You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
😆 -> Junkyard land loss ...^^^
What? Are you going ape shite over others affairs? What a trouble maker this person is ...
Oh no you don't!
DrJ - Member
I wonder if chewy's gibberish makes sense in his own head.
[b]Oi! I thought you have blocked yourself from reading my comments? No?[/b]
Are you attempting to be funny? You know that's poor don't you. 😀
What Dr are you by the way? Medical? Engineer? Social? What?
[u]the map looks like there is only one side trying to wipe the other of the face of the map[/u] as zionists tell u show peaceful they really are as [u]they continue to expand illegally[/u]
The bigger picture:
[img] http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/willow/history-of-israel2.gi f" target="_blank">
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/willow/history-of-israel2.gi f"/> [/img]
Now, if we look at the 'bigger picture' and ask your question again:
DO you really think Israel would even go back to the 1967 line?
doesn't the [u]evidence[/u], rather than Palestinian hyperbole show that the Israelis have been more than willing to do exactly that in return for peace?
Now, do you think that they would have done that if the Egyptians had kept firing rockets at them?
Perhaps I did not say Israel enough for you to grasp where i was discussing.
Do you think they would have handed it back if the Egyptians had not maintained a state of war against Israel?
Respectfully some issue are not worth discussing with you and this is one. There will be no more from me to you on this as you are , at best, being a devils advocate.
[Shall I save time and say nice goad 😛 ]
No, you started off by saying
Israel, and is zionist supporters, need to understand you cannot win lands in war then claim them as your own and that giving up what they stole is the only road to peace
Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace 😳
Do you think they would have handed it back if the Egyptians had not maintained a state of war against Israel?
The state of war ended in 1979:
[img] 
[/img]
The maps clearly show Israel handing land back to Israel both [i]before[/i] the end of the state of war, in 1975 and [i]after[/i] it in 1982, which I'm afraid somewhat undermines your argument 😳
you are , at best, being a devils advocate.
Now don't you go getting upset at me for pointing to inconvenient truths that weaken your arguments 😉
Israel, and is zionist supporters, need to understand you cannot win lands in war then claim them as your own and that giving up what they stole is the only road to peace
That was what I said and they gave back land to gain peace - that was what was signed in 1979 - they agreed to withdraw fully.
The first withdrawal boeing after signing the Interim agreement on Sinai- go on look at the map you posted and see if you can guess the year
Your right i feel dead foolish now and clearly they can have peace and keep the land and that is what that map shows. Clearly they dont have to give back land to get peace. that map shows that and no mistake
Thanks for the correction
This is why its pointless debating with you
You are an intelligent fellow - unlike some on here - but you try so hard to be contrary your points often become gibberish and actually supports my point.
The fail is strong today etc
Seriously no more replies but that was such a fail i had to .
Now don't you go getting upset at me for pointing to inconvenient truths that weaken your arguments
I only do this when you manage 😉
Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace
Although Begin wasn't exactly keen to let go of Palestinian lands....
[i]During his tenure as prime minister, Begin forbade the negotiation agenda to include the West Bank and those portions of Jerusalem that the Israeli government annexed after the 1967 Six-Day war. This refusal to negotiate became Carter's core disagreement with Begin. Carter realized that with Begin adamant against further concessions, he had no tangible item to offer to the Palestinians or other Arab leaders to reach a broader peace agreement. With Begin not offering a fallback position, Carter could not initiate a conclusive Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process. He never forgave Begin.
Intertwined in the dispute over the West Bank was the issue of Israeli settlements. Samuel Lewis, U.S. ambassador to Israel at the time, explained, "Begin would never consider admitting that the [Israeli] right to settle wasn't a right, and Carter, basically, was asking him [Begin] to agree that settlements were illegal. ," Begin refused. The subsequent expansion of settlements has further embittered Carter's relations with Israeli leaders and with Israel's supporters in the United States, whom he believes are willfully silent on the subject.[/i]
Right, so what about the examples above?Figments of imagination I presume, rather than well documented examples of them returning lands won in conflict with their former enemies, in return for peace?
