PLO negotiators have 7 conditions to renew talks

[Mosby]

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Palestinian negotiators have posed seven conditions that must be met by Israel to continue negotiations beyond April 29.

The conditions were announced during a 9-hour meeting Wednesday with Israeli negotiators in Jerusalem, a high-ranking source in the PLO told Ma’an.

The following are the conditions, according to the source.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=687363

More proof that the Palestinians were never serious about peace with Israel.

Assuming of course that this article is correct.

[shira]

1. Doesn't look like they're desperate for their own state, does it?

You'd think they'd want the occupation and settlements to end, along with "apartheid", etc.?

I don't believe the Tibetans, Kurds, or Basques would demand so many pre-conditions for their own state, do you?

[pennylane100]

2. I do not think either side is willing to give an inch for peace.

It is hard to sympathize with either side.

[Scootaloo]

6. Not desperate enough to agree to fuck themselves over in such a way to make statehood meaningless

I mean that is exactly what israel keeps trying to get out of this, is a situation where Israel is in complete control of everything between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, and a Palestinian "State" only exists on the header of stationary produced in Ramallah.

[shira]

8. Riiiiiight, since 1937, not desperate enuff. See, it's not about their own state....

They could've had their own state multiple times already. It's about denying Jews their own state.

When you can acknowledge that, we can move on.

[Scootaloo]

18. Ever heard the term "Projection," Shira?

Re-read my previous post, take a moment to observe Israel's actions and demands of Palestine, then figure it the fuck out

[shira]

19. There were no actions and demands by Israel in 1937 or 1947. What was the excuse then?

The excuse was that the Palestinians (leaders) weren't as interested in their own state as they were opposed to a Jewish state.

The same holds true today.

[Scootaloo]

20. Well, of course there wasn't. Israel didn't exist until 1948.

of course during the period you talk about the territory was occupied by the British. Then, as now, occupation makes it impossible to declare independence. Neither Jews nor Arabs could go "I'm a state!" until that problem was cleared up.

[shira]

21. Palestinians refused a state in 1937 and 1947. The reason is because they opposed....

...a Jewish state more than they desired their own state.

There's no point denying this.

[Scootaloo]

22. Shira, you have no excuse for being so ignorant

1) The territory already belonged to the Palestinians. You cannot offer something to someone, if they already own it.

2) Instead, there was a demand that Palestinians sacrifice over half of their territory to make way for a state of immigrants so that Britain could pay off what amounted to the international version of a gambling debt, where they had used Palestine as collateral - prior to even capturing the territory from the Ottomans

Yes, Palestine rejected such demands, because it's an insane demand. There was no incentive offered to them to accept. They were just expected to clear out and deal with it.

However, they did offer a counter-proposal. A democratic state that would recognize the equality of Jews, Muslims, and christians within its bounds. Then, as now, Zionists were disgusted by the notion, and then as now, they rejected a peaceful solution in favor of race war.

You make a lot of noise about how awful it is that the Palestinians didn't "accept" a Jewish state... Frankly they wouldn't have accepted a Greek or Finnish one either, mostly because it's being carved out of their own territory. But in addition to failing to realize that, you also fail to give any argument as to why they should have accepted such a notion - except of course, argument of brutalization, "if you don't accept, we'll kill you."

[shira]

28. The territory already belonged to the Palestinians....who already owned it? Not quite.

There was no distinct Palestinian people or nationality 100 years ago. So the land didn't belong to "Palestinians" then. When people mentioned Palestinians a century ago, they were referring to Jews.

The Arabs never offered a western style democracy to be shared. Hitler's Mufti was totally against it. At best, it would have been an Egyptian style or Palestinian democracy (one and done, no civil rights). Fuck that BS.

And the Arabs of that area weren't offered only half "their land". Before 1922, Palestine included Jordan, so in reality the Jews would receive less than 20% of what Palestine was a century ago. The Arabs would have gotten > 80% of Palestine.

[Scootaloo]

35. Oh, so now you're back to "no such people" and "Jordan = Palestine"

Ironically, your inconsistencies are very consistent. I wonder if your posting habits follow the phases of the moon or something. "Tide comes in, tide goes out; you can't explain that!"

The territory already belonged to the Palestinians....who already owned it? Not quite.

Very much quite.

There was no distinct Palestinian people or nationality 100 years ago. So the land didn't belong to "Palestinians" then.

The territory is named Palestine. The people who lived there were Palestinians. The territory belongs to the people who lived here. Thus, the territory belonged to the Palestinians. This ain't that fucking hard, Shira. I know you struggle, but I/P is an advanced class that you signed up for, so we expect you to keep up.

The Arabs never offered a western style democracy to be shared.

Well, looking at the condition of "western democracies" during the period, I might have to agree. What was offered as probably superior to anything else out there.

