Israel's Supreme Court doubles sentence of border police officer who shot dead unarmed Palestinian teenager

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/border-police-killed-unarmed-palestinian-teenager-sentence-doubled-ben-dery-nadim-nuwara-west-bank-a8498201.html

"A second teenager – Muhammad Abu Thahr, 16 – was also killed during the demonstration but Israeli prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges over his death.
The youths were shot dead at a Nakba day protest, held annually to commemorate the displacement of more than 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war."


To 18 month's......for the killing of a Palestinian.......who was unarmed......no threat......and a minor.

Palestinian youth who throw stones get on average 3 years in jail.

I guess the critics can't say that Israel isn't fair......
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
Palestinian propaganda is all about martyrdom. Watch a Hamas presentation and all they talk about is killing themselves.
Not justifying the murder, just saying this conflict will never end because one side has no problem throwing themselves at death, and the other believes in god given land.
 
Last edited:
Nov 1, 2017
742
1,078
215
18 months is a bit excessive but justice has followed its due course, hopefully he can put all this behind him after release.
 

Ka-Kui

Member
Feb 16, 2018
318
239
190
Israel cares very little about Palestinian deaths in general. Justifying it all with how "degenerate" these arabs are.
 

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Jun 10, 2004
5,342
158
1,390
18 months is a bit excessive but justice has followed its due course, hopefully he can put all this behind him after release.
...
For some reason, I don't think you would be so concerned about the well being of the person who murdered your own loved one.
 
Last edited:

Dr.Guru of Peru

played the long game
Jun 10, 2004
5,342
158
1,390
You don’t know me or what I have accomplished for my family.


Please don’t quote me again and derail this thread further.
This is about you and others dehumanising the victim and expressing more sympathy and concern for the murderer than the boy whose life was taken. There is no thread derail. You admitted to having a disgusting opinion, so excuse me for being disgusted by you.

Being 'unarmed and not a threat' also seemed to apply to all the suicide bombers ever.
So we shoot every teenager that is unarmed and non threatening? Or just the Palestinian ones?
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
Israeli society has dehumanised Palestinians to such a point now that, it seems excessive to give someone 18 months for killing a Palestinian child. Would you give 18 months for killing a baby rat?
 

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
Palestinian propaganda is all about martyrdom. Watch a Hamas presentation and all they talk about is killing themselves.
Not justifying the murder, just saying this conflict will never end because one side has no problem throwing themselves at death, and the other believes in god given land.
You don't really know much about this conflict do you?

Alan Dershowitz, the Israeli propagandist, once said that a culture that is willing to let it's children die is a "culture of death". He was obviously applying this to the Palestinians and the Nazis at the end of WW2, as you are. But you forget, or you didn't know, that even the zionists were willing to sacrifice their children for their cause:

Research how, after the second world war, the zionist leaders actively pushed for European Jews to be moved to Palestine, even those including thousands children who were in very poor health and very frail, who were destined to go to proper medical centres in Europe. They posited that such "resettlement might weaken the struggle for Jewish immigration to Palestine". It was David Ben-Gurion who said that.

It was Ben-Gurion, again, who said "If I knew it was possible to save all the Jewsih Children of Germany by sending them to England, or only half by sending them to Palestine, I would send them to Palestine. I choose the second - not only because we face the reckoning of those children, but we face the reckoning of the Jewish people".

Research about the story of the Exodus, a boat, half filled with Jewish children, most orphaned, trying to gain entry to Palestine in 1947 despite British opposition. The account itself was made into a movie, and canonised by American Zionism.
I won't go into the full account, but the leaders on that boat were willing to sacrifice 10 Jewish children a day, until the British allowed them passage into Palestine.

There's also the fact that, driven by conviction, Jewish families have endangered the lives of thousands of Jewish children by building, living in and expanding upon the settlements in the West Bank (Palestinian territory). Again, they do this because they believe that ALL of palestine, belongs to them and these settlements strengthen that claim. Sacrificing their children is a worthy cause to reclaim "the homeland".

