Israel to colonize new Palestinian territory

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Incorrect. The 1967 war was pre-emptive on Israel's part, or so they claim. They're the ones who started shooting first...

But I'm sure it's convenient to claim otherwise.
Ain't it funny to have this come out of the mouth of a guy who uses the word "agitprop" as if he was getting a commission?

It truly takes some remarkable revisionist history to blame Israel for the 1967 war.

What's that Jhhnn? Am I hearing "false attribution"? Surely you did not insinuate that they started the war, right?
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
This is why I advocate a speedy push for a peace process.

And this is why zionists want to draw the process out as long as possible - because Israel will steal more and more land.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
wrong move by Israel

it just shows Israel's true goal. To have as much land as possible with no regard for who lives there.
sound familiar?
open up a history book.
Yes, Israel building this settlement PROVES their real goal.

But Iran blocking inspectors proves nothing right?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Just to be clear I think Israel should not be building on any disputed lands until a final peace agreement can be reached. The only thing a settlement like this does is provide ammo for their enemy.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Narmer
Of course they did. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
This is just typical antisemitic BS actually.

Egypt clearly committed an act of war by blockading the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which clearly violated the rules of international navigation, they just were not prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

You're a God-damn idiot considering both sides are Semitic people.

Originally posted by: JD50

In a war, you have one side that attacks and one side that defends, Israel was the defender.

Wrong. It's already been discussed so please go away.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Narmer
Of course they did. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
This is just typical antisemitic BS actually.

Egypt clearly committed an act of war by blockading the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which clearly violated the rules of international navigation, they just were not prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

You're a God-damn idiot considering both sides are Semitic people.

Originally posted by: JD50

In a war, you have one side that attacks and one side that defends, Israel was the defender.

Wrong. It's already been discussed so please go away.

No, you didn't discuss it, and you didn't answer any of my questions, par for the course.

Unless you consider "I'm right and your wrong".....

 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aimster
wrong move by Israel

it just shows Israel's true goal. To have as much land as possible with no regard for who lives there.
sound familiar?
open up a history book.
Yes, Israel building this settlement PROVES their real goal.

But Iran blocking inspectors proves nothing right?

& this thread has what to do with Iran?

If you can't learn to debate you can always stfu?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aimster
wrong move by Israel

it just shows Israel's true goal. To have as much land as possible with no regard for who lives there.
sound familiar?
open up a history book.
Yes, Israel building this settlement PROVES their real goal.

But Iran blocking inspectors proves nothing right?

& this thread has what to do with Iran?

If you can't learn to debate you can always stfu?


I'll give you a hint, he is showing you your hypocrisy.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aimster
wrong move by Israel

it just shows Israel's true goal. To have as much land as possible with no regard for who lives there.
sound familiar?
open up a history book.
Yes, Israel building this settlement PROVES their real goal.

But Iran blocking inspectors proves nothing right?

& this thread has what to do with Iran?

If you can't learn to debate you can always stfu?


I'll give you a hint, he is showing you your hypocrisy.

I'll show you another hint,

I've only posted in one thread that dealt with Iran blocking inspections and my answer was

"because Iran lied about their enrichment program when they said they were enriching more than the West believed." that shows a lot of hypocrisy doesn't it?

Yes I see a lot of hypocrisy there. I called Iran a liar for saying they were enriching uranium using the number of centrifuges they claim to have.

I post facts about Iran and the history of Iran. You don't know what my position is on Iran.

You can join your buddy in the "I think I know it all corner"
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: JD50
No, you didn't discuss it, and you didn't answer any of my questions, par for the course.

Unless you consider "I'm right and your wrong".....
That's Narmer for you: once you prove him clueless, he'll latch on any other word in your post, and discuss nothing else.

He And Jhhnn-y boy would probably also claim that 73 was also started by Israel -- don't ask me how, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Anyway, on the issue at hand, people talk as if is a palestinian standing on every inch of the land, or that it ever belonged to the "palestinian people". I guess they forget the Ottoman were the landlords for a few centuries, then the Brits, and then Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950. Well, I guess it just sounds better to agitate and say that thousands will be made homeless, or that some olive trees will be uprooted -- awesome how the BBC gives you those details and not the usual palestinian ramble, right?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: JD50
No, you didn't discuss it, and you didn't answer any of my questions, par for the course.

Unless you consider "I'm right and your wrong".....
That's Narmer for you: once you prove him clueless, he'll latch on any other word in your post, and discuss nothing else.

He And Jhhnn-y boy would probably also claim that 73 was also started by Israel -- don't ask me how, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Anyway, on the issue at hand, people talk as if is a palestinian standing on every inch of the land, or that it ever belonged to the "palestinian people". I guess they forget the Ottoman were the landlords for a few centuries, then the Brits, and then Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950. Well, I guess it just sounds better to agitate and say that thousands will be made homeless, or that some olive trees will be uprooted -- awesome how the BBC gives you those details and not the usual palestinian ramble, right?

OK. LET ME REPEAT THIS IN CASE YOU GIRLS ARE TOO SLOW TO UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF A MAN HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND MAKES ALL TYPES OF THREATENING REMARKS, IF YOU END UP SHOOTING HIM FIRST AND KILLING HIM, RIGHT OR WRONG, THEN YOU SHOT HIM FIRST, END OF STORY.

I don't care what the reasons were, all I'm saying is that you were the first to pull the trigger. It's not awfully difficult to understand. Your fears, morals and dogmas may speak for you in a court of law or public opinion, but stop denying the fact that you didn't shoot first. I can't believe I'm having such a stupid argument.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Narmer, you are deluded.

Israel didn't start the war, and the question never was "who attacked first?" as you so asserted in the last post on the first page.

Hell, even if you ignore the blockade (as you have), there were enough border incidents where Syria, Egypt and Jordan have either acted directly against Israel, or were assisting the PLO, for us to conclude that they attacked first.

However, this is a case of boo-freaking-hoo, where Israel is being accused for being the agressor for laying the smack down and refusing to play along, just like Aimster advocated in regards to the conflict with Hezbollah.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: JD50
No, you didn't discuss it, and you didn't answer any of my questions, par for the course.

Unless you consider "I'm right and your wrong".....
That's Narmer for you: once you prove him clueless, he'll latch on any other word in your post, and discuss nothing else.

He And Jhhnn-y boy would probably also claim that 73 was also started by Israel -- don't ask me how, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Anyway, on the issue at hand, people talk as if is a palestinian standing on every inch of the land, or that it ever belonged to the "palestinian people". I guess they forget the Ottoman were the landlords for a few centuries, then the Brits, and then Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950. Well, I guess it just sounds better to agitate and say that thousands will be made homeless, or that some olive trees will be uprooted -- awesome how the BBC gives you those details and not the usual palestinian ramble, right?

OK. LET ME REPEAT THIS IN CASE YOU GIRLS ARE TOO SLOW TO UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF A MAN HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND MAKES ALL TYPES OF THREATENING REMARKS, IF YOU END UP SHOOTING HIM FIRST AND KILLING HIM, RIGHT OR WRONG, THEN YOU SHOT HIM FIRST, END OF STORY.

I don't care what the reasons were, all I'm saying is that you were the first to pull the trigger. It's not awfully difficult to understand. Your fears, morals and dogmas may speak for you in a court of law or public opinion, but stop denying the fact that you didn't shoot first. I can't believe I'm having such a stupid argument.


Maybe you should go back over your posts and reread what you wrote....The issue is not who shot first, the issue is who attacked first, wait, you actually said that yourself, heh.

The question was who attacked first?

If your home was surrounded by people pointing guns at your house, with the obvious intention of killing you and your family, you would not be considered the attacker, you would be defending your home. If "IF A MAN HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND MAKES ALL TYPES OF THREATENING REMARKS, IF YOU END UP SHOOTING HIM FIRST AND KILLING HIM" you would not be considered the attacker in a court of law, it would be considered self defense.

In response to "Israel didnt decide to start a war" you said -

Of course they did. Stop trying to defend the indefensible

Now, "IF A MAN HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND MAKES ALL TYPES OF THREATENING REMARKS, IF YOU END UP SHOOTING HIM FIRST AND KILLING HIM" you would not be the one that started this conflict, the person that started this would be the guy that came up to you and pointed a gun at your head. If your home was surrounded by an armed gang you would not be the one that started that conflict, it would be the gang that surrounded your house.



 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,379
7,443
136
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: JD50
No, you didn't discuss it, and you didn't answer any of my questions, par for the course.

Unless you consider "I'm right and your wrong".....
That's Narmer for you: once you prove him clueless, he'll latch on any other word in your post, and discuss nothing else.

He And Jhhnn-y boy would probably also claim that 73 was also started by Israel -- don't ask me how, but I'm sure they'll find a way.

Anyway, on the issue at hand, people talk as if is a palestinian standing on every inch of the land, or that it ever belonged to the "palestinian people". I guess they forget the Ottoman were the landlords for a few centuries, then the Brits, and then Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950. Well, I guess it just sounds better to agitate and say that thousands will be made homeless, or that some olive trees will be uprooted -- awesome how the BBC gives you those details and not the usual palestinian ramble, right?

OK. LET ME REPEAT THIS IN CASE YOU GIRLS ARE TOO SLOW TO UNDERSTAND. EVEN IF A MAN HAS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND MAKES ALL TYPES OF THREATENING REMARKS, IF YOU END UP SHOOTING HIM FIRST AND KILLING HIM, RIGHT OR WRONG, THEN YOU SHOT HIM FIRST, END OF STORY.

Otherwise known as might makes right, which case Israel should deploy its full military might on the region, kill all the fighters who resist, and assume absolute control over that land - and we should not stand in their way.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,379
7,443
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just to be clear I think Israel should not be building on any disputed lands until a final peace agreement can be reached. The only thing a settlement like this does is provide ammo for their enemy.

True, but I don't think they should be dealing anything but death to their enemy.
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Originally posted by: magomago
This is why I advocate a speedy push for a peace process.

And this is why zionists want to draw the process out as long as possible - because Israel will steal more and more land.
Remember after Rabin was assasinated?
A lot of people were doing soul seraching, and the labour party was empowered.

What was the Palestinian's way of "expediting" the process? Multiple suicide bombings on buses, making sure that the process would grind to a halt, only a couple of years after it started.

Remarkable how these little details escape you, and how you pull out the "zionist" boogeyman to scare the little children.

As for land stealing: just because it is not in the green line, doesn't mean it's palestinian, as there never was a palestinian state -- all that land was annexed by Jordan in 1951. Of course, if you want to play the Arab victim card and tell us about demolished houses and olive trees, then by all means.... (I guess 60 years in a "refugee" camp will do that to you)
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: Martin
So they're not supposed to fight, they're not supposed to complain, they're not supposed to negotiate... what exactly do you want them to do? Kill themselves and leave their land to Israelis?

How about not make settlements in Palestinian territory? What purpose does that serve? It's not self defense, it's provocation. Am I the only one who finds this settlement stuff mind boggling??
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I have to regard this decision by Israel to seize more disputed land as one more poisoned pill Israel is taking. In the longer sweep of history, its an act of national suicide. In the end its going to be easier to relocate the Israeli people than it is to prop them up in a region where they do everything possible to offend their far more numerous neighbors.

Military might may prop Israel up for now, but the hegemony can't endure long without US support. In the end, the USA will have to choose between supporting a bunch of arrogant prigs in Israel and our own self-interests in the mid-east. The Iraqi occupation just accelerates the process.

And the fall of GWB&co. will hopefully open the way to new types of thinking. Right now Israel demands everything and gives nothing back to the region. Until that changes, Israel is long term doomed.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
What in the hell?

Why would they further worsen their image by attempting to spread their territory? They're just as big of animals as the Palestinians, and the Christians. They better learn their place.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
What in the hell?

Why would they further worsen their image by attempting to spread their territory? They're just as big of animals as the Palestinians, and the Christians. They better learn their place.
Which is?

 

Sunner

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
11,641
0
76
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: brandonb
Its a revolving issue.

They do it to each other. Israel know building settlements will cause Palestinian's to suicide bomb them, and that is the excuse they use to build new settlements. I'm not pointing fingers any side. I'm just saying at this point both of them are using whatever as an excuse to escalate the conflict and neither side is willing to do what it takes to solve the issue.

They just feed off each other.

I admit that is the case. Yet who are we (the international community) to tell both of them that they must sit back and let this ongoing war continue indefinitely? In the long run many lives would be saved if we stayed the hell out of that region and let Israel do everything necessary to force Palestine to surrender.

Instead of allowing the war to end, we force them to stand back and jab at each other indefinitely.


Build a dome and throw away the key for 100 years. If they can't figure that stuff out themself, noone else can. This crap has been going on for 50 years.

This is a sound plan.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
They won it in a war they didnt start. Build away. We in the west like to draw an arbitrary line in history as to when it was no longer acceptable to keep the land you conquer. Convenient for us that we did all our land grabs before that date.

Incorrect. The 1967 war was pre-emptive on Israel's part, or so they claim. They're the ones who started shooting first...

But I'm sure it's convenient to claim otherwise.

Why should they return land the obtained in a war? Do we require this of other countries? Or is this some new enlightened means of existing since the WW2? After all one could say Israel exists from land taken in war, why not make them give that back too?