But I suspect you're trying to insist there was no offer... Which is straight-up bullshit. The entire principle of the Palestinians at the time was for form a single democratic state modeled after the British example that acknowledged the rights of both Arabs and Jews.

Hitler's Mufti was totally against it.

Herbert Samuel's mufti, actually. You know, the British High commissioner of Palestine? You... do know that al-Husseini was appointed by the British commission, right? This is after the 1920 riots, mind you - which according to Chaim weissman, the british kicked off by paying al-Husseini to act as provocateur. But yeah. After that Herbert Samuel appointed al-Husseini to the position of Mufti... after al-Husseini came in fourth out of four contenders in elections held win the Islamic Council. Oh yeah, and just for extra laughter? Herbert Samuel was a jew and ardent Zionist. Yeah.

Also, how could he be against something you assert didn't exist?

At best, it would have been

Pick a position and stick with it. It's fucking embarassing to see you shuffling the goalposts for the argument you are trying to make.

an Egyptian style

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

or Palestinian democracy

Well, a democracy in Palestine would of course be a Palestinian-style democracy, don'cha think?

And the Arabs of that area weren't offered only half "their land".

I said less than half. It was closer to a 60/40 split, with Jews getting the 60. Most of the difference was the Negev, granted.

And again, these weren't offers, they were demands.

Finally, this is what every demand consisted of. It was just assumed that the Arabs should be the ones hacking off their territory to make way for the people the Europeans had been brutalizing for so long.

Before 1922, Palestine included Jordan, so in reality the Jews would receive less than 20% of what Palestine was a century ago.

No, it didn't. Palestine and Transjordan have always been separate territories. After WWI, they both fell under British protectorate, and on paper, Transjordan was supposedly governed by the Mandate for Palestine... but in reality it was basically a no-man's land, there was no British authority between the west bank and British Mesopotamia. That space was transjordan. In fact British administration of transjordan - as in, actual administration - only began in 1921, when Faisal I established a government there and gave the British something to work with. Transjordan was managed out of the offices of the mandate for Palestine, but in all other ways was treated as an entirely separate territory.

And while this is all fascinating, it's also irrelevant, as we are talking about Palestine, Shira. No matter how much you keep trying to shift the goalposts, Palestine in Palestine. The people who live there are Palestinians. if you want to argue with people who don't know any better, I suggest you go back to yelling at 13 year olds in the youtube comments of PalWatch videos, kay?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. The territory belonged to the British. So you do not need to get confused...

would you like me to start listing history books about Israel?

Or are you more given to reading Saudi-paid "Palestinian" propaganda? I place the quotes around the term Palestinian because it is not a real term. The individuals who today call themselves Palestinians are individuals who, once Israelis purchased land and began to turn the barren wasteland into a country, chose to move there. They are individuals who come from all neighboring countries, countries which treated them like crap, and so they decided to leave. '

From that point on, they began to weave a faux history. A sort of, mythology, which the Saudis finance very heavily today, and has become the best propaganda for the mythological Palestinians.

[Scootaloo]

40. I don't think you know how all thisworks, Sarah - and welcome to the scrum, by the way

Always fascinating how when one contender gets knocked out, another instantly appears to fill their place. Too bad shira's actually better at this than you, but I think you might learn

The territory belonged to the British

In fact, it did not. It was occupied by the British. You do understand the difference between "Sphere of influence" and "ownership," don't you? An entity within a state's sphere of influence may be treated as a colony de facto - see the US relationship with Micronesia or Palau - but of course, de facto is very different from de jure - by law. By law, these entities are self-owning and independent, even if under occupation (see Iraq, prior to 2012)

Palestine no more "belonged to" the British than Iran or Thailand did.

would you like me to start listing history books about Israel?

By all means. I'm always curious about what you guys are reading. Titles and authors, please

Or are you more given to reading Saudi-paid "Palestinian" propaganda?

it's interesting that you seem to have a problem with "propaganda," yet here you are saying silly things like

I place the quotes around the term Palestinian because it is not a real term. The individuals who today call themselves Palestinians are individuals who, once Israelis purchased land and began to turn the barren wasteland into a country, chose to move there.

Of course it's a real term. The place is called Palestine. The people who live there are Palestinians. And I'm afraid you are no more qualified to deny that, than the skinheads who try to claim Jews are "really" Khazars. And yes, the comparison is entirely deliberate.

I find it that a barren wasteland, with no people at all, was somehow able to produce 209,955 tons of grain, 142,287 tons of melons, 79,489 tons of olives, etc., etc., per annum - at least, according to the British Survey of Palestine.

I'm afraid you're the one being misled by propaganda, a combination of herzl's claims of an empty land, and Levi Eshkot's claim that "Jews made the desert bloom." Both are false claims, the first made to allay immigrant's concerns about Palestine being inhabited, the second coming after Israel's occupation of Gaza, the west bank, Sinai, and Golan, used as justification for Israeli expansion into those territories.