A culture willing to sacrifice their children is a "culture of death".
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
You don't really know much about this conflict do you?

Alan Dershowitz, the Israeli propagandist, once said that a culture that is willing to let it's children die is a "culture of death". He was obviously applying this to the Palestinians and the Nazis at the end of WW2, as you are. But you forget, or you didn't know, that even the zionists were willing to sacrifice their children for their cause:
So because the Jews do it means the Palestinians don't do it either?
Again, watch any Hamas propaganda. This is what passes for kindergarten "graduation" in Gaza.


They're just as crazy as Israelis.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
So because the Jews do it means the Palestinians don't do it either?
Again, watch any Hamas propaganda. This is what passes for kindergarten "graduation" in Gaza.


They're just as crazy as Israelis.
What?

You say that "Palestinians are willing to let their children die, so that's why these things happen" and I point out that even the Israelis do this aswell. Does this now, according to your logic, also explain Israeli deaths in the conflict?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
What?

You say that "Palestinians are willing to let their children die, so that's why these things happen" and I point out that even the Israelis do this aswell. Does this now, according to your logic, also explain Israeli deaths in the conflict?
Yes?
There are Israelis who are motivated by religion to pursue land grabs past the 1967 borders and thus they come into direct confrontation with the Palestinians, with the Israeli government doing jack all to stop it. As I pointed out in my first post, it's a conflict that's never going to end because both sides are extremist. Where is the contradiction?
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
Yes?
There are Israelis who are motivated by religion to pursue land grabs past the 1967 borders and the Israeli government does little to stop it. As I pointed out in my first post, it's a conflict that's never going to end because both sides are extremist. Where is the contradiction?
Oright sorry mate, thought you were making this into an "exclusively palestinian" thing.
 

Ka-Kui

Member
Feb 16, 2018
318
239
190
Yes?
There are Israelis who are motivated by religion to pursue land grabs past the 1967 borders and thus they come into direct confrontation with the Palestinians, with the Israeli government doing jack all to stop it. As I pointed out in my first post, it's a conflict that's never going to end because both sides are extremist. Where is the contradiction?
The power differential between the two are enormous, and that's Israel which is the one with the upper hand in terms of military might as well as US backing.

The Palestinians have consistently agreed to the 1967 borders for decades now as per international law and were willing to negotiate for even less than that in their desperation.

Israel just keeps moving goalposts.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
The power differential between the two are enormous, and that's Israel which is the one with the upper hand in terms of military might as well as US backing.

The Palestinians have consistently agreed to the 1967 borders for decades now as per international law and were willing to negotiate for even less than that in their desperation.

Israel just keeps moving goalposts.
The Palestinians have the backing of the Arab world.
They even controlled Palestine between 1947 ~ 1967 but there was no state created.

Both groups are awful, I just wish we (the West) didn't support either side.
 

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
The Palestinians have the backing of the Arab world.
They even controlled Palestine between 1947 ~ 1967 but there was no state created.

Both groups are awful, I just wish we (the West) didn't support either side.
1) Apart from Qatar, every other arab nation is fully behind Israel, even Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians only have Iran that "kind of" backs it.

2) Up until 1967, the palestinians were still trying to get all of their land back and didn't recognise the state of Israel as legitimate. When they finally realised that is an impossibility, they recognised the two state solution as per UN resolution 242. Every year, the UN general assembly votes on the "just resolution of the Israel Palestine conflict" and every country in the world votes for the two state solution as per the 1967 borders, and every year the only dissenting votes are USA and Israel. If Israel wants peace, it can have it. But the question then is, what will it do with the massive amounts of money and funding invested into the settlements in the West Bank, to which it occupies roughly 80%.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
2) Up until 1967, the palestinians were still trying to get all of their land back and didn't recognise the state of Israel as legitimate. When they finally realised that is an impossibility, they recognised the two state solution as per UN resolution 242.
And how did that work out for them?
They had 20 years to work something out but all the Arabs thought going to war again was the answer.
Can't say I feel too sorry they went the mad max route. All I want is Western support removed from both sides, and they can settle the conflict on their own. Or perhaps never like how all religious conflicts play out.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
And how did that work out for them?
They had 20 years to work something out but all the Arabs thought going to war again was the answer.
Can't say I feel too sorry they went the mad max route. All I want is Western support removed from both sides, and they can settle the conflict on their own. Or perhaps never like how all religious conflicts play out.
Well would you recognise the annexation of half your land? You wouldn't try to resist it? Even zionist leaders at the time knew the arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan.

