Palestinians Are Fighting for Their Lives; Israel Is Fighting for the Occupation

First topic message reminder :

That we notice there’s a war on only when Jews are murdered does not cancel out the fact that Palestinians are being killed all the time.

Yes, this is a war, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with his mandate from the people, has ordered its intensification. He does not listen to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ messages of conciliation and acceptance in calmer times, why should he listen to them now?

Netanyahu is intensifying the war mainly in East Jerusalem, with orgies of collective punishment. He thus further reveals Israel’s success in physically disconnecting Jerusalem from most of the Palestinian population, accenting the absence of Palestinian leadership in East Jerusalem and the weakness of the government in Ramallah — which is trying to stop the drift in the rest of the West Bank.

The war did not start last Thursday, it does not start with the Jewish victims and does not end when no Jews are murdered. The Palestinians are fighting for their life, in the full sense of the word. We Israeli Jews are fighting for our privilege as a nation of masters, in the full ugliness of the term.

That we notice there’s a war on only when Jews are murdered does not cancel out the fact that Palestinians are being killed all the time, and that all the time we are doing everything in our power to make their lives unbearable. Most of the time it is a unilateral war, waged by us, to get them to say “yes” to the master, thank you very much for keeping us alive in our reservations. When something in the war’s one-sidedness is disturbed, and Jews are murdered, then we pay attention.

Young Palestinians do not go out to murder Jews because they are Jews, but because we are their occupiers, their torturers, their jailers, the thieves of their land and water, their exilers, the demolishers of their homes, the blockers of their horizon. Young Palestinians, vengeful and desperate, are willing to lose their lives and cause their families great pain because the enemy they face proves every day that its malice has no limits.

Even the language is malicious. Jews are murdered, Palestinians are killed and die. Is that so? The problem doesn’t begin with our not being permitted to write that a soldier or police officer murdered Palestinians, at close range, when his life was not in danger, or by remote control or from a plane or a drone. But it is part of the problem. Our comprehension is captive to a retroactively censored language that distorts reality. In our language, Jews are murdered because they are Jews and Palestinians find their death and their distress, because presumably that’s what they’re looking for.

Our worldview is shaped by the consistent betrayal by Israeli media outlets of their duty to report events, or their lack of the technical and the emotional ability to contain all of the details of the world war that we are conducting in order to preserve our superiority in the land between the river and the sea.

Not even this newspaper has the economic resources to employ 10 reporters and fill 20 pages with reports on all the attacks in times of escalation and all the attacks of the occupation in times of calm, from shooting through building a road that destroys a village to legalizing a settlement outpost and a million more assaults. Every day. The random examples we do manage to report are but a drop in the ocean, and they have no impact on the comprehension of the situation for a large majority of Israelis.

The goal of this unilateral war is to force the Palestinians to give up all their national demands in their homeland. Netanyahu wants escalation because experience so far has proved that the periods of calm after the bleeding return us not to the starting line, but rather to a new low in the Palestinian political system, and adds privileges to the Jews in Greater Israel.

Privileges are the chief factor that distorts our understanding of our reality, blinding us. Because of them, we fail to comprehend that even with weak, “present-absent” leadership, the Palestinian people — scattered in its Indian reservations — will not give up and will continue to find the strength necessary to resist our malicious mastership.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.679129

Haaretz - an ISRAELI paper.

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

How did you figure that out?

What an assumption to make! Jesus Christ!

its quite easy to make that conclusion

you highlight that fact that so called "palestinians" are being kicked out of thier homes to make way for israelis and then proceed to shit yourself in hysterical outrage

when it is highlighted that a german nurse has suffered the same fate but for a different
group, your response is "MEH its only one who cares??"

so it it was only one palestinian losing their house, your reponse would presumably be "MEH its only one who cares", but becasue its not only one, youre up in arms

thus we must conclude that the issue you have is with the amount of settlements, not the settlements themselves

Don't fucking confuse your self with me.

I already wrote on another thread what's happening to the German nurse wasn't right and she shouldn't have to move to make way for refugees.

So it's the same way I feel about Palestinian natives.

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

What the fuck are you on about?

what i am on about is your hypocrisy

it wouldnt matter if one nurse turned into ten thousand, you wouldnt care anymore then, than you do now about it.

unless of course it was ten thousand Muslim nurses, then you would care, but non Muslims mean nothing to you    

You are pathetic and get worse by the day

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

its quite easy to make that conclusion

you highlight that fact that so called "palestinians" are being kicked out of thier homes to make way for israelis and then proceed to shit yourself in hysterical outrage

when it is highlighted that a german nurse has suffered the same fate but for a different
group, your response is "MEH its only one who cares??"

so it it was only one palestinian losing their house, your reponse would presumably be "MEH its only one who cares", but becasue its not only one, youre up in arms

thus we must conclude that the issue you have is with the amount of settlements, not the settlements themselves

Don't fucking confuse your self with me.

I already wrote on another thread what's happening to the German nurse wasn't right and she shouldn't have to move to make way for refugees.

So it's the same way I feel about Palestinian natives.

is this one of your invisible pen posts is it??

you know the ones where only YOU can see them??

and mama, can we please stop confusing the issue, they are not palestinian natives, they are so called "palestinians" by pretedning that they have a state of their own, youre simply confusing the issue and escalating hatred towards the jews

SEXY MAMA wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

what i am on about is your hypocrisy

it wouldnt matter if one nurse turned into ten thousand, you wouldnt care anymore then, than you do now about it.

unless of course it was ten thousand Muslim nurses, then you would care, but non Muslims mean nothing to you    

You are pathetic and get worse by the day

my moral compass is working well then i see

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Did you not notice the word IF?

And you have the context, UK invaded and occupied by another country, doesn't matter which one.  Would you be a Quisling or would you fight back?

Do you mean invaded as in the way some say Germany has been invaded by Muslim refugees?

Nice wiggle, very obvious you don't want to answer the question.

An invasion by another country (ie a talking over by force by their army with guns and tanks etc) and occupation (the setting up of a government by them to oversee the UK and an armed force in place to implement it).

So, you'd do as you were told and work with their government (ie be a Quisling) or be like the French Restistance during the last war and fight back?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you mean invaded as in the way some say Germany has been invaded by Muslim refugees?

Nice wiggle, very obvious you don't want to answer the question.

An invasion by another country (ie a talking over by force by their army with guns and tanks etc) and occupation (the setting up of a government by them to oversee the UK and an armed force in place to implement it).

So, you'd do as you were told and work with their government (ie be a Quisling) or be like the French Restistance during the last war and fight back?

Palestine wasn't really an independent country anyway though was it? It was pretty much up for grabs for a long time, and especially after the war when the British pulled out.

The West Bank had been annexed by Jordan, so it wasn't a country in its own right. It was lost to Israel during the six-day war.

You really don't want to answer that question do you lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Nice wiggle, very obvious you don't want to answer the question.

An invasion by another country (ie a talking over by force by their army with guns and tanks etc) and occupation (the setting up of a government by them to oversee the UK and an armed force in place to implement it).

So, you'd do as you were told and work with their government (ie be a Quisling) or be like the French Restistance during the last war and fight back?

