Israel rejects UN call for Gaza war crimes inquiry.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While there is sometruth to the Common Courtesy assertion of "Not all Palestinians are bad; but they have chosen who they want to represent them and must live with the results. They just make bad choices over and over again. "

The myth is that the Palestinians have any real choices. Once Israel started confiscating their land, tossing them into concentrations camps, and making them into third class citizens in the land of their birth, what choices do they have? How can we expect them to be content with their lot?

Worse yet the surrounding Arab nations leadership use the Palestinians for propaganda value, but will not help them in any real way. At least the Gaza residents in electing Hamas get social services from the Hamas social wing, and do not have to worry about Israeli settlement in their dung hill ghetto. And West Bank Palestinians in electing the former terrorist party of Yassir Arafat and now tamed, get some social services from from Fatah, but always have to worry about violent Israeli settlers taking more and more land.

Missing in action is that viable Palestinian State that could give them hope for the future and something to build a future on.

Given that bleak out look, we have to wonder how long Fatah will last if they can't deliver a future for West bank residents. To some extent only Abbas holds Fatah together and the cracks are already appearing.

And I will leave it to Common Courtesy to explain to that new Born Palestinians, sorry, your parents and grandparents just were not violent enough to displace the Israelis who stole your hope and future.

Somewhere missing in action is any semblance of fairness and sharing between Israelis and Palestinians.

Just to show the cycle; remember that the Palestinians/Arabs had no sense of fairness /sharing in '48. What was the intend of the Arab nations then - not to reach out with a hand to their brethren; but to wipe Israel from the map. And that continued for the next 25 years.

Then follows another 35 years of terror attacks against the civilian population of Israel and civilian representatives of Israel as well as other Jews around the world.

The new born Palestinians have to live the the consequences of their predecessors actions.
That is the way the world acts. The sons inherit the evils of the father.

It will be up to the sons to discard the evil shroud and demonstrate such. To continue wearing the shroud will be to condemn their own sons.

The Arabs/Palestinians have had 60 years to do so - few have done it. Those that have done so have prospered. Those that choose to not do so have voluntarily condemned the children to the same cycle.

One can ask why the Palestinians were placed into camps. It was not for their land, but for the safety of the new nation against those that assisted in the attempted destruction of them.
1) That is where the Arabs wanted them - they did not want them in their territories
2) Israel had no reason to trust them at the time and the cycle of hatred continues as a result.

The land was supposed to belong to the Palestinians as a nation. Where is that nation?
Aborted in the womb by the Arabs in '48. The UN felt that the Palestinians were not ready for their own nation and expected the Arabs to nurture them along until they were ready.

Are they ready now?

 

[Lemon law]

Excuse me QuantomPion, when I note you are fulll of shit in saying, "I like how you pretend to make a rational argument and then sneak your anti-semitic ravings in the middle. Clever. "

But when I presume my own internal standards of what is fair and not fair, it becomes impossible to call either the Palestinian or Israeli sides of the question fair. We can become all bogged down in listing all the wrongs on either side, then choose one side as being the good guys, and cherry pick all the wrongs the other side commits, or we can just look at the end results. And realize both sides are wrong, neither of them are the good guys, and its the Palestinians who got the far shorter end of the stick in the end shuffle.

Because the price of mideast peace will be a fair and equitable settlement to both sides (even if we can possibly think of it as only two sides) , we can hope it can be mutually agreed between Israelis and Palestinians, but at the end of the day, I suspect that its going to take binding third party arbitration.

But only a fool thinks that much inequity will be lasting.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me QuantomPion, when I note you are fulll of shit in saying, "I like how you pretend to make a rational argument and then sneak your anti-semitic ravings in the middle. Clever. "

But when I presume my own internal standards of what is fair and not fair, it becomes impossible to call either the Palestinian or Israeli sides of the question fair. We can become all bogged down in listing all the wrongs on either side, then choose one side as being the good guys, and cherry pick all the wrongs the other side commits, or we can just look at the end results. And realize both sides are wrong, neither of them are the good guys, and its the Palestinians who got the far shorter end of the stick in the end shuffle.

Because the price of mideast peace will be a fair and equitable settlement to both sides (even if we can possibly think of it as only two sides) , we can hope it can be mutually agreed between Israelis and Palestinians, but at the end of the day, I suspect that its going to take binding third party arbitration.

But only a fool thinks that much inequity will be lasting.

That might be a fair argument coming from someone else, but coming from you it has no credibility. You can't rave about Jews putting Palestinians in concentration camps in one post, and in the next plead for fairness from both sides.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The land was supposed to belong to the Palestinians as a nation. Where is that nation?
Aborted in the womb by the Arabs in '48. The UN felt that the Palestinians were not ready for their own nation and expected the Arabs to nurture them along until they were ready.

Are they ready now?