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
Well would you recognise the annexation of half your land? You wouldn't try to resist it? Even zionist leaders at the time knew the arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan.
They had no other choice. They could either accept the remaining half or go to war and try to win it all back.
They picked the latter and lost and now I'm suppose to feel sorry?

Don't blame other people for your own screw ups.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
They had no other choice. They could either accept the remaining half or go to war and try to win it all back.
They picked the latter and lost and now I'm suppose to feel sorry?

Don't blame other people for your own screw ups.
Who had no other choice?

Ok so you are saying you would've accepted annexation of half your land? Ok good to know.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
Who had no other choice?

Ok so you are saying you would've accepted annexation of half your land? Ok good to know.
They lost the first war, what made them think they were going to win in the next round?
And if they did win, what was going to happen to the Jews? Especially since they didn't view Israel as legitimate?

Get better generals next time but now, they blew all their chances.
 
Last edited:

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
They lost the first war, what made them think they were going to win in the next round?
And if they did win, what was going to happen to the Jews? Especially since they didn't view Israel as legitimate?

Get better generals next time but now, they blew all their chances.
First war you mean the 1948 civil war? Second war you mean.... I assume you are talking about the 1967 one, but there were quite a few in between. The palestinians didn't start the second war though......
Just because you would accept annexation of your land, doesn't mean others will.....
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,893
2,736
540
Brampton, Ontario
First war you mean the 1948 civil war? Second war you mean.... I assume you are talking about the 1967 one, but there were quite a few in between. The palestinians didn't start the second war though......
Just because you would accept annexation of your land, doesn't mean others will.....
Then they need to start building a time machine, because they picked the timeline where they lost everything.
Other than that, there's nothing left to say.
 
Last edited:

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
3,516
2,014
395
The Palestinians have the backing of the Arab world.
They even controlled Palestine between 1947 ~ 1967 but there was no state created.

Both groups are awful, I just wish we (the West) didn't support either side.
Oil
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,333
3,823
510
Well would you recognise the annexation of half your land? You wouldn't try to resist it? Even zionist leaders at the time knew the arabs wouldn't accept the partition plan.

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
you always seem to find these questionable Ben Guiron quotes. First the one that he never said that you posted a bit back now this which there is no actual recording of and only based on Goldmans word that it was said

according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him. Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion, and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it.

Another Ben-Gurion quote:

In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well. ...The attitude of the Jewish State to its Arab citizens will be an important factor—though not the only one—in building good neighbourly relations with the Arab States. If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, and if his status will not be the least different from that of the Jew, and perhaps better than the status of the Arab in an Arab state, and if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, will be built...
Here are some more quotes from BG.

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.
  • Written statement (1920), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai (1985), Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, Oxford University Press.
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.

Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Karsh, Efraim (2000), Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians'; this has been extensively misquoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in Morris, Benny (1987), The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949, Cambridge University Press, p. 25. This is the quote you misquoted a couple of threads ago.