Palestine wasn't really an independent country anyway though was it? It was pretty much up for grabs for a long time, and especially after the war when the British pulled out.

The West Bank had been annexed by Jordan, so it wasn't a country in its own right. It was lost to Israel during the six-day war.

Correct

Sassy is on the wrong side of history with her make believe Palestinian state

As you correctly pointed out, Gaza and west bank were annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively and yet they never attacked these countries in their desire for their own state

In fact they where still in this configuration when the Jews returned,and it wasn't until the Jews declared independence that the Muslims rose up tried to kill them

At no stage did Israel invade Gaza or the west bank ,so the lie that Israel has stolen their lands is pure fallacy cooked by Nazis like sassy who hide behind a hatred of "Zionism"

Zionism is what these Jew killers call Jews

sassy wrote:You really don't want to answer that question do you lol

Mainly because your question is going off the wrong comparability.
There was no nation except the British mandate, which was then partitioned.
This has been seen numeroeus times after a much larger country is broken to allow the formation of new nations. For example we have seen within the 20th century countless nations formed.
So both Israel and Palestine had a chance to form, but instead when Israel was created it was attacked by the surrounding arab nations and a non-state area. Israel wonbeat off the attackers and many Palestinians were displaced and many Jews were displaced. So quite rightly Israel defended itself ftom agressive Arab nations who sought destroy it. Now the west bank bcame part of Jorden and Gaza became part of Eygpt.

So throughout this time, why was there absolutely net to no resisstance to this occupation by Jordan and Eygpt?

Cleary by your view of a place being invaded, then according to your methodology then all the Palestinians residing in Jordanian occupied West Bank were Quislings. The Same with occupied Gaza. So we see absolutely no real armed ressistance under occupation.

So why is this Sassy?

Well because under Jordanian and Egyptian control it was Dar La islam. So clearly there was nothing nationalistic in regards to an independent West Bank and Gaza, whilst it was under occupation by Jorden and Eygpt. This is also backed up by the 1964 PLO charter which called not for the returned of Jordanian occupied West Bank or Eygptian controlled Gaza.

So if they are happy to be occupied by another nation then  cleary there is a more appalling reason behind the continued attcks on Israel. One that is born from hate and one that does not wish to live together in peace. It all stems from a belief of both Fatah and Hamas believing that the nation of Israel is Dar La islam.

So when Israel took over Gaza and the West Bank, then suddenlly which then see resisstance to a Non-Muslim power being in control of these lands. Resolution 242 was created to basicaally stop a victor claiming anymore lands through victory, though it was very clear in allowing Israel to retain its 1967 borders.
Thie resolution was accepted by Israel when it made later deals with Egypt, Jorden etc, but the PLO refused to accept it and why? Because they did noy except the right of Israel to exist.

So lets place this into context and comparability to the Palestinians. Poland was created after WW1 from lands in both Germany and Russia. Both nations refused to except its existance and in 1939 both invdaded. We see a correlation here with Israel where after its creation it was not accepted by many Arab nations and the Palestinians residing in the rest of the former British Mandate. In the end Germany lost and lost yet more lands and 16 million displaced from lands that Germans had been liing in centuries. Russia set up a puppet Communist Governemnt but Poland became a nation again and later became free of communism. Now since 1945, has Germany cought to reclaim any of the lands they lost to Poland and other nations? Have they committed to terrorism under your guise of armed ressistance under occupatiopn?

On both counts no, because Germany recognised it was the aggressor in both conflicts.
Do we see the same with Fatah and Hamas? No, they continue to call for armed ressistance under occupation, of which there is no nation, which they are preventing themselves from being formed. Those killed in Israel by stabbings has come about from the incitement of violence called to defend a Mosque, so much so it has whipped up a frenzy of hate. Now Israel is not without fault, but how on earth can you claim amred resistance under occupation to lands that have not had Statehood? All of which they could have had.

So basically, your methodology backs the views of Germany to invade Poland in 1939 as it was armed resisstance under occupation as some of lands once belong to Imperial German
y, though no such Palestinian nation existed. You have also justified Russia also invading in 1939, where they had former land taken away. Again the difference with the Palestinians, is they had no nation, as it was part of the former Ottoman Empire which then broke up to form many nations. So by your methodolohgy again you would back then Turkey, being able to invade all Arab nations and then form them back into the Ottoman Empire.

Do I really need to continue to show how you have just justified countless major wars, where your methodology backs the agressors?

So sadly again and Rags is right you are trying to justify the murdet of civillians, israeli civillians to a claim of occupatrion to a land that does not really exist, Thw West Bank. Which is only partially occupied, where the sttlements are.

In conclusion:

When occupied by Jorden and Egypt, the Palestinians did not form any real armed resisstance like we see with Israel or even claim it was occupied Israel invaded both areas, both have since withdrawn from Gaza and much of the West Bank, which both areas have ruling authorities. This is not about armed resistance Sassy, its about an absurd religious view, where the view all the land of Israel as dar La islam.
Now either you do not accept the right of israel to self determination and you back a religious ideological belief that the lands belong to the Palestinians? Then it is not occupation but naked aggression and antisemitism. If you accept the right of Israel to exist, then any attacks in israel that target people is terrorsm, and cannot be armed resistance under occupation. Even then it would still be terrorism in the disputed areas.


So I would defend the Uk from any attack and rightly so, but the Palestinians conceded any argument to occupation when it accepted occupation under other rulling nations/ Not only that how can it be occupied, when the area is disputed and has never been created as a nation?

You have just justified murder, the German aggreesion of WW2, which led to the holocaust, where Jews were also seen as occupiers. So many points by your reasoning to compare West Bank and Gaza show they are actually more comparable to Imperial Germany and then Nazi Germany. Germany lost two wars and has since moved on, just like countless other nations have moved on where minority groups formed nations for themselves from larger nations

Hence why the question should always be, when are the Palestinian authorities going to finally recognise, it is they in the main that have continued this conflict because they refuse to accept Israel and they refuse to accept they were aggressive attacking Israel and lost.

Sorry I've come to this thread late, but just going back to the title OP "-palestinians-are-fighting-for-their-lives-israel-is-fighting-for-the-occupation" - aren't they both fighting for a piece of land?

That was well put Didge, but it will all go over Sassy's head.

eddie wrote:Sorry I've come to this thread late, but just going back to the title OP "-palestinians-are-fighting-for-their-lives-israel-is-fighting-for-the-occupation" - aren't they both fighting for a piece of land?

In this latest situation much has been centered around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Which has seen this same violence before, which is created from, wait for it, fear. This Mosque is the third holiest site to Muslims and the Temple mount or whats left of the wall is the most holiest site to Jews. Yep back to religion being the problem here over access to the area. The Muslims are anti any Jews going near the mosque. With a belief they will end up destroying this Mosque, even though they could have destroyed it years ago and would be barking mad to do so, as not only would the Muslim world erupt and world over no doubt Jews would be attacked, but the West would also no doubt come down hard on Israel. So the belief they would take over it to destroy to build a New Jewish temple, just is not practical and not only that seeing how some Muslims react already, they would greatly further increase the risk to Jews world over. Hence its unlikely, but because some Jews have been allowed recently access to the complex, not the Mosque,, the fear comes in that Israel is out to take over the Mosque. Of course this has not helped the matter and has helped fuel tensions, but then what really kicked it off was the speech by Abbas, the Fatah leader in Weest Bank, who called for Resistance.  So you are right both sides have a religious ideological belief the land both belongs to them which is absurd. So this latest violence has been fueled off paranoia about the Mosque, a claim to what Israeli's might do.