From that point on, they began to weave a faux history. A sort of, mythology, which the Saudis finance very heavily today, and has become the best propaganda for the mythological Palestinians.

The irony is saddening.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Why, thanks for the welcome. Where are you from originally, if you don't mind my asking. nt

[Scootaloo]

50. Define "originally"?

'Cause that's always a funny question in a forum where people claim that ancestry from the bronze age gives them title to land today, y'know?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. Originally, as in born. nt

[Scootaloo]

62. Alabama, then

[Sarah Ibarruri]

64. Southern state. nt

[Scootaloo]

66. It's generally considered so, yes?

[Fozzledick]

67. So, occupied Cherokee and Creek territory.

Ethnically cleansed on the Trail of Tears.

I see.

[Scootaloo]

68. Among other nations

My particular part of the state had been inhabited first by the Biloxi (decimated in a smallpox outbreak in the 18th century, joined the Tunica people in southeast Louisiana) and the Choctaw (expelled under the terms of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830.) The native inhabitants, after being expelled (save for a few thousand who either were overlooked or suborned into the state, as the Mississippi Choctaw were to the west) were then replaced by feudal landowners who profited of the blood and labor of enslaved Africans.

Are you going to present an argument or something, or do you just want to know about Native history in Alabama?

[Fozzledick]

70. Just putting things in perspective.

People who live in glass houses and so on.

[Scootaloo]

73. I'm wondering if you know what that particular saying means, Fozzie

I'm assuming you don't, because it'd be really ironic if you did

[azurnoir]

76. you go back 176 years to put what's happening today into perspective?

Tell us do you apply this same standard to criticism of all foreign countries?

does it simply means no American can complain about it?

Tell us do you apply the same standards to slavery? After all the US allowed that until 150 years ago.

Not allowing women to vote ended a mere 96 years ago in the US

Jim Crow ended 50 years ago

I could go on if you wish

[King_David]

82. Agreed ,I think we should only go back 10 or 15 years

And decide from what was happening in Israel then at that time.

[azurnoir]

85. lol so you wish to base everything on the second intifada sorry Israel's righwingers already do that

is it safe to say they have your kudo's on this?

[King_David]

88. Wink Wink

It was a little demonstration how your numbers of 150 years can be easily manipulated to 70 or 60 or 40 or 20 or 10.

[azurnoir]

89. or an example of goal post switching :)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

79. Yes. nt

[Scootaloo]

80. So, was there direction to the question?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

81. Yeah, I was trying to figure out where you got so involved with the Middle East. nt

[Scootaloo]

83. Why not just ask that?

I actually got started on the topic during the first Gulf War, when all the war porn was on TV every night and I wanted to know just what the hell was going on over there. 'Course I was a little kid back then, so was pretty willing to accept whatever answer came along first, which was my mom telling me "we're fighting them because they threw babies out of their incubators" - which was an especially horrible idea, javing first met my baby sister that year through the class of an incubator.

Then, the start of the school year when I'm 12; the teacher turns on the class television in the corner, and we watch all the news reports with Rabin and Arafat shaking hands, and I want to know, "who are these guys and why is it important?"

It's all been downhill for my sanity - and bookshelves - from there

[Sarah Ibarruri]

101. Hmm... and that's all, huh? Nothing else in there? I think there's something else nt

[Scootaloo]

103. Well, speak up.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

106. That's what I say nt

[Scootaloo]

107. As far as I can tell, you're the one trying to make a poont here. So open up about it Sarah.

What's on your mind? Something about my being born in Alabama, it looks like. A little more detail, pelase?

[Scootaloo]

117. Nothing? Come on, speak up, I'm still curious

[Jefferson23]

84. You're too involved, considering your origin??

The responses you're receiving questioning your intentions are hilarious.

I wonder what significance is applied to other states in the US..sounds like a
Jeopardy game approach may be applicable soon.

[Scootaloo]

86. It is pretty funny n/t

[Jefferson23]

47. This is too funny: *The territory belonged to the British

I saw the claim, same person, different post, the PLO is a terrorist organization...amazing.

It is one thing to not be aware but the indignation that comes with it is something else.

Kudos for your patience and the irony is saddening.

[Scootaloo]

54. Well, I know I'm not going to bring enlightenment upon the posters themselves...

They seem pretty dedicated to their lack of knowledge - to phrase it charitably. but I know people who post aren't the only people who read, and there's some satisfaction in being able to point out where these people have been corrected multiple times about the same issue.

The information is out there. It can be pretty tough to find - it's like looking for an old Email in a hotmail account before the invention of spam filters - but it's out there.

[GoneFishin]

57. You are correct about others reading the posts. Much appreciated. I read on another thread that

peoples' emotions can blind their reasoning skills to the point where even their maths skills can suffer when a correct calculation reveals information that they do not want to believe.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Priceless...