Who knows? But what say we get those illegal Israeli settlements off their land and find out?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Excuse me QuantomPion, when I note you are fulll of shit in saying, "I like how you pretend to make a rational argument and then sneak your anti-semitic ravings in the middle. Clever. "

But when I presume my own internal standards of what is fair and not fair, it becomes impossible to call either the Palestinian or Israeli sides of the question fair. We can become all bogged down in listing all the wrongs on either side, then choose one side as being the good guys, and cherry pick all the wrongs the other side commits, or we can just look at the end results. And realize both sides are wrong, neither of them are the good guys, and its the Palestinians who got the far shorter end of the stick in the end shuffle.

Because the price of mideast peace will be a fair and equitable settlement to both sides (even if we can possibly think of it as only two sides) , we can hope it can be mutually agreed between Israelis and Palestinians, but at the end of the day, I suspect that its going to take binding third party arbitration.

But only a fool thinks that much inequity will be lasting.

That might be a fair argument coming from someone else, but coming from you it has no credibility. You can't rave about Jews putting Palestinians in concentration camps in one post, and in the next plead for fairness from both sides.

I am glad that somebody sees the total hypocrisy of anything Lemon law posts concerning Israel.

In fact lemon law has come out of the closet...he previously has admitted on these forums that everything that happens in the middle east is Israel`s fault.

You are exactly correct when you say -- You can't rave about Jews putting Palestinians in concentration camps in one post, and in the next plead for fairness from both sides.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe QuatunPion should brush up on his history before saying, " Maybe you should brush up on your history. The first time Israel "stole" land from the Palestinians was in 1967 when Egypt + Syria + Jordan (with Soviet Russia support) blockaded and de facto declared war on Israel."

In a word no, as both Jews and Palestinian living next door from each other fled the approaching armies rather than be at ground zero, when the dust settled after that 1948 conflict, the Jews were welcomed back, while the Palestinian had his land confiscated and was thrown into concentrations camps. That in a nutshell is the origin of the right to return, something that still drives the conflict today.

The 1967 war is another matter, as UN members, Israel can not gain land by right of conquest.

When you side with the enemy & losing team, would you honestly be expected to be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

And has been demonstrated over the past years, many Palestinians & Arabs have taken advantage of the looseness of the Israeli borders to stab the civilian population.

It may be a catch 22; but Israeli civilians have been on the targeted end of Palestinian terrorism, both in Israel and abroad.

Fair enough, but seriously, what would the situation be for Palestinians if they did absolutely zero violence to Israeli civilians?

Circa 1948? If the seven muslim nations didn't try to eradicate Israel from the beginning? They would have a country called Palestine larger then Israel is:
1947

Circa 1993? they would have had contiguous country with part of Jerusalem, free from any Jewish settlements or influence:
1993

[/quote]

I think those are debatable, and would still leave them without a lot of the land they have an argument for, but circa now, or circa 2000.

You might see some fewer security measures, but it seems you would stilll have them under pretty intolerable conditions, with settlements going full speed ahead.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Circa 1948? If the seven muslim nations didn't try to eradicate Israel from the beginning? They would have a country called Palestine larger then Israel is:
1947

That UN partition plan allotted more land to Israel than Palestinians, about 56$ to 43%, and by the end of 1947 Israeli militias and terrorist groups had started a program of ethnically cleansing Palestinians from both sides of that partition.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Circa 1993? they would have had contiguous country with part of Jerusalem, free from any Jewish settlements or influence:
1993

By 1993 Israel already had hundreds of thousands of settlers living across the West Bank and Gaza, and kept expanding their presence there in spite of the agreements they had made to the contrary.

So, do you have an argument that isn't BS?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Circa 1948? If the seven muslim nations didn't try to eradicate Israel from the beginning? They would have a country called Palestine larger then Israel is:
1947

That UN partition plan allotted more land to Israel than Palestinians, about 56$ to 43%, and by the end of 1947 Israeli militias and terrorist groups had started a program of ethnically cleansing Palestinians from both sides of that partition.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Circa 1993? they would have had contiguous country with part of Jerusalem, free from any Jewish settlements or influence:
1993

By 1993 Israel already had hundreds of thousands of settlers living across the West Bank and Gaza, and kept expanding their presence there in spite of the agreements they had made to the contrary.

So, do you have an argument that isn't BS?

Israel had more square miles but most of it was desert wasteland (south of Beersheeba to the Sinai). The Palestinians would have also had the entire fertile Golan Heights and control of the Jordan River.

While there were riots and violence on both sides, there was no terrorism or ethnic cleansing of any sort.

Again, as for Israeli settlements, you miss the big picture. You may disagree with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. However, how do you justify using children suicide bombers to blow up schools, restaurants, night clubs, etc and raining down rockets upon cities as a response?

You asked the question where would the Palestinians be if they did not resort to violence. The answer is, They would not get everything they want. But they could be no worse than they are now. You make it seem as if it were not for Palestinians murdering random Israeli civilians, Israel would have rolled over and eradicated all the Arabs. I assure you this is not the case for the Jews (it was however the goal of the Arabs on multiple occasions).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Israel had more square miles but most of it was desert wasteland (south of Beersheeba to the Sinai). The Palestinians would have also had the entire fertile Golan Heights and control of the Jordan River.