Its not the first time this has happened, and then when you have lots of violence kick off, all over the place. The media even further make matters worse by printing some incendiary articles like this one, which basically made not Israeli's, but Jews legitimate targets by making all Jews culpable to any wrongs done to some Palestinians. Like I said the article fails to see what the root cause for the violence is and it goes way back into the 19th century in the area. So because of this one single paranoia over the Mosque now led to violence all over the place, fueling over matters. Now Settler extremists are being fueled with paranoia and also committing violence. To the point its getting out of hand and all because Abbas all year, Hamas, Fatah and Israeli Politicians have been making matters worse with their Rhetoric.


Like I say this is little different from what has happened before, but like I say Eddie and I mean this, I wish a bloody big sinkhole would open up, after everyone has been evacuated. This would then take out all the holy buildings for all the faiths. I am so against any ancient buildings being lost, but in this one case I am willing to make an exception. With the holiest sites gone and a great big hole left where they once were, then nobody can lay claim to anything. It would deny a major cause that ignites violence between the Israelis and Palestinians/

Here read this Eddie, very similar before Israel was created. Same fear and fabrications


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

nicko wrote:That was well put Didge,  but it will all go over Sassy's head.

Thanks Nicko.
She is driven by hate on this issue, hence why her views are clouded.


Catch you later mate

Thanks for the link didge

Seems to me that the Muslims and the Jews have just wanted to fight forever.
They're like two silly little kids.

eddie wrote:Thanks for the link didge

Seems to me that the Muslims and the Jews have just wanted to fight forever.
They're like two silly little kids.

Agreed Eddie. As to me, the biggest stumbling block to having lasting peace between the two, is simply religion. Both religions are the root cause of many of the other problems.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You have to put it on context. Where is the "invasion" you're referring to?

Did you not notice the word IF?

And you have the context, UK invaded and occupied by another country, doesn't matter which one.  Would you be a Quisling or would you fight back?

I am going to add some more damning points to the above, on top of the many points made already from my other posts..

You ask a completely variable question based on the given cicumstances in that country at the time. . The Bristish Isles have seen countless invasions. Of which your next task is by your uniformed methodology to call the vast majority of British ancestors as then Quislings, for backing William of Orange. he did invade the British Isles at the head of an army. To then if necessary fight to become King and also disposing King James II. Of which King James did fight back. So you are unable to call any of the followrs of James the II quislings. Now William did occupy the Uk even though he was invited by some, but he did come at the head of an army. An army of occupation, where he still retained his other principalities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_the_British_Isles

So Sassy it would very dependent on the situation and point of few. So you are basically saying those who did not fight against the occupation of the Nazis, were all collaborators and Quislings? Even though many did not colloborate at all. Some just knew they would give their lives needlessly away. Not all can fight or are brave enough to place their own families at risk by joining the resistance. So by your view all those who did not join the resistance and fight back were Quislings. Then we have Poland under occupation from the Germans. Now they were invaded a second time in the war, which pushed out the German armed forces. So in this instance the Poles would be adiing the invading force.

Then I shall leave the best to last.
By your methodology in regards to"

UK invaded and occupied by another country, doesn't matter which one.  Would you be a Quisling or would you fight back?

In one major clanger of a question based statement, because you made it so uniformed a method to either fight or be a triator to an occupying force. By backing the stance to fight back off even viewing something as in occupation, allows for the endorement of countless terrorist groups and many wars by the agrresors. Now for example ISIS view all the former Caliphate territory as under occupation the areas they do not control. You are ligitimising them to attack many areas and nations, by your uniformed view of armed resistance under occupation. What you failed to grasp is the question could vastly vary dependent on the given situations surrounding that nation or group of people in control of certain lands. For example the occupying force for Ieaq was temp but your view has now justified the insugergency, where countless innocent thousands died.

Then you clearly also view that Irgun terrorists that carried out terrorist attacks like the King David Hotel attack on the British as legitimate. The British were viewed as an occupying force. You have thus backed the right of Irgun and Arab terrorist groups when they attacked the British in the Mandate.

Now in 1800 there was only a sparce population in the area. 240,000 Muslims, 24,000 Jews and 21,000 Christians. Of which these families had been here generation. As  they were all former citizens of the Ottoman Empire, they can with your daft belief commit acts of terror based off occupation. It does not matter if over time more Jews, Arabs and Christians migrate to the lands. The British are at that time in occupation of the area.

So are you going to go on record and say that the Bombing of the King David Hotel. Where 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured. Is by your belief to fight back under occupation, as justified? As they were fighting back against an occupier? In fact anyone Jews, Arabs or Christians who did not fight back during the occupation by the British. Are to you Quislings.

Of course you can always admit your uniformed question was idiotic and should not be the bases to decide whether people are traitors or whether they should fight back on a bases of being occupied.

Now to the claim to occupation itselfwhich is the bases for your point to fight back.

Now if two areas called Gaza and West Bank are only in he last few years voted in to be defined as"non-member observer State status in the United Nations Of course this new recognition is in regards to both territories being referred to as a future Palestine full State. You have no legitimate claims to occupation based off Abass, where he declared the Palestinian people are no longer bound by the Oslo accords

The first major issue then is Resolution 242 to deal with in regards to any of your claims to israelis in occupations. It was created to stop nations absorbing newly aquired conquerd lands.

The preamble refers to the "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."
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 Israel 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Now the Oslo accords at least gave some partial recognition and a agreement of 242 between israel and Palestine. They certainly were the major points to agree on for the Oslo accords. Now 242 of which the PLO has never formally accepted to the UN. Israel made seperate agrements on this resolution with each individal Arab nation it has been formely at war. Thus the Oslo accords was the bases for partial agreement on resolution 242. Though not a full aggrement, as this would be part of the negoatiation for full status recognition for Palestine as well as fixed permenant borders.

In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region." In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles.
Now as Abass has dropped a massive clanger by stating that Palestinians are no longer bound by the Oslo accord, which included a simplistic view of resolution 242. And Hamas has never recognised the Oslo agreement or as seen was a basic partial agrement on resolution 242. Then the Israeli authorities are then not bound by to the resolution 242 in regards to any disputed lands with the Palestinian authorities. . There are no fixed, agreed borders anyway for the Palestinian terrirtories. This would have been negotiated on terms agreed based on Palestine becoming full status recognition. This then renders any land outside Israel as very much disputed. As the major bases of the Oslo accords, was resolution 242. Thus if both Hamas and Fatah do not abide with resolution 242. Then they cannot lay any claim to any lands based on the 1967 borders as defined in the resolution   By not being bound to the accords, the Palestinian authorieties are back to a status level of rejecting resolution 242 altogether. As they never offfically formally accepted 242 and only as as a limited agreement through the Oslo accords. Abass has now presented Israel with winning legal argument to retain lands in settlements. Based on the Palestinian authorities rejecting resolution 242. Israel is freed from any obligations agreed with the PLO now from the oslo accords, which include many aspects of resolution 242. Now israel does not have to abide by any of resolution 242 in regards to boith the West Bank and Gaza, as Hamas has never agreed to the Oslo accords and now Fatah no longer are.