[King_David]

24. Not desperate enough for peace ?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

98. Interesting.

You'd think they'd want the occupation and settlements to end, along with "apartheid", etc.?

At least we have you come round to admitting apartheid.

[sabbat hunter]

3. Here is my solution

Israel should withdraw unilaterally, including all the settlements in the WB, with the exception of the old city of Jerusalem. Then with the exception of Palestinians going to Al-asqa to pray, Israel would be free to decide who the want to allow in to Israel.


To me it seems like Bibi does not want to negotiate because he is afraid he will lose the PMship to Lieberman or someone else from Likud. Abbas does not want to negotiate because he is afraid he will be assassinated by someone from Hamas or IJ if he does. (or maybe by someone from Fatah who does not agree with him). Those are the only reasons I can think of that either side has on why they are not negotiating.

anything else that they say are just excuses to make like it is not the above reasons.

[shira]

9. They tried withdrawal in Gaza and Lebanon, got 2 wars in return. This time, it would be worse....

....as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv would be within firing range. I don't believe 8 million Israelis would like that very much, do you?

Imagine NJ as the hostile state and Manhattan as the target. Manhatttan would've nuked NJ several times over by now, but the point is that New Yorkers wouldn't allow a Gaza scenario to exist so closely to them.

[sabbat hunter]

12. However

if the unilaterally withdraw from the WB and there are renewed attacks from the WB, israel can then declare war on Palestine, take whatever actions that are needed under wartime rules to stop the attacks. Plus then, they can go to the world community and say, we gave them what they wanted, they attacked, now we must protect our people.

What would your solution to the situation be? Obviously Abbas is not a willing negotiation partner.

[shira]

16. No, that wouldn't fly. Israel thought the same when they got out of Gaza and Lebanon....

The 2 wars with Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008) led to the most absurd world poutrage and war crimes accusations, UN condemnation, Goldstone Report, etc. The "world community", like then, would definitely NOT be understanding in such a future scenario.

I don't know of a solution that will work. It's pretty hopeless IMO.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

97. So your anser is peace through colonization?

How's that one working out for you?

[azurnoir]

4. here are the 7 "conditions"

1. To receive a written letter from Israel's premier recognizing the Palestinian borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital.

2. The release of Palestinian prisoners who former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to free including Marwan Barghouthi, Ahmad Saadat, and Fuad Shweiki.

3. Implementing a border-crossing agreement and lifting the siege on Gaza.

4. The return of exiles deported in the 2002 Bethlehem siege.

5. Stopping settlement activity in Jerusalem, and opening closed institutions in Jerusalem.

6. Allowing the reunification of 15,000 Palestinians with their families.

7. Israel refraining from entering areas under Palestinian Authority control for arrests or killings, and granting the PA some control over Area C.

[Scootaloo]

5. How completely unreasonable!

*cough*

[azurnoir]

7. The horror......the horror

and again *cough*

hey love your fish fits my mood been watching Vikings

[shira]

10. Freeing Barghouti? Lifting the siege so that Hamas can go wild w/ better weapons?

Stopping settlement building within Jerusalem settlements that would go to Israel in any reasonable deal?

Get fucking real.

[Mosby]

14. I'm surprised they didn't include removing the security fence and checkpoints

They suckered bibi into releasing criminals for basically nothing in return so this is just a continuation of their strategy.

As we see in this thread it wouldn't matter how ridiculous their preconditions for talks are, Palestinian supporters will stand behind them.

[shira]

15. Palestinian "supporters" are nothing of the sort. They support Palestinian leaders....

...the Palestinian people, not so much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. Well, not unreasonable per se. I'd rather call it insane. nt

[Fozzledick]

41. Only if you take them seriously, which they aren't.

Nothing but poison pills that Abbas knows are unreasonable and totally unacceptable so he can use them as an excuse to walk out of the talks.

If he wanted peace he'd bargain for peace. Making insulting demands for unilateral concessions is just playing a game to avoid peace.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. With the PLO and "Palestinians" it's always same crap/different day.

[sabbat hunter]

13. Those aren't conditions to come to the table

those are what the peace treaty should include after negotiations.

[Scootaloo]

17. As have been Israel's preconditions over the years

My favorite was the "Olmert Plan," where the precondition was that Abbas commit to a map drawn by Israel, before being allowed o see the map. The continual demands to surrender all arms, abandon Jerusalem, and cease all national activity, and allow settlements to remain as a precondition for a peace treaty are pretty funny, too.

Basically Israel has been demanding total surrender as a preconditon to a peace treaty for twenty years now. haven't heard a peep from you guys about it. Now that Palestine is making demands after Israel tried to extort more out of them after breaking an agreement, oh, now it bothers you.

That's so cute.