We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
  • Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on (14 May 1948)
Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
  • Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on (14 May 1948)
  • We have rebelled against all controls and religions, all laws and judgments which the mighty sought to foist upon us. We kept to our dedication and our missions. By these will the State be judged, by the moral character it imparts to its citizens, by the human values determining its inner and outward relations, and by its fidelity, in thought and act, to the supreme behest: "and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Here is crystallized the eternal law of Judaism, and all the written ethics in the world can say no more. The State will be worthy of its name only if its systems, social and economic, political and legal, are based upon these imperishable words. They are more than a formal precept which can be construed as passive or negative: not to deprive, not to rob, not to oppress, not to hurt.
    • Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (1954), p. 419.
  • Well done, now give it back to them.
Let me first tell you one thing: It doesn't matter what the world says about Israel; it doesn't matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won't survive.
  • As quoted by Ariel Sharon, in the documentary The 50 Years War : Israel & The Arabs (1999), this advice was given to him by Ben-Gurion after the controversial raid on Qibya.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,333
3,823
510
1) Apart from Qatar, every other arab nation is fully behind Israel, even Saudi Arabia. The Palestinians only have Iran that "kind of" backs it.
Only in the last few years and even if they "back" Israel its barely. King Salaman just came out and said he was for the Palestinians. Egypt is still working on a truce with Hamas/Israel and holds regular meetings between the PA and Hamas. Jordan comes out all the time against Israel. Outside of Egypt and Jordan none of the ME countries recognize or have formal ties with Israel. Maybe they are sick of Hamas and Abbas but they are not fully behind Israel.

2) Up until 1967, the palestinians were still trying to get all of their land back and didn't recognise the state of Israel as legitimate. When they finally realised that is an impossibility, they recognised the two state solution as per UN resolution 242. Every year, the UN general assembly votes on the "just resolution of the Israel Palestine conflict" and every country in the world votes for the two state solution as per the 1967 borders, and every year the only dissenting votes are USA and Israel. If Israel wants peace, it can have it. But the question then is, what will it do with the massive amounts of money and funding invested into the settlements in the West Bank, to which it occupies roughly 80%.
There is no 2 state solution in 242. 242 called for secured and recognized boundries and the Palestinians were not named or a part of 242. When 242 was created the Palestinians said they had no claim to WB.

"Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields. "

242 has been resolved when Israel signed its peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

There are no 1967 borders. Talk about news speak. I guess if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth. the 1949 ARMISTICE lines were not borders. The Arabs never recognized them as such and Jordan/Egypt didn't either in their peace treaties with Israel.

Who is Israel going to make peace with? I would like to know since you don't like Hamas or the PA. Hamas is a terrorist organization that can't stop terror. Their goal is to destroy Israel. Even now Hamas still can't keep their shakey truce and refuses to disarm.

Abbas is an illegal president who lay's siege to his own people and an antisemite. Even if a deal was reached with him he has no control over half his people and population. He cannot enter Gaza, and cannot keep an agreement between himself and Hamas. Yet Israel is supposed to accept a piece of paper signed with Abbas?

If Israel disengaged from the WB whats going to stop it turning into another Gaza? Who is going to stop Hamas from taking over the WB? Fatah ? LOL last time they got thrown off the roof tops of Gaza all the way into the WB. Once Israel leaves the WB all of a sudden Hamas/IJ/PFLP are all going to just disapear?

Truth is even if Israel disengaged your ilk would still find excuses like with Gaza. People still say Gaza is occupied today y'all would do the same with WB. You would find some tiny excuse to continue supporting terror groups to attack Israel. Wether its fake refugees, or Jerusalem, or Israel is on 1 inch of land that Palestinians claim the war to destroy Israel wouldn't stop.

and since you love quotes here is one from a Palestinian.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
  • James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.
 

luigimario

Banned
Apr 3, 2018
1,340
608
250
you always seem to find these questionable Ben Guiron quotes. First the one that he never said that you posted a bit back now this which there is no actual recording of and only based on Goldmans word that it was said



Here are some more quotes from BG.

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.
  • Written statement (1920), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai (1985), Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, Oxford University Press.
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.

Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Karsh, Efraim (2000), Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians'; this has been extensively misquoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in Morris, Benny (1987), The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949, Cambridge University Press, p. 25. This is the quote you misquoted a couple of threads ago.