So your claiming to armed resistance under occupation has been nulified by Abbas, as they are no longer bound by the Oslo accords. If this nulifies resolution 242 between each group, then Israel does not have to withdraw at all and could even rightly state the lands as part of Israel again. By No Palestinain authority recognising resolution 242 they have just validated Israel;s settlements based on any gains it made before.
By rejecting 242, by not being bound by the Oslo accords now legally makes the areas disputed and thus not occupied at all.


      (i) Withdrawal of Israel 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."

Bascially Abass has shot the Palestinian people in the foot as he has now lost any legal action from the UN for any territories with the Palestinian territories, where there is Israeli settlements.

Conclusion:

By Abass own own goal basically renouncing the Olso accords, by not being nound to the agreement and hamas not recognising Resolution 242. Then this allows israel to be free of any legal obligations from the resolution in regards to the Palestinian territories.

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Thanks for the link didge

Seems to me that the Muslims and the Jews have just wanted to fight forever.
They're like two silly little kids.

Agreed Eddie. As to me, the biggest stumbling block to having lasting peace between the two, is simply religion. Both religions are the root cause of many of the other problems.

Religion, pride and greed.

Killing so many innocent people all for a piece of fucking land.

Very simply put; if this were two children. You'd take the piece of land away, tell them neither of them can have it and go off to play now.

Some may call me a coward or an idiot, but wouldn't it be better to be the bigger person and say "Know what? You have it! I'm off mate"

eddie wrote:Sorry I've come to this thread late, but just going back to the title OP "-palestinians-are-fighting-for-their-lives-israel-is-fighting-for-the-occupation" - aren't they both fighting for a piece of land?

Nothing to do with land

It's about religious hatred.

If you look at the history of Israel, you will find that there was no issue of land until the day the Jews declared independence.

Gaza and west bank were annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively, if it was about land then weren't Jordan and Egypt under attack from Palestinians??

The opening words of the war that followed independence were

"if the Jewish homeland becomes a reality,the Arabs(Muslims)will rise up and push the Jews into the sea"

If we go back even further than 48' ,let's say 2000 years back we will find Jews living in Israel

The mosque on temple mount is built on the ruins of the Jewish temple of Solomon

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Agreed Eddie. As to me, the biggest stumbling block to having lasting peace between the two, is simply religion. Both religions are the root cause of many of the other problems.

Religion, pride and greed.

Killing so many innocent people all for a piece of fucking land.

Very simply put; if this were two children. You'd take the piece of land away, tell them neither of them can have it and go off to play now.

Some may call me a coward or an idiot, but wouldn't it be better to be the bigger person and say "Know what? You have it! I'm off mate"

Last time the Jews were without a state to protect them it didn't go so well for them remember??

smelly-bandit wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Don't fucking confuse your self with me.

I already wrote on another thread what's happening to the German nurse wasn't right and she shouldn't have to move to make way for refugees.

So it's the same way I feel about Palestinian natives.

is this one of your invisible pen posts is it??

you know the ones where only YOU can see them??

and mama, can we please stop confusing the issue, they are not palestinian natives, they are so called "palestinians" by pretedning that they have a state of their own, youre simply confusing the issue and escalating hatred towards the jews

Amen

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Sorry I've come to this thread late, but just going back to the title OP "-palestinians-are-fighting-for-their-lives-israel-is-fighting-for-the-occupation" - aren't they both fighting for a piece of land?

In this latest situation much has been centered around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Which has seen this same violence before, which is created from, wait for it, fear. This Mosque is the third holiest site to Muslims and the Temple mount or whats left of the wall is the most holiest site to Jews. Yep back to religion being the problem here over access to the area. The Muslims are anti any Jews going near the mosque. With a belief they will end up destroying this Mosque, even though they could have destroyed it years ago and would be barking mad to do so, as not only would the Muslim world erupt and world over no doubt Jews would be attacked, but the West would also no doubt come down hard on Israel. So the belief they would take over it to destroy to build a New Jewish temple, just is not practical and not only that seeing how some Muslims react already, they would greatly further increase the risk to Jews world over. Hence its unlikely, but because some Jews have been allowed recently access to the complex, not the Mosque,, the fear comes in that Israel is out to take over the Mosque. Of course this has not helped the matter and has helped fuel tensions, but then what really kicked it off was the speech by Abbas, the Fatah leader in Weest Bank, who called for Resistance.  So you are right both sides have a religious ideological belief the land both belongs to them which is absurd. So this latest violence has been fueled off paranoia about the Mosque, a claim to what Israeli's might do.

Its not the first time this has happened, and then when you have lots of violence kick off, all over the place. The media even further make matters worse by printing some incendiary articles like this one, which basically made not Israeli's, but Jews legitimate targets by making all Jews culpable to any wrongs done to some Palestinians. Like I said the article fails to see what the root cause for the violence is and it goes way back into the 19th century in the area. So because of this one single paranoia over the Mosque now led to violence all over the place, fueling over matters. Now Settler extremists are being fueled with paranoia and also committing violence. To the point its getting out of hand and all because Abbas all year, Hamas, Fatah and Israeli Politicians have been making matters worse with their Rhetoric.


Like I say this is little different from what has happened before, but like I say Eddie and I mean this, I wish a bloody big sinkhole would open up, after everyone has been evacuated. This would then take out all the holy buildings for all the faiths. I am so against any ancient buildings being lost, but in this one case I am willing to make an exception. With the holiest sites gone and a great big hole left where they once were, then nobody can lay claim to anything. It would deny a major cause that ignites violence between the Israelis and Palestinians/

Here read this Eddie, very similar before Israel was created. Same fear and fabrications


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

Don't wish that my home is used as a church at times lol

Didge wrote wrote:Mainly because your question is going off the wrong comparability.
There was no nation except the British mandate, which was then partitioned.
This has been seen numeroeus times after a much larger country is broken to allow the formation of new nations. For example we have seen within the 20th century countless nations formed.
So both Israel and Palestine had a chance to form, but instead when Israel was created it was attacked by the surrounding arab nations and a non-state area. Israel wonbeat off the attackers and many Palestinians were displaced and many Jews were displaced. So quite rightly Israel defended itself ftom agressive Arab nations who sought destroy it. Now the west bank bcame part of Jorden and Gaza became part of Eygpt.

So throughout this time, why was there absolutely net to no resisstance to this occupation by Jordan and Eygpt?

Cleary by your view of a place being invaded, then according to your methodology then all the Palestinians residing in Jordanian occupied West Bank were Quislings. The Same with occupied Gaza. So we see absolutely no real armed ressistance under occupation.

So why is this Sassy?

Well  if you can’t understand why then you really are tuppence short of a shilling Didge. Why on earth would the Palestinan’s  arm themselves to fight against countries that gave them a degree of protection from the Zionists and hope that they may be able to help them regain all that they lost when they were forcibly removed from the lands that they had occupied  by the Zionists? Now that is really simple to understand even for you....surely!