[azurnoir]

23. my favorite part of Olmerts plan

was the part that stated none of it could even begin as long as Hamas was in power in Gaza

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. "Outrageous!"

[Scootaloo]

42. Every time I see that word, I snap back to 1987...

[King_David]

11. "Assuming of course that this article is correct. "

LOL


Well it comes from Maan so possibly yes and possibly no...

[King_David]

25. Time for Israel to Unilaterally withdraw

Behind the wall.

No need to negotiate with those who don't want to, just withdraw and give them the state they want with Israel choosing the borders - unilaterally .

[azurnoir]

26. okay look at the map Israel would leave the Jordan River Valley entirely ahava might be unhappy too

but heck why not

[King_David]

27. Don't need look at map

I was at Jewish Day School school learning map by heart , I've been there many times, I've lived there , I am Jrwish , Israel is my birthright .

You?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

31. Which map? It changes at the whim of the settlers.

[azurnoir]

32. still........

umm obsessing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60895

The map was not for you in particular, but are you reconsidering your statement?

[King_David]

33. Why do you keep copy and pasting my replies into your messages

I know they are that good but it's creepy....

Are all those alerts unsuccessful ?

LOL

[azurnoir]

34. my copying pasting your repeated inquiries into my background is what's creepy?

well okay then

oh as alerts no I have not alerted them why should I? IMO they're just fine to remain

[Scootaloo]

43. Wait, give me a second...

Your argument is that because you went to Jewish day school, you don't need to actually look at information, and that others who are "insufficiently Jewish" - by whatever criteria you personally use - but do have information, should take a back seat to what you learned when you were twelve.

[King_David]

44. I been to Israel many many times and lived there on an ulpan

There's no substitute for seeing yourself and experiencing up close.

How about you ?

[Scootaloo]

48. Yeah, there are plenty of substitutes for vacations, Dave.

As I said, it's called information. Education. Study. Learning about the situation instead of just assuming that being Jewish makes you an expert. Any idiot can visit Israel, and thousands do every month. Metallica's performed in Israel multiple times, but I'm not going to cite Lars Ulrich as a voice of expertise on the situation between Israel and Palestine.

if I ever need to know what night club in Tel Aviv makes the best mojito, or how to get the beach sand of the east Mediterranean out of my asscrack, I'll give you a call.

In the meantime, all you are is another tweenage American who thinks a two week expense-paid vacation from the Adelson Family Foundation and the Jewish Agency of Israel gives them a unique and deep insight into the truth of the conflict, such that htey don't need ot actually look at information like "maps" or "documents" or whatnot.

[King_David]

49. Guess you missed the part that said I was on Ulpan

Or maybe never understood.

[Scootaloo]

51. I didn't miss it.

I just don't see how studying Hebrew gives you any qualification in this discussion that enables you to dismiss information out of hand on that basis.

That's like me claiming three years of German makes me an expert on World War I, and that if we're discussing that war, I can just "go with my gut" and dismiss information and documentation.

[King_David]

52. Ok , sure,

LOL

[Scootaloo]

53. Only strengthening what I'm saying to you, Dave.

But okay. What part of Hebrew study gives you such insight into the conflict between Israel and Palestine that you don't actually need to look at, much less evaluate or consider actual information on the subject?

Also, and this is going to blow your mind... what guarantees do you have that the maps you saw were accurate representations of the situation? I man there's certainly precedent for duplicitous bullshit being crammed into the heads of unknowing jews...



Funny how Israel's map there seems to include Golan and the West Bank.

[King_David]

55. Yes the "unknowing jews"as you call us...know nothing about Israel

Will you please teach us?

[Scootaloo]

56. Well for one, Golan and the West Bank aren't part of Israel

Yet there they are, wrapped up in a map on the JNF's magazine cover.

What would you call that, Dave?

[GoneFishin]

58. Priceless.

[King_David]

59. You were generalizing about all Jews

And you got caught .

Your pic has nothing to do with "unknowing Jews " nor the attitude that statement reeks of....

[Scootaloo]

60. No, I was talking about Jews who don't know something - i.e., unknowing Jews

The point being that JNF is deceiving people who don't know better. And it ties back to your own position that just by being a Jew, you don't need to actually look at information presented, such as "maps." Obviously, that assertion is completely false, since you can't seem to tell your elbows from your eyebrows when it comes to this subject.

You want to talk about reeking attitudes? well, man, you're the one arguing that a vacation in Israel and some time spent learning Hebrew means you know more about the Israel-Palestine conflict than anyone who's actually devoted time and study to the subject... You clearly believe that any ignorant person with a loud opinion who happens to have gone on Birthright, has a stronger case than any goyim whose spent time actually learning the subject, but hasn't (obviously) gotten an expense-paid tour of Israel's Spring Break spots.

[King_David]

63. TLDR

I did however read your generalization about "unknowing Jews" which is just another illuminating comment here.