We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.
  • Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on (14 May 1948)
Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
  • Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on (14 May 1948)
  • We have rebelled against all controls and religions, all laws and judgments which the mighty sought to foist upon us. We kept to our dedication and our missions. By these will the State be judged, by the moral character it imparts to its citizens, by the human values determining its inner and outward relations, and by its fidelity, in thought and act, to the supreme behest: "and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Here is crystallized the eternal law of Judaism, and all the written ethics in the world can say no more. The State will be worthy of its name only if its systems, social and economic, political and legal, are based upon these imperishable words. They are more than a formal precept which can be construed as passive or negative: not to deprive, not to rob, not to oppress, not to hurt.
    • Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (1954), p. 419.
  • Well done, now give it back to them.
Let me first tell you one thing: It doesn't matter what the world says about Israel; it doesn't matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won't survive.
  • As quoted by Ariel Sharon, in the documentary The 50 Years War : Israel & The Arabs (1999), this advice was given to him by Ben-Gurion after the controversial raid on Qibya.
Only in the last few years and even if they "back" Israel its barely. King Salaman just came out and said he was for the Palestinians. Egypt is still working on a truce with Hamas/Israel and holds regular meetings between the PA and Hamas. Jordan comes out all the time against Israel. Outside of Egypt and Jordan none of the ME countries recognize or have formal ties with Israel. Maybe they are sick of Hamas and Abbas but they are not fully behind Israel.



There is no 2 state solution in 242. 242 called for secured and recognized boundries and the Palestinians were not named or a part of 242. When 242 was created the Palestinians said they had no claim to WB.

"Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields. "

242 has been resolved when Israel signed its peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.

There are no 1967 borders. Talk about news speak. I guess if you repeat a lie enough it becomes truth. the 1949 ARMISTICE lines were not borders. The Arabs never recognized them as such and Jordan/Egypt didn't either in their peace treaties with Israel.

Who is Israel going to make peace with? I would like to know since you don't like Hamas or the PA. Hamas is a terrorist organization that can't stop terror. Their goal is to destroy Israel. Even now Hamas still can't keep their shakey truce and refuses to disarm.

Abbas is an illegal president who lay's siege to his own people and an antisemite. Even if a deal was reached with him he has no control over half his people and population. He cannot enter Gaza, and cannot keep an agreement between himself and Hamas. Yet Israel is supposed to accept a piece of paper signed with Abbas?

If Israel disengaged from the WB whats going to stop it turning into another Gaza? Who is going to stop Hamas from taking over the WB? Fatah ? LOL last time they got thrown off the roof tops of Gaza all the way into the WB. Once Israel leaves the WB all of a sudden Hamas/IJ/PFLP are all going to just disapear?

Truth is even if Israel disengaged your ilk would still find excuses like with Gaza. People still say Gaza is occupied today y'all would do the same with WB. You would find some tiny excuse to continue supporting terror groups to attack Israel. Wether its fake refugees, or Jerusalem, or Israel is on 1 inch of land that Palestinians claim the war to destroy Israel wouldn't stop.

and since you love quotes here is one from a Palestinian.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
  • James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.
Oh I gotta say I was wondering when you would reply, as unlike others in this board, you have "some" idea of the history on the region, though alot of your statements are either half truths or straight up lies.

Like always though, you never seem to address the issue of the thread itself, from illegal israeli settlers burning acres of palestininan farm land to an israeli getting 18 months for murder of a child compared to palestinians getting 3 years for throwing stones on top of torture whilst imprisoned.

Ok so lets go through your preamble.

1)So the Ben-Gurion quote I posted is inaccurate or fabricated, as is the one about the letter to his son Amos reaffirming the zionist goal of expansion for all of Palestine (which was proven later on by the occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank). What about the quote of Ben-Gurion willing to sacrifice children for his goal of a Jewish homeland in Palestine? Was that also fabricated? It seems to me, that any criticism of zionism or Israel in general, you brush of as fabricated. How convenient.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say you are correct and all these quotes are fabrications, they're not, but let's just say they are. Explain to me, how exactly a majority Jewish homeland would have come to be in Palestine WITHOUT the expulsion of the non-Jewish population that was already there? It's impossible. It can't be done.