Didge wrote wrote:Well because under Jordanian and Egyptian control it was Dar La islam. So clearly there was nothing nationalistic in regards to an independent West Bank and Gaza, whilst it was under occupation by Jorden and Eygpt. This is also backed up by the 1964 PLO charter which called not for the returned of Jordanian occupied West Bank or Eygptian controlled Gaza.

So if they are happy to be occupied by another nation then  cleary there is a more appalling reason behind the continued attcks on Israel. One that is born from hate and one that does not wish to live together in peace. It all stems from a belief of both Fatah and Hamas believing that the nation of Israel is Dar La islam.

Of course they were happy because of the reasons I have outlined above. And let’s face it, they couldn’t have stayed where they were anyway just to be driven out or be murdered where they stood  – that actually happened to many.

Didge wrote wrote:So when Israel took over Gaza and the West Bank, then suddenlly which then see resisstance to a Non-Muslim power being in control of these lands. Resolution 242 was created to basicaally stop a victor claiming anymore lands through victory, though it was very clear in allowing Israel to retain its 1967 borders.
Thie resolution was accepted by Israel when it made later deals with Egypt, Jorden etc, but the PLO refused to accept it and why? Because they did noy except the right of Israel to exist. ?

Resolution 242 did not allow Israel to retain territories it occupied in 1967 and it is very clear in saying so – stop lying.

Didge wrote wrote:So lets place this into context and comparability to the Palestinians. Poland was created after WW1 from lands in both Germany and Russia. Both nations refused to except its existance and in 1939 both invdaded. We see a correlation here with Israel where after its creation it was not accepted by many Arab nations and the Palestinians residing in the rest of the former British Mandate. In the end Germany lost and lost yet more lands and 16 million displaced from lands that Germans had been liing in centuries. Russia set up a puppet Communist Governemnt but Poland became a nation again and later became free of communism. Now since 1945, has Germany cought to reclaim any of the lands they lost to Poland and other nations? Have they committed to terrorism under your guise of armed ressistance under occupatiopn?

On both counts no, because Germany recognised it was the aggressor in both conflicts.
Do we see the same with Fatah and Hamas? No, they continue to call for armed ressistance under occupation, of which there is no nation, which they are preventing themselves from being formed. Those killed in Israel by stabbings has come about from the incitement of violence called to defend a Mosque, so much so it has whipped up a frenzy of hate. Now Israel is not without fault, but how on earth can you claim amred resistance under occupation to lands that have not had Statehood? All of which they could have had.

So basically, your methodology backs the views of Germany to invade Poland in 1939 as it was armed resisstance under occupation as some of lands once belong to Imperial German
y, though no such Palestinian nation existed. You have also justified Russia also invading in 1939, where they had former land taken away. Again the difference with the Palestinians, is they had no nation, as it was part of the former Ottoman Empire which then broke up to form many nations. So by your methodolohgy again you would back then Turkey, being able to invade all Arab nations and then form them back into the Ottoman Empire.

Do I really need to continue to show how you have just justified countless major wars, where your methodology backs the agressors?

So sadly again and Rags is right you are trying to justify the murdet of civillians, israeli civillians to a claim of occupatrion to a land that does not really exist, Thw West Bank. Which is only partially occupied, where the sttlements are. ?

Yes please do continue Didge because that drivel more than anything presents a clear cut case as to why Israel should pull out of the West Bank as they are the aggressors and who you back 100%. Germany and Poland were not at war before 1939 and the reason why Hitler attacked Poland was the creation of a Third Reich that would last for a 1000 years.  A bit like Israel’s  policy in creating Eretz Israel all at the expense of the of the Inhabitants who live there most of whom were Palestinian people. What a poor correlation that is.

Didge wrote wrote:In conclusion:

When occupied by Jorden and Egypt, the Palestinians did not form any real armed resisstance like we see with Israel or even claim it was occupied Israel invaded both areas, both have since withdrawn from Gaza and much of the West Bank, which both areas have ruling authorities. This is not about armed resistance Sassy, its about an absurd religious view, where the view all the land of Israel as dar La islam.
Now either you do not accept the right of israel to self determination and you back a religious ideological belief that the lands belong to the Palestinians? Then it is not occupation but naked aggression and antisemitism. If you accept the right of Israel to exist, then any attacks in israel that target people is terrorsm, and cannot be armed resistance under occupation. Even then it would still be terrorism in the disputed areas. ?

Of course they didn’t form any real armed resistance and I have explained why. And a religious view you say. Good grief Didge has it escaped even your understanding that Israel see’s all of the land it has plundered so far and wants the rest of what it describes as the Holy Land promised to them for the Jewish State of Israel in a book written yonks ago. Note the word Jewish as it’s very important. You see Didge what you are doing here is backing a religious ideological belief that the lands belong to the Israeli’s. And of course it was terrorism that created it – Remember the Stern Gang and the Irgun who’s leaders went on to hold the high office of Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel killing and murdering even British people along the way.

Didge wrote wrote: So I would defend the Uk from any attack and rightly so, but the Palestinians conceded any argument to occupation when it accepted occupation under other rulling nations/ Not only that how can it be occupied, when the area is disputed and has never been created as a nation?

You have just justified murder, the German aggreesion of WW2, which led to the holocaust, where Jews were also seen as occupiers. So many points by your reasoning to compare West Bank and Gaza show they are actually more comparable to Imperial Germany and then Nazi Germany. Germany lost two wars and has since moved on, just like countless other nations have moved on where minority groups formed nations for themselves from larger nations

Hence why the question should always be, when are the Palestinian authorities going to finally recognise, it is they in the main that have continued this conflict because they refuse to accept Israel and they refuse to accept they were aggressive attacking Israel and lost?

The Palestinian leadership have agreed to recognise Israel which is the very reason why Netanyahu broke off the talks leading to a two-state solution.
Oh and by the way – Palestine is now considered a State by the United Nations so your argument is moot.

All you have done here is justify the continued occupation by the Zionists and the oppression of the Palestinian population under the Zionist jackboot as well as their expansionist policies in creating even more settlements all in defiance of UN Resolutions.  You are no voice for peace indeed all you ever do is justify the continued killing and illegal detention without trial of Palestinian people including young children.

In conclusion it’s really quite sick just reading all that you have written which is pretty much a broadcast on behalf of the Likud Party an d all they stand for.

By the way didge that a great post in reply to sassy

@ Irn

1) Absurd reasoning, starting off with the text book deflection about me and then claiming they need to arm themselves in order to protect them from settlers. When this is about actually about an escalation of violence based off incitement atround a religious building. When both sides are religiously motivated and hold a belief over rights to the land that is also a massive stumbling block. Now we are talking about here in regards to the incitement that has stemmed from Abass speach of which, since has seen a massive escalation in violence. A religious building which in reality all humans should be able to visit.

2) No that is you lying as I never said it allowed Israel to keep the territories gained through the 1967 conflict, By 1967 borders, this means prior to the conflict of that year. The reason the PLO did not except is very simple.

Judge Higgins of the International Court of Justice explained "from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council Resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State. Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) envisages that these long-standing obligations are to be secured (...) by negotiation.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. Security Council: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. "Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory".