[Scootaloo]

65. Ah huh

So you dismiss facts presented to you, ignore arguments, and focus on misrepresentation instead.

DU needs a higher-quality zionist or something. You're just not gonna cut it.

[Fozzledick]

69. It's just painful watching you flounder around so cluelessly.

David said he didn't need to be lectured on the map because he already knew all about it since he studied it in school!

I can only wonder why you're so unfamiliar with that concept. On the other hand, that might explain quite a bit.

Feel free to return to your usual evasion and denial, I just couldn't help but notice that you've crossed the line from ludicrous to pathetic.

[Scootaloo]

72. Evidently he does need to be lectured, becuase he's got not a single clue

And I know from experience that "learning in school" is a quite different thing from "learning facts." Especially when we're talking about a particular school system that is literally designed to propagandize, as is the case in the ulpan system. Which leads to silly shit like accepting the JNF maps that show Golan and the west bank as part of Israel - or his argument that Israel can arbitrarily redefine its actual legal borders.

[King_David]

71. Your personal insults and anger

Are like water off a ducks back.

As a Gay Jew I am not new to this.

[Scootaloo]

74. Personal insults and anger?

Noting that you dismiss arguments, instead favoring to misrepresent someone's statements is "anger?" Or is that the personal insult? No, I guess the insult was pointing out that you're not very good at any of this, and that DU needs a higher-quality Zionist to present arguments?

[Fozzledick]

75. When that's all you've got, then that's all you've got.

I can understand your frustration though. After 65 years of all out war and unrelenting terrorism the state of Israel is still there, stronger than ever and not going to go away.

All you can do is rant and rave and throw thinly veiled, artfully constructed insults at anonymous strangers in an on-line forum, but reality still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge or respect your extreme ideological agenda.

I can easily see how infuriating that must be for you. The more you try to deny reality, the more frustrating its persistence becomes.

[Scootaloo]

78. You have the strangest perception of this discussion, Fozzie

Let's start with you reading and responding to what's actually posted, and see where it goes from there, yes?

[Jefferson23]

87. So claims the guy who is incapable of recognizing a human rights group.

No, I don't think much of their claim to be a human rights group.

Just a mask for partisan propaganda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60073

On a political liberal forum yet..too funny you suggesting anyone extreme.

[Fozzledick]

90. Yeah, their use of biased propaganda jargon gives them away.

What's funny is you seem to think that kind of inflammatory doublespeak is normal.

[Jefferson23]

91. Sad to see you're sticking to your claim about them, as a human rights group they

are respected in Israel and throughout the world.

For one, Jimmy Carter has this group as a go to source....just so you know. They are listed
on his website..among other HR groups.

You crack me up...extreme indeed.

[Fozzledick]

92. ROTFLMFAO!!!!! Citing Jimmy Carter as an authority on credibility regarding Israel!!

Now THAT'S a really good one!!

You really don't have any idea how tiny your ideological bubble is, do you?

[Jefferson23]

93. Again, B'Tselem is a widely respected human rights group..I offered you

an opinion of a non extremist. Good to know where you fall..when you're laughing
and who you consider extreme.

When you're done, you can offer a source that supports your claim that B'Tselems
reports are inaccurate. I am interested to learn who you trust for accuracy
in reporting.

[Fozzledick]

94. You're not just doing it wrong, you're doing it wrong badly.

"Appeal to authority" is a basic logical fallacy even when the authority cited has some credibility, but when your "authority" is just a notoriously biased partisan it just becomes a bad joke.

[Jefferson23]

95. No appeal to authority..a mere example of a non extreme political figure.

Carter has credibility issues on DU? Do tell.

Where is your information that B'Tselem reports are inaccurate? You refer
to their organization as propaganda..based on what sources did you
draw this conclusion.

[Fozzledick]

96. Nah, I'll just watch you get tangled in your own web.

You're not as subtle as you seem to think you are.

What I find more interesting is your inability to conceive of someone thinking for themself rather than blindly following an ideological dogma. I think that says a lot about where you're coming from.

[Jefferson23]

99. You do not want to reveal your sources, that you have made clear. You're on a liberal

political website charging another DU member as having an extreme view point.( Post# 75 )

What other opinions does Carter hold that are extreme/biased? You don't say.
Just that you're certain he is biased on Israel, but only based on your say so. I would
expect you to understand that it is you who rests in the minority opinion about
Carter here on DU. Which is fine, makes no difference to me, until you try and sell
his opinion as extreme and riddled with so much bias, you fell over laughing at the
mention of his name. I take issue with your opinion on this political website, yes.
So before you go further and accuse people of extreme view points on DU, I suggest
you get your facts in order. Carter may very well be considered laughable on other
political forums, just not this one. There is nothing wrong in being part of a minority
opinion, I take no issue with you on that..I just want to be clear to you since you
seem to have this false sense of confidence in your belief of what is an extreme
viewpoint/agenda.