Israel does not have peace. It does have land that does not belong to it.
It's pretty clear that you're not prepared to argue in good faith, so I shall leave it there.
Inconveniently for you, the maps above quite clearly show Israel returning lands they won in war on the road to peace
I think the point you raise is actually generally valid but there is a clear difference between the withdrawal from Sinai and the other lands that remain under occupation. That difference is this: Israel did not assert that Sinai was ever Israeli territory or belonged to Israel. It was only ever under military occupation. They did not say that they "won it in the war" (if only because they are better advised than some of the eminent jurists here and realise such a claim is illegal under international law).
East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights (both of which were annexed) and the West Bank (which Israel asserts is disputed territory) are different.
Also, the Sinai wasn't only traded for peace - it was also traded for Egyptian oil and access to the Suez Canal. The Palestinians don't have much to trade apart from peace - hence the lack of real interest from anyone influential enough to help solve the conflict. If only they had had the luck to be born on top of oil reserves - they would have been [s]invaded[/s] liberated by U.S./UK ages ago!
@Junky:
Your right i feel dead foolish now and clearly they can have peace and keep the land and that is what that map shows. Clearly they dont have to give back land to get peace. that map shows that and no mistake
You must have missed this bit where I said: "Haven't Israel proven repeatedly that they are willing to do this?"
I think you and me were in broad agreement up till the point where you said that Palestine disproved this (as to me the two things, peace and land return, have to go hand in hand, as they have with the successful peace deals that have been struck) yet the Palestinians appear to be unwilling to agree to the longer term peace outcomes, and continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, until which point case there can never realistically be a deal.
@Konabunny: As above, the two things need to go hand in hand for there to be a deal, there will be no outcome on the Golan unless it is traded as part of a secure and assured peace deal that assures Israel peace, regards the Sinai, I would argue that the return of the lands and all the other factors you mention were parts of the overall multifaceted deal between Egypt and Israel. Regards the Palestinians, the same goes, the Israelis' don't have a lot to gain from the deal either, other than peace, but history tells them that peace is a big enough deal to them to hand over much, much bigger areas of land (and resources) than the Palestinians can offer them.
@Ransos: The fact that you perhaps don't understand the complexity of the argument being made doesn't mean that its being done in bad faith.
I think you and me were in broad agreement
Woah there steady on fella we were almost getting on there and now the low blows start 😉
My Point is Israel continues to land grab in the "disputed areas" so its hard to claim they will give it up when they continue to illegally settle- In all honesty I am not sure they could deliver this even if they wanted to and I imagine the settlers would take up armed resistance.
the Palestinians appear to be unwilling to agree to the longer term peace outcomes, and continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, until which point case there can never realistically be a deal.
Again also true
I dont think you persuade a people to your right to exist by stealing their land , ghettoising them, embargoing their country and half staving them to death. It certainly does not seem to be winning hearts and minds now does it. That said it is not easy[ understatement accepted] to negotiate with folk who think your state has no right to exist
true, but the wheel turns round again as its politically difficult for them (in a democracy) to stop the settlement with no sight of an end to the violence - I would maintain that if they thought it would actually end the violence, settlement would stop tomorrow.so its hard to claim they will give it up when they continue to illegally settle
In all honesty I am not sure they could deliver this even if they wanted to and I imagine the settlers would take up armed resistance.