Let's say that the zionists never wanted to expel the arabs during the 1948 war, well then, let them return? Let the refugees return back to their homeland? Surely, if what you say is true, then Israel would have allowed the return of the refugees? But it didn't, because expulsion of the native population was necessary for zionism and the establishment of a Jewish majority state.

Even Benny Morris, who is a competent historian but politically he is a thug, admitted to it as much. In Benny Morris conclusion, the better thing to do would have been to expel EVERY arab from the land of palestine. In Benny Morris' view, the expulsion of the arabs was not only needed for Zionism, but he goes one step further, and says that it was necessary, and that it was just. I will repeat, he says that the expulsion of the native Arabs was just. Just read his book, "Righteous Victims" if you ever get the time.

2) UN resolution 242 and 338: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security. "Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It really doesn't need more explaining then that does it?

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

There is no such thing as "1967" borders, its the "pre-1967" borders and two state solution that, every year, the UN general assembly votes for (apart from Israel and the US, every other country in the general assembly votes for it).

Israel’s, and your, contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognized border to withdraw to, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a “just and lasting peace” that will allow “every state in the area [to] live in security,” Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation.

These are specious arguments for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognized the remaining Palestinian territory outside the Jewish state’s borders as – at the very least – the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population, on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it precisely mapped the borders of that territory.

Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principle that grants statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in implementation.

The issue is that the international community has failed to reject Israel’s notion that the occupation and the creation of “facts on the ground” can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement acceptable to Israel. This failure has defeated all previous peace initiatives and peace envoys.

Current efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not finally addressed. The U.S. and the international community have to act on the resolutions’ plain logic that the default is a return to the status quo, the pre-1967 border – without territorial and other changes that negotiations and a peace agreement might have produced.

What is required is a Security Council resolution affirming that changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties, and that unilateral measures will not receive international recognition; the default of Resolution 242 is a return of Israel’s occupying forces to the pre-1967 border; and that if the parties do not reach an agreement within a defined period, the default setting of the 1967 and 1973 resolutions will be invoked by the Security Council.

The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel’s security by preventing cross-border violence, and oversee the implementation of its terms for an end to the conflict. That is the only just end to this horrific and brutal occupation on the native people.

If Israel truly cared for its security, it would end the occupation of the West Bank, end the inhumane blockade of Gaza, and allow the Palestinian people the right to self determination, as is a right to all peoples in the world. If it is a right for the Jews in Palestine, it is also a right for the Palestinians.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,333
3,823
510
Oh I gotta say I was wondering when you would reply, as unlike others in this board, you have "some" idea of the history on the region, though alot of your statements are either half truths or straight up lies.

Like always though, you never seem to address the issue of the thread itself, from illegal israeli settlers burning acres of palestininan farm land to an israeli getting 18 months for murder of a child compared to palestinians getting 3 years for throwing stones on top of torture whilst imprisoned.

Ok so lets go through your preamble.

1)So the Ben-Gurion quote I posted is inaccurate or fabricated, as is the one about the letter to his son Amos reaffirming the zionist goal of expansion for all of Palestine (which was proven later on by the occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank). What about the quote of Ben-Gurion willing to sacrifice children for his goal of a Jewish homeland in Palestine? Was that also fabricated? It seems to me, that any criticism of zionism or Israel in general, you brush of as fabricated. How convenient.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say you are correct and all these quotes are fabrications, they're not, but let's just say they are. Explain to me, how exactly a majority Jewish homeland would have come to be in Palestine WITHOUT the expulsion of the non-Jewish population that was already there? It's impossible. It can't be done.

Let's say that the zionists never wanted to expel the arabs during the 1948 war, well then, let them return? Let the refugees return back to their homeland? Surely, if what you say is true, then Israel would have allowed the return of the refugees? But it didn't, because expulsion of the native population was necessary for zionism and the establishment of a Jewish majority state.