You rely on empty accusations against a DU member, and you refuse to back up
your claims about B'Tselem/Carter. My ability and my right, is to ask you to substantiate
your claims.

You have refused to answer, your prerogative, yet it leaves you with no credibility.
I did not suggest that you don't think for yourself. Asking you how you formed
your opinion, which sources did you rely on, in no way suggests I find you incapable of
thinking for yourself.

What makes you imagine I was attempting to be subtle, I have no idea.

[Fozzledick]

100. My my, you do seem frustrated I won't play your silly little game.

I think I've already covered this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=61580

And... we've come full circle.

[Jefferson23]

102. You have nothing to play with..and you have reaffirmed my point..thanks. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Of course you're right. Also, the PLO is a terrorist organization and its dead leader

was a terrorist.

[azurnoir]

77. The PLO was taken off the terrorist list in 1991 and Arafat recognized Israel in 1993 n/t

[politicman]

104. seriously, the zionists on this board cant understand a coherent argument even if their life

depended on it.

This is one messed up thread.

There are people on here that actually point out facts and supply sources if asked to back up those facts, they type coherent arguments that are thought out (these are the posters that are against Israeli apartheid),

AND

There are those that respond the same way that little children respond. They make false assertions and when asked to back up those assertions with sources, they fail to do so. Instead they type responses that can only be described as the responses of 2 year olds.
(these are the Zionist or pro-Zionist)


Its funny but also frustrating at times. Seriously just look at some of there responses, they ask a question, get a response that proves their assertions are false and then get asked a question themselves, and they respond by accusing the anti-apartheid crowd of deflecting and insulting.

Especially frustrating is that idiotic poster who claims that because he is Jewish that he knows more about the conflict than anyone else, yet when presented with information that shows that Israeli's are being educated with false info he refuses to accept it, and then his idiotic supporter comes along and tries to back him up by not even addressing the original point.

[Fozzledick]

105. Lies aren't coherent arguments, they're just... lies!

Some people seem to think that if they keep repeating the sames lies over and over that they'll gain credibility. They don't. They just demonstrate a willful refusal to face reality.

And the inevitable gratuitous insults just demonstrate their frustration that the world outside their extremist echo chamber doesn't take them seriously.

[politicman]

108. where's your sources to prove they are lies?

If you call their arguments lies, then the least you can do is refute these 'lies' with sources to back you up.

I along with all the others readers of this thread are waiting to see your sources, have you any?

[Fozzledick]

109. Why should I waste my time with a Gish Gallop?

Besides, they just ignore the facts and keep repeating the same lies.

Do you really think no one sees your game?

[politicman]

110. oh, so you have no sources then? thought so.

WOW, that's some powerful argument you have in response. NOT.

Really, the best that you can come up with after calling other peoples arguments as lies?
Really, you can't be bothered backing up your arguments with sources rather than just expecting people to believe the words you type?

Really, that's the best coherent argument you can make? That you do not want to waste your time providing sources because others won't believe them anyway?


Cool then. You have made my argument for me, the Zionists on these boards know nothing, they just repeat the same tired old crap that they have been taught by other Zionists, and as some on here have shown, if the Zionists that teach you things are deliberately teaching you false information, then your arguments come out as incoherent babble just like yours.

As just in case you ask, the poster that showed the fake map being taught by Zionists is the proof that you guys are all being taught misleading stuff.

But go on in your ignorant ways, the world is turning and the Palestinians power grows every day as the rest of the world sees the Zionists for what they are, ignorant fools whose lies are being exposed on a daily basis.

[Fozzledick]

111. Funny, I don't see you citing any "sources".

Just spewing the usual gratuitous insults.

Yeah, that's all you got.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=61580

[politicman]

112. Would you be ok with me taking over half of your house if I just came in and took it?

See you provide another example of my assertion that you can't provide a coherent argument on this issue because you have no coherent thoughts on it.

I hear the same old things from you Zionists, the same old arguments.

Terrorists this, terrorists that, etc, etc.

I think the most spectacular part of this whole discussion is when I read from on of you Zionists on here that Palestinians could have had their own recognized state if they had just let Jews from Europe come in at take half their country back in the day.

When one poster pointed out that Palestinians had every right to resist half their land being taken over by people who came from Europe, fools like you still couldn't even admit Palestinians had that right.

Simple question for you:

If I (a stranger) came into your 3 bedroom house right now and demanded that you give half the house to me, would you just clean out 1 and a half rooms and accept that I now own half of your house?

Would you have the right to resist me moving into your house and asserting that I now own half of it?

[Fozzledick]

113. I'm really not impressed by the Big Lie technique.

And all your nasty name calling just reveals the obsessive hatred and malice behind it.