Hmm, they certainly did with the 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza strip, despite real resistance for them domestically - unfortunatley history tells us that this (at the time quite remarkable) unilateral step arguably only strengthened the more radical opponents within the Palestinian community (and again this refers back to the political acceptability of stopping the settlement as above, the Israelis clearly have a duty to do more to stop the settlement, but the Palestinian Authorities also have a duty to do more to stop the rockets etc)
[i]I would maintain that if they thought it would actually end the violence, settlement would end tomorrow.[/i]
edited
that view is frankly laughable given Israel's actual behaviour though
that view is frankly laughable given Israel's actual behaviour though
Again, we are back to that thing about the evidence (maps and discussion above) rather than the hyperbole - you can't just deny dismiss longstanding peace deals and proven land return deals with a wave of the hand and pretend that they never happened, you need to form a cogent argument that supports your belief, otherwise we get nowhere:
[i]yeah, well that would never happen[/i]
but look, its actually happened
[i]yeah, but that would never happen[/i]
but look, its actually happened
... and round in circles we go!
Handing back land in the Sinai when you need to have a peace agreement with the biggest army on the block whilst at the same time explicitly demanding that land grabbed in Gaza and the West Bank is excluded from those peace negotiations is evidence that Israel have no intention of withdrawing from those areas.
When Begin handed back the Sinai he also appointed Sharon (then the agriculture minister) to expand settler activity, thereby making sure that handing back any land was effectively off the agenda for ever.
You can't argue that Israel wants peace, because it handed back land when threatened by effectively the forces of the USSR, and then explicitly refused to discuss Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian land at the same time, and indeed increased the likelihood that it never would.
That map.
[url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/israel_and_palestine_0 ]Map[/url]
" that the problem with this map is that it represents the territory in 1946 under the name "Palestine", implying that there had been a Palestinian state which was then taken over by Israel. But that's not quite the point. The point is that the map fails to distinguish between land that is owned by Jews or Palestinians, and land that is controlled by Jewish or Palestinian political entities.
Take the vast triangular tract of land at the south of the map. That's the Negev desert. Apart from a few small oases, kibbutzes and towns, it's empty wasteland; it isn't owned by anyone. It represents almost half of the territory of Israel/Palestine. In 1946, the map represents it as "Palestinian land". That's silly. In 1949, it has somehow become "Jewish land". That's almost as silly, though Jewish irrigation projects did gradually, over a period of decades, turn an increasing (if still-small) portion of the desert into arable agricultural land claimed by Jewish owners. But the impression the map gives is that in 1947-8, Jews seized that land from Palestinian owners, which is absurd. What happened was that a piece of empty desert which had been under the control of the British Mandate (who got it after the Ottoman Empire fell apart) was awarded to the Jewish state. This is a question of political control, not land ownership."
The questions need asking:
Question 1: British people do you want to get involve in others affairs that have no significant value to you?
Question 2: British people are your lefties causing trouble in other region(s)?
Question 3: British people if you do not believe in others/theirs/your God, what makes you the right person to solve their problems?
Question 4: If you support a religion that oppresses women aren't you guilty of hypocrisy by defending those that treat women as second class human?
Women know your place! 😆
British people don't let the lefties drag you into troubles ... tell them to mind their own business and look after their own people first rather than trying to cause trouble to other nations.
[b]"You Shall Not Pass!"[/b] said Gandalf the grey to the beast (think it's a demon).
😆
Regards the Palestinians, the same goes, the Israelis' don't have a lot to gain from the deal either, other than peace, but history tells them that peace is a big enough deal to them to hand over much, much bigger areas of land (and resources) than the Palestinians can offer them.
Yeah - I agree to an extent - except for the crucial point that it's a lot easier to hand back land that you don't care about much in the first place. Sinai was never annexed or intended to be part of Israel. It's completely different from the West Bank etc.
Nim - you are rehashing the myth of "a land without a people for a people without a land".
An analysis of the utility of the land (and not just its square footage) is instructive, but just not in the way you think. Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up? Who got the hilly and dry inland area?
Oh no you don't!
That piece of land does not concern the British people.
Move on ... 🙄
Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up?
Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?
NIm the problem with that map is that it show Israel to be what it is so that even Zionist cannot really counter. Honestly when your only defence is what you offered then you know your argument is weak
Has Israel been expansionist since its creation - there is only one answer
Has this expansionism helped create peace?
Has it been legal - Much of it is not even legal under your law never mind international ones
Please dont try and deny reality with an argument so weak only Jamby will appreciate it.
FWIW I do admire your contribution to these threads and I see you and Gony as opposite sides of the issue. Essentially rational but also irrationally clinging to your sides views and largely ignoring the counter view. That was meant to sound like priase but i think I just failed massively.
If Israel were to return land, would they also ensure an abundant and healthy water supply to the land they returned?
How significant is the issue of the water supply to the occupied territories in the conflict?
What about nutrition of Palestinians within the occupied territories?
I believe the phrase used was put them on a diet but not let them die of hunger. A cynic would think this was probably due to the negative press and the UN and western forces would have to intervene to stop this than out of genuine humanitarian concern
Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea. IIRC they have killed folk on humanitarian ships to the area though of course Israel will say it was an accident, regrettable and probably the victims fault.
Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea
Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,
Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?
No way, dude. The first aliyah was nowhere near that big - and the existing Jewish population was concentrated around Jerusalem.
I can't paste across the stats but this page has an excerpt from a book with stats on land ownership running up to and after 1947: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/ContentDetails/i/2963
[quote=ninfan opined]Essentially they maintain an illegal blockade including the sea
Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,
Not really - though i fcourse evidence exists to support either side but the overwhelming view and evidence is pretty clear but there are enough friends of Israel to muddy the waters
Ok, konabunny, let's look at my claim:
[i]Q: Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up?
A: Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late [u]19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule[/u] by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?
[/i]
As per underlined words, that would include the first and second alliyah
Map of land in Jewish ownership 31st March 1945:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Greater detail here:
Now, according to that map, who [u]owns[/u] (ie. Registered title in full or in part) most of the fertile coastal land?
In the words of the 1937 Peel commission:
[i]he 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.[/i]
No way, dude.
Way!
muddy the waters
UN Palmer report is pretty unequivocal on the legality of the maritime blockade see para. 69-82:
[i]82: The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.[/i]
Still, I suppose that's just part of that pesky worldwide Jewish conpiracy again, isn't it?
I would maintain that if they thought it would actually end the violence, settlement would stop tomorrow.
GIven the balance of forces, maybe the Israeli side should try it out - what do they have to lose? If it doesn't work they can just send in their tanks and bombers again. In fact they have never been serious about making peace with the Palestinians and have just used peace talks as a pretext to solidify their gains while preparing new land grabs. The facts on the ground are clear as day - settlement continues unabated.
http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf
Is that the report that says:
Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.
vii. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others were wounded.
viii. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any
4
of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
ix. There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.
GIven the balance of forces, maybe the Israeli side should try it out - what do they have to lose? If it doesn't work they can just send in their tanks and bombers again.
I refer you to the aforementioned [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4235768.stm ]unilateral withdrawal of settlements and troops from the gaza strip in 2005[/url]
Is that the report that says:
What's your point caller? It also criticises the flotilla for proceeding against clear instructions. However [u]none of those points have anything to do with the legality of the naval blockade[/u] which it clearly ruled to be legal, as pointed out in response to the allegation made that it wasn't. (One would suggest you are simply trying to find anything you can to throw at the Joos, because you don't like the fact that the UN report is not [u]wholly[/u] critical of them, boo hoo hoo)
Oh ya ... all you unemployed do you know that your chosen political party, with plenty of lefties, has decided they would spend their time showing more concern for people in a foreign land than you here? 😯
You are not important, British unemployed, enough to be shown sympathy coz your condition is not dire enough ... or you have not started to wave your AK47 around or start to launch your home made rocket yet.
Your lefties need a lot of "drama" to feed and to forward their agenda of "making the world better" ... ya, please share what you have. 😯
the aforementioned unilateral withdrawal of settlements and troops from the Gaza Strip
That might have been a legitimate example if it had not been accompanied by a blockade and formed part of Sharon's greater aim to avoid a Palestinian state.
UN Palmer report is pretty unequivocal on the legality of the maritime blockade see para. 69-82
I thought you said it was an opinon - now its unequivocal- silly scribble is silly.
As I said we can debate it but yes that is the only report to state they are legal and was written by people who are not experts in international law*
* in fact the report was limited due to this
SO there you have its unequivocal it was acting ultra vires."The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability ... The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States ... the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law.
Still, I suppose that's just part of that pesky worldwide Jewish conpiracy again, isn't it?
NO its just what happens when you get the ignorant to rule on matters they are not experts - see Jamby posts for details 😈
No offence but if you insinuate shit like that again I really will disengage as its childish, unhelpful and complete bollocks
The full facts which can lead to debate are as follows
The blockade has been criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC )[21] and other human rights organizations, a criticism that has been officially supported by United States administrations.[22] In June 2010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the humanitarian needs in the Hamas-controlled area must be met along with legitimate Israeli security concerns.[23]
In September 2011, a UN Panel of Inquiry, assigned by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade was legal, based on the right of self-defense during a period of war, and had to be judged isolated from the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings.[24][25] Concerning the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings the Palmer report stated that they were "a significant cause" of Gaza's unsustainable and unacceptable humanitarian situation.[25][26][27] A Fact-Finding Mission for the UN Human Rights Council (2009) chaired by Richard Goldstone, a former judge of the International Criminal Court, as well as a group of five independent U.N. rights experts concluded that the blockade constituted collective punishment of the population of Gaza and was therefore unlawful.[28][29][30] UN envoy Desmond Tutu, United Nations Human Rights Council head Navi Pillay, the International Committee of the Red Cross and most experts on international law[31][32] consider the blockade illegal
So you're agreeing that I was right when I said:
Careful, we are straying into opinion rather than fact there,
Parfait, thanks 8)
Not really - though i fcourse evidence exists to support either side but the overwhelming view and evidence is pretty clear but there are enough friends of Israel to muddy the waters
Ernie is correct here forgive me and go the way of the chewkw as this is futile
A: Largely bought and paid for by Jews (i.e. bought off palestinians in the late 19th and early 20thC while still under Ottoman rule by groups such as the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish National Fund) No?
Still no! The Ottomans left Palestine in 1918. You're using a map from the 1950s purporting to show the situation in 1945 to substantiate a claim about land ownership in 1918?
Well, you go and find a map from 1918 then - since the argument was about the ownership of the coastal/fertile lands (which cannot be extracted from the stats you linked to) and as said earlier:
An analysis of the utility of the land (and not just its square footage) is instructive, but just not in the way you think. Where did all the fertile coastal real estate end up? Who got the hilly and dry inland area?
I take it you accept they were, as i said, largely bought and paid for ([i]largely[/i] being a word that does not mean all or exclusively), and that your only argument is the hair splitting point of whether the coastal lands were [i]largely[/i] purchased by jews under Ottoman rule or [i]predominantly[/i] under pre-war British mandate, although the stats you earlier linked to leave us none the wiser?
If you buy and pay for guns and bulldozers, does that give you the right to use them for whatever purpose you see fit?
I take it you accept they were, as i said, largely bought and paid for, and that your only argument is the hair splitting point of whether this happened under ottoman rule or British mandate?
No, I don't. You brought up this suggestion that suggestion that Jews owned the fertile coastal plain before 1918 (a remarkable claim) - you substantiate it.
I agree what whatshisname that merely looking at percentages of mandatory Palestine that ended up constituting Israeli territory and PA territory doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, if you look at the utility and value split of the land, it's an even more dramatic story.