Even Benny Morris, who is a competent historian but politically he is a thug, admitted to it as much. In Benny Morris conclusion, the better thing to do would have been to expel EVERY arab from the land of palestine. In Benny Morris' view, the expulsion of the arabs was not only needed for Zionism, but he goes one step further, and says that it was necessary, and that it was just. I will repeat, he says that the expulsion of the native Arabs was just. Just read his book, "Righteous Victims" if you ever get the time.
In regards to the quotes, BG was a pragmatic and complicated man. I just provided balance to show that BG wasn't the warmongering Arab hater you try to make him out to be and had talked about living in peace many times. The fact that you dragged out a fabricated quote that he never said and one that there is no actual proof of him saying just goes to show that you regurgitate the same old anti-israel propaganda.

How could Arabs and Jews lived together, while if Arabs hadn't boycotted Jewish LEGAL immigration then maybe 6 million Jews would of moved to Israel instead of going up in smoke. I actually like Jabontinsky and his notion of Iron wall because the man was prophetic. Arabs cannot accept living with Jews who have rights. Thats why most Zionist today agree that seperation is the best course. Sorry but Arabs through their actions and words have shown that for now the 2 people are incompatible.

And you do know that their was a partition in India pretty much the same time as when Israel was created? That could of been a model that was followed.


2) UN resolution 242 and 338: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security. "Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". It really doesn't need more explaining then that does it?

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
And that doesn't go against my point. Palestinians were not a party to 242, it was Israel/Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon/Syria. Are you going to tell me that Jordan and Egypt in 1967 were going to create a Palestinian state in the WB and Gaza in 1967? Even Palestinians didn't have that idea since in 1964 they said they had no claim to WB and Gaza, and the idea of WB/Gaza as a state didn't even enter their minds till 1974 with the phase plan. The Palestinian plan to take whatever land they could get, turn it into bases so they can than take the rest of Israel.

And notice how it doesn't say ALL territories? Israel left Sinai, left Gaza, made peace with Egypt and Jordan which defined its borders. So there is nothing in 242 about 2 states or about Palestinians. And straight from the Palestinians themselves

"1. To reaffirm the Palestine Liberation Organization’s previous attitude to Resolution 242, which obliterates the national right of our people and deals with the cause of our people as a problem of refugees. The Council therefore refuses to have anything to do with this resolution at any level, Arab or international, including the Geneva Conference. "

Even the Palestinians see that 242 has nothing to do with them or their state and they reject it.

There is no such thing as "1967" borders, its the "pre-1967" borders and two state solution that, every year, the UN general assembly votes for (apart from Israel and the US, every other country in the general assembly votes for it).
What are the Pre 1967 borders? The borders of 1922? The green line was never a border it was an armistice line.
And the UNGA is not binding and of course any anti-israel resolution will pass when the majority is made up of Arab/Muslims and Non Alligned block states that auto vote against Israel.

Israel’s, and your, contention has long been that since no Palestinian state existed before the 1967 war, there is no recognized border to withdraw to, because the pre-1967 border was merely an armistice line. Moreover, since Resolution 242 calls for a “just and lasting peace” that will allow “every state in the area [to] live in security,” Israel holds that it must be allowed to change the armistice line, either bilaterally or unilaterally, to make it secure before it ends the occupation.

These are specious arguments for many reasons, but principally because UN General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 of 1947, which established the Jewish state’s international legitimacy, also recognized the remaining Palestinian territory outside the Jewish state’s borders as – at the very least – the equally legitimate patrimony of Palestine’s Arab population, on which they were entitled to establish their own state, and it precisely mapped the borders of that territory.