So now Irn uses the most feeble excuse when I am told it is nationalism that drives for an independent Palestine which would have been impossible under occupation by Jordan and Eygpt of which the later actually ruled hardsly and the people of Gaza suffered. So you are in error yet again. What it shows is they will concede to an occupying force, as long as it is Muslim based from the nation. So to claim they did not want to fight them, when in fact Jordan expelled many palestinians for causing and inciting trouble further dismisses your weak claim,.These same Palestinians went to Lebanon and were a major factor in one of the causes that started the Civil war there.


    (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.


They wanted to continue the struggle, because they did not accept Israel having a righto to exist. The resolution was created and in fact serves to protect them. So the only reason not to agree would be that they want to continue to not recognise Israel. This point is something you avoid, because a nation wanting peace would back a resolution which would seek to protect thet lands. Now of course they never did and parts were agreed with the Oslo accord, which now Abass has openly rejected the Oslo accords, means they also resolution 242.

Point 3) And we are back to Irn talking about me and thus clearly desperate, as he knows he has no answer to my points. Now it seems Irn is clueless on why nazi Germany invaded Poland? Well the Nazi;s played off the treatment Germany received at the Versaille Treaty. Germany was an aggresor in WW1 and lost and one of the aims of the Nazi's was regain all these former lands. They did breifly until they were defeated.

So we see a huge comparrison between the Arab nations that attacked Israel from the formation of Israel in 1948. Like the Germans in WW1, they both lost and yet both refused to accept the outcomes of a conflict they had started and been the agressor to. So again Germany lost and learn its lesson, where they had millions displaced and lost land. That had been in German families ofr generaations. Hitler never a cccepted Poland as a nation and existance. This was one of the many points used as to point the finger of blame by the Nazis in their rise to power.
So Germany has moved on.
The PLO, Fatah and Hamas has not and why?
Because they continually do not recognise the nation of Israel to exist. So this iwhy just like with Hitler not recognising the Versaille Treaty, the Palestinian authorities refused to accept Resolution 242. They used asect of for the creation of the Oslo accords.

They have not recognised Israel hence why they continually attack them, no matter how poorly you claim otherwise.

Again by the Palestinian authorities no longer abdiing by the Olso accords renders resolution 242 not applicalble in regards to israel and Palestine. There is no fixed borders, and with Fatah nulifying 242, Israel now does not even have to compy, of which they did comply with many of the request to withdraw.

So as seen they are happy to be occupied by Muslims, who are foriegn nations but not Christian or Jew. You can deny this all you like but the evidence is damning.

Point 4) Now I never said I back any occupation, and Israel is allowed under the Oslo accords to protect its settlements. Now again I am against the settlements, but this are on disputed territory and even more so that now that fatah does not back or agree to the UN they accept resolution 242. So lands with no real accepted borders will be dispiuted territories. I m simple pointing this out.

So no it was Abbas that ended up by his actions make it now positivelly clear, the lands are disputed. By rejected 242 he has now ensured they are disputed territories as seen. He has weakened the Palestinian poisition and now also with blood on his hands for inciting violence over a Mosque.
So you even end with more inventions onto me, which is all you can do in debates these days. Again to repeat I back a two state solution. My point here was to show that sassys belief of armed ressistance from occupation has many problems. And then second reasoning how Abass has by his actions weakened and dimihsned the chances of actually gaining full UN nation status, with then later agreed fixed borders. With no borders and Israel has withdrawn according to the resolution, then it stands that until an agrement is reached, all other lands are disputed. As by rejecting they cannot hold israel then to have to abide by the 1967 borders. With no recogniotion of resolution 242 they are then left with Israel being able to not have to

Now you avoided so many points you its time I left you to sulk for a short while, a month maybe.Time you were sent to the insignificant area until you learn some maturity.

Night

Well Eds, strikes me as very odd that you agreed with people that it would be terrible if they had to give up their houses for refugees, and yet you expect people to give up their whole country?  How does that work?

Now to Didge.

It was a fairly simple question with a fairly simple answer but of course you have to try and turn it into a drama of epic proportions and something it isn’t with heaven knows how many thousand words and some of the most ridiculous comparisons you can dream up to avoid answering, so I put down to the fact you don't want to say you'd be a Quisling.


Never mind though I’ll just show you why you have completely wasted your time with just one name
 
Mahatma Gandhi
 
You see Didge. Your argument against me is completely false because you don’t always have to be a terrorist to fight for something you believe in. You’re just trying to make out that I was saying that terrorism was the only option when fighting for something you believe which of course it is not.  I gues you never thought, of that but of course you never do. So n just a short couple of paragraphs and just a few words and your argument is completely trashed.

So that's that cleared up then, Didge would be a coward and a Quisling but didn't want to say, you can understand why.

Absurd again, any violence directed at civilians to a nation is terrorism, no matter who the groups are of their causes.

As seen by your absurd belief to fight based on resistance to occupation  as a mtheod is utterly flawed as it allows for justification like I say for the Nazi invasion of Poland. ISIS to attack other nations based on a claim to be occupied/ To then also backing the terror attacks against the British by the Jewish terrorists. Terrorists as a word to define an action, cannot be justified by thinking you can move the goal posts to suit. Any terror is wrong, whether occupied or not. These are hate inspired crimes againsgt many civillians, which it seems you also want to make culable for.

No terrorism is not the only option which is why you are as stated a nightmare to finding any peace.

So in conclusion it shows Sassy did not read my posts because I said I would defend the UK

However Sassy, you has justfied armed attacks of countless terrorist groups and natiions that started conflicts through a belief centred on occupation occupied..
Your method justifes the ISIS conflct.
The inavsion of Poland by Nazi Germay.
It justifies the bombing of the King David Hotel.
IT makes countless ancestrers opf British people are traitors to you. It alspo makes the vast majoirty of those who were murdered in the holocaust as cowards based on your belief, as many did not resist or fight back.

Your method was very clear.
Nation is invaded and occupied.
Eiether you fight or are a traitor.

There is only two choices based off a uniformed statement based on occupation.

I knew you would try poorly to get out of your gaff on this and even worse not admit what you used as a method was flawed. If you are not even going to read my replies, then you clearly concede, as you are just then not able to even understand any reasons made.

sassy wrote:Well Eds, strikes me as very odd that you agreed with people that it would be terrible if they had to give up their houses for refugees, and yet you expect people to give up their whole country?  How does that work?

Now to Didge.

It was a fairly simple question with a fairly simple answer but of course you have to try and turn it into a drama of epic proportions and something it isn’t with heaven knows how many thousand words and some of the most ridiculous comparisons you can dream up to avoid answering, so I put down to the fact you don't want to say you'd be a Quisling.


Never mind though I’ll just show you why you have completely wasted your time with just one name
 
Mahatma Gandhi
 
You see Didge. Your argument against me is completely false because you don’t always have to be a terrorist to fight for something you believe in. You’re just trying to make out that I was saying that terrorism was the only option when fighting for something you believe which of course it is not.  I gues you never thought, of that but of course you never do. So n just a short couple of paragraphs and just a few words and your argument is completely trashed.

So that's that cleared up then, Didge would be a coward and a Quisling but didn't want to say, you can understand why.

Ha ha ha what an absolute corker of a response. All those words and all those charcters used flushed down the pan in just a few words.

It was like an invitation gift wrapped for that response.

Cuchulain wrote:

sassy wrote:You really don't want to answer that question do you lol

Mainly because your question is going off the wrong comparability.
There was no nation except the British mandate, which was then partitioned.
This has been seen numeroeus times after a much larger country is broken to allow the formation of new nations. For example we have seen within the 20th century countless nations formed.
So both Israel and Palestine had a chance to form, but instead when Israel was created it was attacked by the surrounding arab nations and a non-state area. Israel wonbeat off the attackers and many Palestinians were displaced and many Jews were displaced. So quite rightly Israel defended itself ftom agressive Arab nations who sought destroy it. Now the west bank bcame part of Jorden and Gaza became part of Eygpt.

So throughout this time, why was there absolutely net to no resisstance to this occupation by Jordan and Eygpt?

Cleary by your view of a place being invaded, then according to your methodology then all the Palestinians residing in Jordanian occupied West Bank were Quislings. The Same with occupied Gaza. So we see absolutely no real armed ressistance under occupation.

So why is this Sassy?

Well because under Jordanian and Egyptian control it was Dar La islam. So clearly there was nothing nationalistic in regards to an independent West Bank and Gaza, whilst it was under occupation by Jorden and Eygpt. This is also backed up by the 1964 PLO charter which called not for the returned of Jordanian occupied West Bank or Eygptian controlled Gaza.

So if they are happy to be occupied by another nation then  cleary there is a more appalling reason behind the continued attcks on Israel. One that is born from hate and one that does not wish to live together in peace. It all stems from a belief of both Fatah and Hamas believing that the nation of Israel is Dar La islam.

So when Israel took over Gaza and the West Bank, then suddenlly which then see resisstance to a Non-Muslim power being in control of these lands. Resolution 242 was created to basicaally stop a victor claiming anymore lands through victory, though it was very clear in allowing Israel to retain its 1967 borders.
Thie resolution was accepted by Israel when it made later deals with Egypt, Jorden etc, but the PLO refused to accept it and why? Because they did noy except the right of Israel to exist.

So lets place this into context and comparability to the Palestinians. Poland was created after WW1 from lands in both Germany and Russia. Both nations refused to except its existance and in 1939 both invdaded. We see a correlation here with Israel where after its creation it was not accepted by many Arab nations and the Palestinians residing in the rest of the former British Mandate. In the end Germany lost and lost yet more lands and 16 million displaced from lands that Germans had been liing in centuries. Russia set up a puppet Communist Governemnt but Poland became a nation again and later became free of communism. Now since 1945, has Germany cought to reclaim any of the lands they lost to Poland and other nations? Have they committed to terrorism under your guise of armed ressistance under occupatiopn?

On both counts no, because Germany recognised it was the aggressor in both conflicts.
Do we see the same with Fatah and Hamas? No, they continue to call for armed ressistance under occupation, of which there is no nation, which they are preventing themselves from being formed. Those killed in Israel by stabbings has come about from the incitement of violence called to defend a Mosque, so much so it has whipped up a frenzy of hate. Now Israel is not without fault, but how on earth can you claim amred resistance under occupation to lands that have not had Statehood? All of which they could have had.

So basically, your methodology backs the views of Germany to invade Poland in 1939 as it was armed resisstance under occupation as some of lands once belong to Imperial German
y, though no such Palestinian nation existed. You have also justified Russia also invading in 1939, where they had former land taken away. Again the difference with the Palestinians, is they had no nation, as it was part of the former Ottoman Empire which then broke up to form many nations. So by your methodolohgy again you would back then Turkey, being able to invade all Arab nations and then form them back into the Ottoman Empire.

Do I really need to continue to show how you have just justified countless major wars, where your methodology backs the agressors?

So sadly again and Rags is right you are trying to justify the murdet of civillians, israeli civillians to a claim of occupatrion to a land that does not really exist, Thw West Bank. Which is only partially occupied, where the sttlements are.

In conclusion:

When occupied by Jorden and Egypt, the Palestinians did not form any real armed resisstance like we see with Israel or even claim it was occupied Israel invaded both areas, both have since withdrawn from Gaza and much of the West Bank, which both areas have ruling authorities. This is not about armed resistance Sassy, its about an absurd religious view, where the view all the land of Israel as dar La islam.
Now either you do not accept the right of israel to self determination and you back a religious ideological belief that the lands belong to the Palestinians? Then it is not occupation but naked aggression and antisemitism. If you accept the right of Israel to exist, then any attacks in israel that target people is terrorsm, and cannot be armed resistance under occupation. Even then it would still be terrorism in the disputed areas.


So I would defend the Uk from any attack and rightly so, but the Palestinians conceded any argument to occupation when it accepted occupation under other rulling nations/ Not only that how can it be occupied, when the area is disputed and has never been created as a nation?

You have just justified murder, the German aggreesion of WW2, which led to the holocaust, where Jews were also seen as occupiers. So many points by your reasoning to compare West Bank and Gaza show they are actually more comparable to Imperial Germany and then Nazi Germany. Germany lost two wars and has since moved on, just like countless other nations have moved on where minority groups formed nations for themselves from larger nations

Hence why the question should always be, when are the Palestinian authorities going to finally recognise, it is they in the main that have continued this conflict because they refuse to accept Israel and they refuse to accept they were aggressive attacking Israel and lost.

Just to prove to you Sassy you ignore all the points made by your gaff claiming I was quisling.
What you fail to grasp is that on any situation and factors at play will effect the reply everytime and even then. There is no justification for civillians to be murdered through terrorism. To even argue as you are doing poorly off a view of occupartion, is appalling. You are by this then backing war crimes. As every single rocket attack from Gaza is indiscrminately targetted.
That is classified as a war crime,

Cuchulain wrote:@ Irn

1) Absurd reasoning, starting off with the text book deflection about me and then claiming they need to arm themselves in order to protect them from settlers. When this is about actually about an escalation of violence based off incitement atround a religious building. When both sides are religiously motivated and hold a belief over rights to the land that is also a massive stumbling block. Now we are talking about here in regards to the incitement that has stemmed from Abass speach of which, since has seen a massive escalation in violence. A religious building which in reality all humans should be able to visit.

2) No that is you lying as I never said it allowed Israel to keep the territories gained through the 1967 conflict, By 1967 borders, this means prior to the conflict of that year. The reason the PLO did not except is very simple.

Judge Higgins of the International Court of Justice explained "from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council Resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same - that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State. Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) envisages that these long-standing obligations are to be secured (...) by negotiation.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. Security Council: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as 'Occupied Palestinian Territory'. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. "Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory".

So now Irn uses the most feeble excuse when I am told it is nationalism that drives for an independent Palestine which would have been impossible under occupation by Jordan and Eygpt of which the later actually ruled hardsly and the people of Gaza suffered. So you are in error yet again. What it shows is they will concede to an occupying force, as long as it is Muslim based from the nation. So to claim they did not want to fight them, when in fact Jordan expelled many palestinians for causing and inciting trouble further dismisses your weak claim,.These same Palestinians went to Lebanon and were a major factor in one of the causes that started the Civil war there.