Thankfully we can close this thread because Netanyahu has gone on Facebook and clarified his remarks:
http://gawker.com/netanyahu-clarifies-that-nazis-as-well-as-palestinians-1739691868
"Netanyahu Clarifies That Nazis, as Well as Palestinians, Were to Blame for the Holocaust"
you substantiate it
[img]
[/img]
Of course, its always possible that they set up all their colonies in areas where they didn't own any land, isn't it?
Now, do you want to stick to your statement that:
the existing Jewish population was concentrated around Jerusalem.
Britain has no business in that place called Palestine or Israel.
Look after your own people rather than trying to cause more troubles in others' land.
Stop being a trouble maker coz you have done enough damage.
Oh no you don't you lefties ... your concept is so backward even the communists in the far east gave up on this stooopid utopia. 😆
Time to go to bed ... continue tomorrow ...
"You shall not pass!" said Gandalf the grey to the beast/demon.
Thankfully we can close this thread because Netanyahu has gone on Facebook and clarified his remarks:http://gawker.com/netanyahu-clarifies-that-nazis-as-well-as-palestinians-1739691868
"Netanyahu Clarifies That Nazis, as Well as Palestinians, Were to Blame for the Holocaust"
Well that's a relief. While we're on the subject, is it confirmed that the Germans invaded Poland, or was that the Palestinians too? Maybe ninfan can help us out with a map of the disposition of Palestinian tank divisions?
DrJ as I posted way back Netanyahu's statements meant I know now far more about the Grand Mufti than I did before, his association with the Nazis, his efforts to prevent Jewish migration from Germany and the establishment of a Muslim SS unit. A history of anti-semitism from the appointed leader. What's also clear is that in [b]1920 he was campaigning for a Palestinian state[/b], ie one did not exist. The Map tennis we've had from JY should start before 1947, there is a clear bias to try and show Isreal is responsible for the "destruction / theft" of Palestine when in fact that's far from the truth. As the Siani maps clearly show Gaza was in Egypt, I'm sure the Isrealis would be very happy to give that back to Egypt but the Egptians want nothing to do with it IMO which is why they have so tightly sealed the border.
JY if you think MEMRI is biased and mistranslating then feel free to make specific corrections, the pictures speak for themselves, you can't mistranslate people waving knives or pictures of kids with blades. It's also clear you don't bother to watch the Vicenews pieces, they are generally balanced or if anything pro-Palestinian. The mainstream media is reporting the situation very little.
Interesting piece here from a Saudi singer who is renouncing her Saudi and Kuwaiti citizenship to take up a European nationalists. Not specific to Palestine but brave critism of the Arab world and its history
[url=
link (facebook)[/url]
The Map tennis we've had from JY should start before 1947, there is a clear bias to try and show Isreal is responsible for the "destruction / theft" of Palestine when in fact that's far from the truth.
Nice straw man - I have argued that it is taking Palestinian land [ or land from the indigenous population if you prefer] I have never used those words. As for bias are you saying there is another map that shows this to be untrue ? Are you arguing its not a fact just my bias? No one not even you can have the cheek to claim this is just not factually correct wherever you wish to start with your map. Use ninfans one of colonies if you like and look at the map now. My bias ,chuckles, you really do seem to be struggling to grasp reality here dont you...its just the truth dude so deal with it...if you can.
You really do have an unnatural ability to argue against indisputable facts , very strange.
JY if you think MEMRI is biased and mistranslating then feel free to make specific corrections, the pictures speak for themselves.
Feel free to work out what bias means - really jamny are you really at this level? DO i really have to explain it to you 😯
Has it got any example of Jewish folk being ranty? 🙄
Do you think I could find some on the internet within minutes of googling? Would it be a fair representation of the Israeli?jewish position? I can find Jews who think Israel should not exist again not indicative of anything really unless i just want to use them and ignore everything else. However I am not like you and I like to assimilate all the information and not just select the stuff that reinforces my prejudices. MEMRI presents, hence it appeals to you , an entirely one sided view of the most extreme of Palestinian views- its why it was created.
Again I still accept some Palestinians hate Israel and some israelis hate the Palestinians. Its really not news and the killings and conflict sort of give this point away.
So to repeat
1) do they have any clips of ranting Israelis?
2) do you think they really are reflective of the diversity of views from Palestinians or biased towards ranty ones?
We all know the answer and only your bias is stopping you , once more, accepting reality.
Junkyard - lazarus
Nice straw man - I have argued that it is taking Palestinian land [ or land from the indigenous population if you prefer] I have never used those words
I can see you ... but you can't see meeee ... (he is using User Blocker btw)
Ya, keep repeating your shite propaganda. Will not work on me because I see you coming ... 😆
Let's debunked this lot ... you don't even have to bring out evidence etc coz those are just tricks to hide their true intention.
Firstly, common sense says you stay out of others affairs. No ifs or buts.
Put it this way ...
They are NOT taking your land aren't they?
They are NOT taking BritLand aren't they?
British has no link to Palestinian people at all ...
Non of the lefties I have met have any connection to the Palestinian people.
You have NO connection or blood link to that land there yet you argue stubbornly as if your life depends on that piece of sand.
Worst still you Do Not belief in their religion yet argue like a half pint on their religious affairs.
You called for Human Rights but yet all these religions treat their women as second class human and you support them without even considering the harm you extend.
Ya, what a bunch of lefties hypocrisy.
Ya, what a bunch of trouble makers.
Bias? It is worst than Bias coz at least being bias you are being unfair with something that you are link to. This lot has no connection to the region at all ...
Vote Labour and you will get this lot trying to influence the govt policy on behalf of some foreign countries ... without even the other countries asking ... what a bunch of cartoons.
Good to know that SNP kick Labour out of Scotland and let's hope that last forever.
Was watching Question Time ... is that girl Labour Leader in Scotland ... she is the leader of Scottish Labour party! Crikey! Good on them coz she is un-electable.
2) do you think they really are reflective of the diversity of views from Palestinians or biased towards ranty ones?
I think its also important to remember that the Palestinians aren't the only non-jewish people in Israel, and the views of the Israeli arabs (about 20% of the population) seem to very much get overlooked - have seen a number of articles which indicate they are very unhappy about being lumped in with the Palestinians, and strongly opposed to any peace deal which sees them come under Palestinian control.
Ernie is correct here forgive me and go the way of the chewkw as this is futile
Even when you are essentially agreeing with me 😛
Junkyard - lazarus
Ernie is correct here forgive me and go the way of the chewkw as this is futile
Even when you are essentially agreeing with me
[b]Oh no you don't! "You shall not pass!" said Gandalf the grey to the beast/demon. [/b] 😈
I intend to push this thread to 1000 to see if I can break the record ... 😆
I have given up reading the lefties propaganda on this issue long time ago but it is a pity that so many people got blindly suck in by this lot especially the young ones ... their minds got poisoned so easily they don't even know what hit them when something happens.
If these lot are representative of Labour voters then voting Labour can only mean one thing ... trouble making in other land. (hope the media pick all my comments and then trust it straight to their leader JC - Not Jesus Christ)
Once the young ones got suck in they start to generate the naive views that they can change the world by meddling with others' affairs. The result will be plenty of tears if unlucky.
My motto is simple: Stay out of others' affairs especially those of the other countries that is insignificant.
🙄
What @ninfan says about the Isreali Arabs - there is no doubt they face challenges in day to day life and in opportunities vs Jewish Isrealis but they have a quality of life and access to medical treatment which far exceeds anything else in the region. It's my experience over the past 30 years working extensively in the Middle East that Arabs elsewhere do not approve of Isreal but almost exclusively think the Palestinaians make their own situation far worse than it needs to be.
JY find a "ranty Jewish" site yourself, I'm sure some of the Arab channels will come in handy, what about the one George Galloway gets paid £100'000's to work for? It's my contention that the MEMRI coverage is representative of a very significant portion of the Palestinian population and in fact a majority in Gaza. As @nim says there are extreme views on both sides but the majority of press coverage in the West focuses on Palestinian suffering without showing the degree of Islamist fundamentalism that's present in Hamas and other groups.
The rhetoric around the 67 borders in particular continually neglects to mention Gaza was in Egypt and the West Bank in Jordan. That's deliberate to imply Isreal invaded Palestine which it absolutely did not. Post 48 the Palestinians repeatedly breached cease-fires and where subsequently defeated and the lands lost. Repeatedly Isreal was attacked and was just a few days away from being annihilated.
As I said Netanyahu's comments have highlighted the fact that the Grand Nudtinwas campaigning for an Arab state in Palestine in 1921 - he was doing that as one didn't exist
It's my experience
That you will inevitable do appeals to authority despite them being fallacious
Its my experience that you will do them to your own post despite every post having shocking factual errors a small child would not make.
Its my experience that you literally cannot learn basic things.
I dont know how but you massively missed the point on bias but yes I am aware there are bias from both sides you alone seem to be the sole person who cannot see that the sources you choose are not biased even when their original mission statement tells you it is.
It's my contention that the MEMRI coverage is representative of a very significant portion of the Palestinian population and in fact a majority in Gaza
Its my contention your opinion is worthless and you will be unable to prove that point to be correct.
Post 48 the Palestinians repeatedly breached cease-fires and where subsequently defeated and the lands lost.
I think you need a lecture in International law and what happens when you capture foreign land by force. Anyway clearly it proves the point, you know the one you were arguing against with the maps dig, that Israel has been expansionist. You have now slumped to the point that your own points contradict your own views. Chapeau 😆
I mean seriously you cannot even make points that support your own view. Are you not embarrassed by this ?
As I said Netanyahu's comments have highlighted the fact that the Grand Nudtin was campaigning for an Arab state in Palestine in 1921 - he was doing that as one didn't exist
If I were you I would get the name correct of the person I was trying to make a statement about ...oh Jamby you just cannot help yourself. I would then google Mandatory Palestine and sit down and have a long hard think.
Oh here let me save you the bother as i know how much you liek to reach well researched conclusions supported by the facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
Mandatory Palestine[1] (Arabic: ??????? Filas??n; Hebrew: ??????????????? (?"?) P?l??t?n? (EY), where "EY" indicates "Eretz Yisrael" (Land of Israel)) was a geopolitical entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948.[b] During its existence it was known simply as Palestine[/b], but, in retrospect, as distinguishers, a variety of other names and descriptors including Mandatory or Mandate Palestine, also British Palestine and the British Mandate of Palestine, have been used to refer to it.
MY bold but probably not enough to get you ot STFU or admit you are wrong
Let see if this picture helps you NB the name was applied afterwards- I wonder what it looks like and what country took the land.
It really is ludicrous, even for you , to argue they have not disposed the Palestinians of land because it did not exist. Its not even sophist its point and laugh [ or in your case open mouthed as you actually think its credible]
[img] 
[/img]
Failing that you could of course look at Ninfans map, the one you praised, and noted what the key for that is
Jesus H Christ man your views are ludicrous, full of bias and utterly at odds with the facts
Only you could argue that a man appointed under the British mandate to Palestine proves that Palestine did not exist 😆
I wish your views were not so funny as I realise you dont listen to facts but they dont half make me chuckle
Please stop, please.
British mandate or not ... you might as well refer back to your days of empire.
On the one hand you hate British empire and on the other hand you want to refer back to history ... damn! Talking about hypocrisy.
Britain is No longer significant in affairs of Palestinian/Israel. Those are foreign lands that are not yours!
Shameless bunch of look at me! Look at me wannabe!
Stay out and look after your own British people rather then trying to meddle with others affairs. They are NOT British citizen.
Go away! 😆