The vast majority of the Golan Heights was allocated to Syria in 1923, and that "desert wasteland" would have given Palestinians a port on the Red Sea, a great place to build a nuclear power plant, and plenty of room to expand villages into cites there, just as has been in many such "desert wastelands" all across the world. Besides, that "desert wasteland" was largely inhabited by Palestinians at the time, and of those who remain Israel treats like dirt.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
While there were riots and violence on both sides, there was no terrorism or ethnic cleansing of any sort.

There were Zionist terrorist groups such as Irgun and Lehi, and along with Zionist militia Haganah, they ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from across both sides of the partition plan, depopulating hundreds of towns and villages, and outright destroying many

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Again, as for Israeli settlements, you miss the big picture. You may disagree with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. However, how do you justify using children suicide bombers to blow up schools, restaurants, night clubs, etc and raining down rockets upon cities as a response?

I've no interest in justifying either, as I see no legitimate purpose in either. But that prompts me to ask why are you trying to justify the first, what purpose does the cycle of violence which revolves around it serve to you?

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You asked the question where would the Palestinians be if they did not resort to violence.

No, I wasn't the one asking that question, as I don't humor the bigoted idea that any grouping of people should be held collectively responsible for the crimes of their worst.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You make it seem as if it were not for Palestinians murdering random Israeli civilians, Israel would have rolled over and eradicated all the Arabs.

I said nothing to suggest anything of the sort, and if you care to quote where you think I did, I'd be happy to address your confusion.

On the other hand, you seem to believe the small fraction of Palestinians who have murdered Israeli civilians makes all Palestinians being held under overwhelming military force, while having their homeland colonized out from under them, and being killed off whenever they happen to get in the way. Does that sum up your postion here?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Israel had more square miles but most of it was desert wasteland (south of Beersheeba to the Sinai). The Palestinians would have also had the entire fertile Golan Heights and control of the Jordan River.

The vast majority of the Golan Heights was allocated to Syria in 1923, and that "desert wasteland" would have given Palestinians a port on the Red Sea, a great place to build a nuclear power plant, and plenty of room to expand villages into cites there, just as has been in many such "desert wastelands" all across the world. Besides, that "desert wasteland" was largely inhabited by Palestinians at the time, and of those who remain Israel treats like dirt.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
While there were riots and violence on both sides, there was no terrorism or ethnic cleansing of any sort.

There were Zionist terrorist groups such as Irgun and Lehi, and along with Zionist militia Haganah, they ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from across both sides of the partition plan, depopulating hundreds of towns and villages, and outright destroying many

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Again, as for Israeli settlements, you miss the big picture. You may disagree with Israeli settlements in the West Bank. However, how do you justify using children suicide bombers to blow up schools, restaurants, night clubs, etc and raining down rockets upon cities as a response?

I've no interest in justifying either, as I see no legitimate purpose in either. But that prompts me to ask why are you trying to justify the first, what purpose does the cycle of violence which revolves around it serve to you?

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You asked the question where would the Palestinians be if they did not resort to violence.

No, I wasn't the one asking that question, as I don't humor the bigoted idea that any grouping of people should be held collectively responsible for the crimes of their worst.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You make it seem as if it were not for Palestinians murdering random Israeli civilians, Israel would have rolled over and eradicated all the Arabs.

I said nothing to suggest anything of the sort, and if you care to quote where you think I did, I'd be happy to address your confusion.

On the other hand, you seem to believe the small fraction of Palestinians who have murdered Israeli civilians makes all Palestinians being held under overwhelming military force, <-- small faction?? hardly...they are big enough to negsate any peace talks that might even be considered.

So in your wisdom how does the world deal with this "small" faction?



while having their homeland colonized out from under them, and being killed off whenever they happen to get in the way. Does that sum up your postion here?

 

[kylebisme]

JEDIYoda, I'm not going to bother reading your posts anymore until you bother to separate your comments from what you quote.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
JEDIYoda, I'm not going to bother reading your posts anymore until you bother to separate your comments from what you quote.

On the other hand, you seem to believe the small fraction of Palestinians who have murdered Israeli civilians makes all Palestinians being held under overwhelming military force, <-- small faction?? hardly...they are big enough to negsate any peace talks that might even be considered.


actually the only question i asked was -- So in your wisdom how does the world deal with this "small" faction?

But i knew you wouldn`t be able to answer the question..lol

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
small faction?? hardly...they are big enough to negsate any peace talks that might even be considered.

Any fraction is big enough if you are looking for an excuse.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
actually the only question i asked was -- So in your wisdom how does the world deal with this "small" faction?

The worlds wisdom is to take away their motivation though Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, as has been voted for by overwhelming majority in the UNGA for decades now. Unfortunately, the faction know as Zionists want nothing of the sort, and have been exploiting US veto power over the UNSC to prevent any steps from accomplishing hat goal. Only after that changes can we ever hope to capture or kill off the terrorists without inspiring more to stand up to take their place.