Resolution 181’s affirmation of the right of Palestine’s Arab population to national self-determination was based on normative law and the democratic principle that grants statehood to the majority population. (At the time, Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population in Palestine.) This right does not evaporate because of delays in implementation.
181 is non binding and in the dust bin of history. Arabs rejected it, so kinda ironic the resolution they rejected because it created a Jewish state something they are 100% opposed to now they cry behind. And if Arabs want to accept 181 now, it specifically states a JEWISH STATE. So Abbas needs to nut up and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Until then Palestinians (and Arabs) are still rejecting 181 to this day. And of course this doesn't apply to 1949-1967 when Palestinians said they had no claim to WB and didn't do jack to get a state, but rather continued to focus on destroying Israel. This is pretty epic to reject a partition plan, start a war, spend 20 years not implementing it and then all of a sudden turn around and pretend it should apply now.

The issue is that the international community has failed to reject Israel’s notion that the occupation and the creation of “facts on the ground” can go on indefinitely, so long as there is no agreement acceptable to Israel. This failure has defeated all previous peace initiatives and peace envoys.

Current efforts will meet the same fate if this fundamental issue is not finally addressed. The U.S. and the international community have to act on the resolutions’ plain logic that the default is a return to the status quo, the pre-1967 border – without territorial and other changes that negotiations and a peace agreement might have produced.

What is required is a Security Council resolution affirming that changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties, and that unilateral measures will not receive international recognition; the default of Resolution 242 is a return of Israel’s occupying forces to the pre-1967 border; and that if the parties do not reach an agreement within a defined period, the default setting of the 1967 and 1973 resolutions will be invoked by the Security Council.

The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel’s security by preventing cross-border violence, and oversee the implementation of its terms for an end to the conflict. That is the only just end to this horrific and brutal occupation on the native people.

If Israel truly cared for its security, it would end the occupation of the West Bank, end the inhumane blockade of Gaza, and allow the Palestinian people the right to self determination, as is a right to all peoples in the world. If it is a right for the Jews in Palestine, it is also a right for the Palestinians.
How does ending the occupation or blockaed do anything for Israeli security? What prevents Hamas from taking over the WB and turning it into Gaza v2? once the occupation is over what happens to Hamas/IJ/PFLP and all the other terrorist groups that want Israel destroyed? Israel left Gaza and it didn't get security it got 2 wars and thousands of rockets. The more that has been given to Palestinians the more terror and dead Israeli's. So tell me exactly how leaving the WB to Abbas and Gaza to Hamas is going to bring security to Israel?

And if Palestinians want self determination they should of accepted it in 47 or 64. They can also go to the area that is 78% of the mandate that is Jew free and kick out the illegal king there and have as much self determination as they want. I would even support a Palestinian state in Gaza if you get rid of Hamas. But the Palestinians are still all about the phase plan to get whatever land they can to continue to launch attacks to eventually destroy Israel.

"2. The Palestine Liberation Organization will employ all means, and first and foremost armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian territory and to establish the independent combatant national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated. This will require further changes being effected in the balance of power in favor of our people and their struggle. "

"8. Once it is established, the Palestinian national authority will strive to achieve a union of the confrontation countries, with the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity. "

here are a few Arafat quotes

Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations… We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home, and until we destroy Israel.
  • Quoted in The Times, UK (5 August 1980).
"The PLO will now concentrate on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps... We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs. I have no use for Jews. They are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under Arab rule. "

"
We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem our land!
  • In his speech "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel" at the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, January 30, 1996 as quoted in “The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History”, by Andrew Bostom, Prometheus Books, c.2008, pg. 682.
"I want to tell Carter and Begin that when the Arabs set off their volcano there will be only Arabs in this part of the world… Our people will continue to fuel the torch of the revolution with rivers of blood until the whole of the occupied homeland is liberated, the whole of the homeland is liberated, not just a part of it. "
Quoted in the Associated Press (12 March 1979).

"We shall never stop until we can go back home and Israel is destroyed… The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromises or mediations… the goal of this violence is the elimination of Zionism from Palestine in all its political, economic and military aspects… We don’t want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else.

Quoted in the Washington Post (29 March 1970)
 
Last edited: