started by Hovevei Zion, or the Lovers of Zion, were responsible for the creation of 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.

    W> The lack of Jewish mayors prior to 1948 only shows the discriminatory nature of life under the Ottoman Turkish (Muslim Caliphate) occupation and also of the British Mandate.

    P> I had no idea the Ottomans were so mean. Could it maybe have something to do with the fact that the Jewish population of the mutasarrifate in question reached an all-time high of 5% in 1917?
    And as for the British, having wrested Palestine from Istanbul through Arab force of arms during WWI, and subsequently promising (according to the Zionist version at least) a state to the Jews stretching from the Mediterranean to the middle of the Arabian Peninsula, you'd think Israel's "defenders" might count the Zionists among the fortunate in this regard. The thousands of Arabs killed by the British in Palestine and in other parts of the Arab World during the "Mandate" years might be considered also.

    For instance, I wonder what fate would have befallen the Arabs, had they murdered scores of international citizens by blowing up the British military headquarters in Jerusalem?
    Let's just say, I doubt it would have mattered a whit that, unlike the Zionists, they actually OWNED the land the empire happened to be occupying against the wishes of its population. Indeed, it would have been Malaya and Amritsar all over again...


    W> ?

    Facts about Jerusalem

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/884102/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 12, 2012 7:18 PM GMT
    AeroNalex saidIn other news, problems in America need more attention than the problems unrelated to America in Israel.


    Israel controls American congress (pro Zionists) and American foreign policy... The AIPAC!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 4:19 AM GMT
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy said
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidI'm not sure why political rights should be connected to personal land ownership.

    You'd prefer they be connected to, say, "biblical rights"?
    I'd say when a people are offered a mere 44% of their country, despite owning almost all the land, while a settler immigrant minority is rewarded 56%, despite owning only 5.8% of the land, that ownership, if not the democratic principle of majoritarian politics, is indeed the issue.


    Not biblical rights either. What are you talking about?

    Anyway, a person shouldn't have more rights than someone else just because the former owns land while the latter does not. The democratic principle of majoritarian politics is NOT about personal land ownership.

    I think you know what I'm talking about when I mentioned "biblical rights".
    You don't see anything wrong with 56% of mostly Arab land, owned and inhabited by people who want their own form of self determination, being granted (undemocratically!) to a state of minority immigrants? And the Arab complaint about this being thereafter labelled as a "rejection" of reasonable compromise?

    We've learned from some of Israel's defenders recently that Arab farm labourers - unpropertied workers at the very bottom of the Ottoman and Mandate class systems - were expelled justifiably by the Israelis in 1948 because they didn't own "deeds" to the land.
    Indeed, the largely unsuccessful Zionist initiative in the early 20th Century to "buy" Palestinian land was usually done by cutting deals/buying the estates of wealthy landlords, then turfing out the landless Arab peasants.
    Do you condemn this practice?

    Also, if democracy is the only principle worth trying, why not a democratic vote on Palestine's future in 1948?


    Honestly I don't see what the Bible has to do with people's political rights today (other than it's often used as justification to deny people political rights).

    Regarding personal land ownership: The idea that people who own land should have more political rights than people who don't own land is antiquated. Yes, many countries had done that in the past including the US when it was founded (only male landowners could vote). But I don't see why it should apply in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    Anyway, should land have been expropriated from Palestinians? No. Should one group have been able to create a state out from under another group? No. But it happened (as has happened in practically every part of the world at some point). What should be done that is realistic going forward?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 4:24 AM GMT
    GP> The British, having wrested Palestine from Istanbul through Arab force of arms during WWI,

    Sheer idiocy. The Arabs fought for the Turks, against the Brits, in WW I.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that the Arabs living in what would become Mandate Palestine, the vast majority of them Muslim, fought with the British (and Australian and New Zealand) Christians against the Ottoman Caliphate.

    I bet no one can tell us any battles fought by these Arabs against the Ottomans, not before the Allies broke through the Gaza/Beer-Sheba line (in Nov. 1917), not after.

    Indeed, it was the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, Hussein Salim al-Husseini, who delivered the Ottoman Governor's letter of surrender to the British:
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/jerusalem-surrender-party

    When soldiers were transferred from here to the Western front in March of 1918 (to counter the German offensive), troops had to be brought in from the Indian Army, including Gurkhas.
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/gurkhas-palestine
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/indian-lancers-enter-haifa

    Even after the decisive battle of Megiddo there was little help from the Arabs in fighting the Ottomans:
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/palestine-campaign/trans-jordan-raids
    strong Ottoman counter-attacks, and the failure of promised local Arab tribal support to materialise, forced the British and Anzac troopers back in many places and left the Australian Light Horsemen in a dangerously vulnerable position.


    If anyone needs more conclusive evidence, look at this photo:
    hill-infantry-palestine.jpg
    Note the Arab keffiyeh head-dress on the soldiers (as opposed to the white helmet of the Turkish officer at the top left).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 5:25 AM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidGP> The British, having wrested Palestine from Istanbul through Arab force of arms during WWI,

    Sheer idiocy. The Arabs fought for the Turks, against the Brits, in WW I.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that the Arabs living in what would become Mandate Palestine, the vast majority of them Muslim, fought with the British (and Australian and New Zealand) Christians against the Ottoman Caliphate.

    I bet no one can tell us any battles fought by these Arabs against the Ottomans, not before the Allies broke through the Gaza/Beer-Sheba line (in Nov. 1917), not after.

    Indeed, it was the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, Hussein Salim al-Husseini, who delivered the Ottoman Governor's letter of surrender to the British:
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/jerusalem-surrender-party

    When soldiers were transferred from here to the Western front in March of 1918 (to counter the German offensive), troops had to be brought in from the Indian Army, including Gurkhas.
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/gurkhas-palestine
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/indian-lancers-enter-haifa

    Even after the decisive battle of Megiddo there was little help from the Arabs in fighting the Ottomans:
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/palestine-campaign/trans-jordan-raids
    strong Ottoman counter-attacks, and the failure of promised local Arab tribal support to materialise, forced the British and Anzac troopers back in many places and left the Australian Light Horsemen in a dangerously vulnerable position.


    If anyone needs more conclusive evidence, look at this photo:
    hill-infantry-palestine.jpg
    Note the Arab keffiyeh head-dress on the soldiers (as opposed to the white helmet of the Turkish officer at the top left).


    Your respond was for Pouncer. Read careful next time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 6:29 AM GMT
    GP> Your respond was for Pouncer.

    No one cares about Pouncer.

    I figured that you were repeating his nonsense because you thought it was correct.
    Unless, that is, you were just spreading his lie-for-the-cause.

    Hopefully you are now (and forever) clear on the fact that the Arabs of what became Mandate Palestine fought with the Ottoman Turks against the British. But I suspect that you'll "forget" this and regurgitate it again when you think this lie might be useful-for-the-cause.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    W> No one cares about Pouncer.

    G> Because you have no facts... You come in here posting your anti-Palestinian Zionist propaganda and misleading many realjock with your bullsh*t LIE.


    W> I figured that you were repeating his nonsense because you thought it was correct.

    G> I never said it was correct, I want to hear your opinion and Pouncer. But you claiming it was my post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 13, 2012 9:50 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidHonestly I don't see what the Bible has to do with people's political rights today (other than it's often used as justification to deny people political rights).

    Precisely.

    sfbayguy saidRegarding personal land ownership: The idea that people who own land should have more political rights than people who don't own land is antiquated. Yes, many countries had done that in the past including the US when it was founded (only male landowners could vote). But I don't see why it should apply in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    People who own land have "ownership rights" over their property.
    Should American-owned farms and businesses in North Dakota be handed over to Canada in the name of "partition"? Of course not. Certainly not if those Americans have no wish to become Canadians, and would rather live under American law, and vote for American politicians.


    Agreed. But remember, didn't that land in North Dakota belong to someone else before who didn't necessarily want to be part of the US?

    [quote]
    sfbayguy saidAnyway, should land have been expropriated from Palestinians? No. Should one group have been able to create a state out from under another group? No. But it happened (as has happened in practically every part of the world at some point). What should be done that is realistic going forward?

    Yes, it's all too common where Western imperialism once reigned (ie. everywhere, except China). I'd say though, before we move on to possible solutions, an acknowledgment of the past injustices and a complete end to all the gruesome apologetics is the least our societies can do.
    [/quote]

    Hey, I have no problem with people admitting their errors. Heck, admitting the errors of previous generations should be easier anyway. But at the same time, no one should expect their 40 acres and a mule.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 14, 2012 12:09 AM GMT
    Pouncer said
    sfbayguy saidAgreed. But remember, didn't that land in North Dakota belong to someone else before who didn't necessarily want to be part of the US?

    Absolutely. My Canada scenario was hypothetical. But the crimes committed against the Native Americans are very real, possibly unprecedented.
    You know there are Native American towns in North Dakota that have no running water, aren't hooked up to a sewage system, and where the life expectancy is ~40 years?
    Yet believe it or not, we still sometimes have to deal with dirge like this:

    "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."

    Those are the words of Benny Morris, a noted Israeli historian who has defended the ethnic cleansing by Israel of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs, with the refrain "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".
    Remarkably, his views are still widely cited by Israel's apologists on RJ. "Wolverine4", a notorious apologist, is of the view that these sentiments are not racist.

    sfbayguy saidHey, I have no problem with people admitting their errors. Heck, admitting the errors of previous generations should be easier anyway. But at the same time, no one should expect their 40 acres and a mule.

    Unless they were the previous owners, of course icon_smile.gif


    My point in saying no one should expect 40 acres and a mule is because they are not likely to get them, just as American descendants of slaves won't and just as Native Americans in North Dakota (and the entire US) won't. Though Palestinians should bring it up in the future in an effort to get better terms in a peace agreement.