If I were arguing with a rational person I'd point out that it's the Israelis who've been defending themselves against invaders who came into their homeland and tried to MURDER THEIR WHOLE FAMILY, but since you've chosen to ignore the history of the 1948 war and everything that came before it I expect you'd just ignore that too, change the subject again and spew more random insults. As I've said, I'm on to your game and you're not fooling anyone.

[politicman]

114. when you answer questions in a dishonest manner and make it so obvious, what do you expect

Haha, and you expect me to be civil with someone like you that when asked a simple question, you can't even give an answer that makes sense.

This is the problem with Zionists like yourself, even though you consider yourself progressive you have the same thinking patterns as the right wingers that are ridiculed on this site every day.

You suspend reality and rewrite history to support your argument even though a child can figure out that your argument holds no water.

How on earth you can think that it was Israelis that were defending themselves against invaders is beyond me, it just goes to prove how you can rewrite things to suit your argument.

Now even though I will regret this as you have made no attempt to answer questions in a serious and honest way, I will ask again:

Q) I am not ignoring the 1948 war or things that came before it, I am asking who was living there before the 1948 war, was it Palestinians or the European Jews that came and demanded half the land for their own country?
(hint: pay attention to the words 'European Jews', it will help you answer this question in an honest manner)

Q) So if I did the same thing, if I (a stranger) came into your 3 bedroom house and demanded half your house, would you just clear out 1 and a half rooms for me and accept that I now own half of your house?

[Fozzledick]

115. Yeah, you've just proved my points again.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to play chess with a pigeon.

[politicman]

116. yeah whatever....

haha, again with your unwillingness to answer, just like your unwillingness to provide sources when asked.

Seriously, I have no idea why I even bothered to exchange posts with you, its useless trying to get you to admit someone that the whole world knows.

Anyway, enjoy your ignorance if that's what you want.
But I suspect it really isn't what you want, I suspect you have deliberately made yourself ignorant to make yourself feel better about the crimes of your 'homeland'.

I suspect that you would love nothing more than to start feeling smart again, but unfortunately your love for your 'homeland' forces you to stay ignorant otherwise you would find yourself in a dilemma, do you acknowledge facts and history, or do you suspend facts and history for the love of your 'homeland'.

Anyway, see ya. Life is too short spending time on ignorant people who deliberately make themselves ignorant.

[King_David]

121. 'Zionists like yourself'

As if that is an insult or something.

Right here on DU---wow

[Scootaloo]

118. If you were arguing with a rational person you would present an irrational and non-factual argument?

it's the Israelis who've been defending themselves against invaders

No, point of fact, they're not. No one is invading Israel. no one has invaded Israel. In fact over the past 70 years, it's been the opposite, Israel invading Arab lands outside of Israel (Palestine), Israel invading Lebanon, Israel invading Egypt, Israel invading Syria...

came into their homeland and tried to MURDER THEIR WHOLE FAMILY

Just as Israel has never been invaded, no one has come into "the homeland", much less tried to "murder their whole family." Hyperbolic nonsense doesn't get more valid through use of all caps.

since you've chosen to ignore the history of the 1948 war

I don't know about politicman's base of knowledge on the subject, but even if it's completely wrong, it could hardly be any worse than the amount of knowledge you've just demonstrated about the subject.

As I've said, I'm on to your game and you're not fooling anyone.

No one's trying to fool you, Fozzie.

[Fozzledick]

119. Denying the invasion in 1948 is as credible as denying the Holocaust.

No one's trying to fool you, Fozzie.

Yeah, that's what you want me to think, isn't it?

[Scootaloo]

120. Well, except that the Holocaust actually happened

However, no part of Israel was ever invaded - unless you want to count an Egyptian air raid on Tel Aviv military base as an "invasion." Aside from that, all the fighting took place outside of Israel's declared and recognized legal boundaries. Further even in that case, it was not an invasion, but a military intervention. The Arab League was acting to halt a civil war and prevent further ethnic cleansing, as it was obligated to do - thus why no UN condemnation; legally, the Arab league was conducting a defensive war entirely within the territory of Palestine that was outside the borders Israel declared on May 14 1948.

I know, I know, "Exodus" is a compelling narrative. But so is "The Patriot," but both films are ahistorical bullshit. The real history is more compelling, because it doesn't read like a self-justifying fairy tale.

[Fozzledick]

122. Is that how it is in magic-cloud-pony-land?

You really do need to get out more.

[Scootaloo]

123. Aside from the exception I noted, there were no Arab League military operations within Israel

And I struggle at the notion of calling an air raid an "invasion" as invasions usually mean ground movements, right?

Further, the Arab league declaration for intervention makes it perfectly clear what they were up to - and it was hardly "MURDERING YOUR WHOLE FAMILY!" as you assert.

I'm afraid that you're living in a fantasy world here, Fozzie.