    (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.


They wanted to continue the struggle, because they did not accept Israel having a righto to exist. The resolution was created and in fact serves to protect them. So the only reason not to agree would be that they want to continue to not recognise Israel. This point is something you avoid, because a nation wanting peace would back a resolution which would seek to protect thet lands. Now of course they never did and parts were agreed with the Oslo accord, which now Abass has openly rejected the Oslo accords, means they also resolution 242.

Point 3) And we are back to Irn talking about me and thus clearly desperate, as he knows he has no answer to my points. Now it seems Irn is clueless on why nazi Germany invaded Poland? Well the Nazi;s played off the treatment Germany received at the Versaille Treaty. Germany was an aggresor in WW1 and lost and one of the aims of the Nazi's was regain all these former lands. They did breifly until they were defeated.

So we see a huge comparrison between the Arab nations that attacked Israel from the formation of Israel in 1948. Like the Germans in WW1, they both lost and yet both refused to accept the outcomes of a conflict they had started and been the agressor to. So again Germany lost and learn its lesson, where they had millions displaced and lost land. That had been in German families ofr generaations. Hitler never a cccepted Poland as a nation and existance. This was one of the many points used as to point the finger of blame by the Nazis in their rise to power.
So Germany has moved on.
The PLO, Fatah and Hamas has not and why?
Because they continually do not recognise the nation of Israel to exist. So this iwhy just like with Hitler not recognising the Versaille Treaty, the Palestinian authorities refused to accept Resolution 242. They used asect of for the creation of the Oslo accords.

They have not recognised Israel hence why they continually attack them, no matter how poorly you claim otherwise.

Again by the Palestinian authorities no longer abdiing by the Olso accords renders resolution 242 not applicalble in regards to israel and Palestine. There is no fixed borders, and with Fatah nulifying 242, Israel now does not even have to compy, of which they did comply with many of the request to withdraw.

So as seen they are happy to be occupied by Muslims, who are foriegn nations but not Christian or Jew. You can deny this all you like but the evidence is damning.

Point 4) Now I never said I back any occupation, and Israel is allowed under the Oslo accords to protect its settlements. Now again I am against the settlements, but this are on disputed territory and even more so that now that fatah does not back or agree to the UN they accept resolution 242. So lands with no real accepted borders will be dispiuted territories. I m simple pointing this out.

So no it was Abbas that ended up by his actions make it now positivelly clear, the lands are disputed. By rejected 242 he has now ensured they are disputed territories as seen. He has weakened the Palestinian poisition and now also with blood on his hands for inciting violence over a Mosque.
So you even end with more inventions onto me, which is all you can do in debates these days. Again to repeat I back a two state solution. My point here was to show that sassys belief of armed ressistance from occupation has many problems. And then second reasoning how Abass has by his actions weakened and dimihsned the chances of actually gaining full UN nation status, with then later agreed fixed borders. With no borders and Israel has withdrawn according to the resolution, then it stands that until an agrement is reached, all other lands are disputed. As by rejecting they cannot hold israel then to have to abide by the 1967 borders. With no recogniotion of resolution 242 they are then left with Israel being able to not have to

Now you avoided so many points you its time I left you to sulk for a short while, a month maybe.Time you were sent to the insignificant area until you learn some maturity.

Night

Well we are discussing your views so if you don't like being mentioned then don't mention me.

Simples init.

As I said, Dodge lives up to his name and Dodges some more, which proves again he'd be a coward and Quisling.

You don't need a lot of words to understand that.

There is nothing wrong with banter Irn,
The fact is you deflect all the time with views about me.
I am just pointing out you make many deflections by doing so.

Anyway as seen you have no wish to have an intelligent debate here.
So I shall now leave you to sulk Irn

All the best and may see you tomorrow

Night

He just can't answer.  Coward and Quisling.

Cuchulain wrote:There is nothing wrong with banter Irn,
The fact is you deflect all the time with views about me.
I am just pointing out you make many deflections by doing so.

Anyway as seen you have no wish to have an intelligent debate here.
So I shall now leave you to sulk Irn

All the best and may see you tomorrow

Night

No Didge. You keep mentiong other people in your posts all the time usualy in a degrading way. Like I said - don't complain when it comes back to bite you on the arse.

lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

Why is it when Dodge is a rude, objectionable little shit he always says 'it's jut banter'?

I don't need others to back my views, unlike you I know what going on from people there, I'm not so low in self esteem that I need back up to reinforce me.

And I'm not a coward and a Quisling, unlike you.

Cuchulain wrote:lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

No Didge. It's you that scewed up big time by failing to recognise that people can fight back without resorting to terrorism. It was your belief that terrorism was the only option resulting in your argument which was completely flawed from the start and easily dismantled.

Just accept that you got it so wrong.

Cuchulain wrote:lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

Irn now can only post about me and plusTwo very emotive replies from sassy about me within the last few posts/ Thuis proving my point to deflect and derail. As like Abbas inciting the Palestinians over his misleading views to a Mosque. Sassy is porly trying to create a slangging match that is tit for tat and then will have then ruined the debate.

Sorry not biting. You can continue to discuss me all you like and make many views about me and am happy with that..Its just more poor deflectiions from you both. Thuis am happy with that, but it proves you have both very much conceeded the debate


Now am tired, so all the best, sorry if your attempt to start a fight has failed

Cheers




You both proved you

Nother emotive, why would I feel any emotion about a coward and a Quisling, apart from comtempt.

Cuchulain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

Irn now can only post about me and plusTwo very emotive replies from sassy about me within the last few posts/ Thuis proving my point to deflect and derail. As like Abbas inciting the Palestinians over his misleading views to a Mosque. Sassy is porly trying to create a slangging match that is tit for tat and then will have then ruined the debate.

Sorry not biting. You can continue to discuss me all you like and make many views about me and am happy with that..Its just more poor deflectiions from you both. Thuis am happy with that, but it proves you have both very much conceeded the debate


Now am tired, so all the best, sorry if your attempt to start a fight has failed

Cheers




You both proved you

See, yoiu keep mentioning people all the time and then play the victim card that people are mentioning you.

If you don't like it then don't do it yourself.

The debate was fine until you attempted to put forward a flawed argument about another posters views.

It's really simple Didge - just stop it.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

No Didge. It's you that scewed up big time by failing to recognise that people can fight back without resorting to terrorism. It was your belief that terrorism was the only option resulting in your argument which was completely flawed from the start and easily dismantled.

Just accept that you got it so wrong.

Its very much correct. armed ressistance is what is being justified in the case of the palestinian attacks, with a belief of occupation. The point is this is exactly what such extremists groups argue off to justify their terrorism. So it does not matter if what is done is armed or not armed in her method, as she never clarified Thius to fight and resist also allows for violence.It allows for passive resisatnce. This is based on resistance to occupation. So she justified  many groups
She did not rule out armed resisatnce, so it has to be valid to her method

Sorry to burst your buble, as like I said, her method was too uniformed and flawed
To me it should be peaceful resistance, but its noy, hence why again your point is very moot.

A Coward and a Quisling who would give up his country without doing a thing.  Comtempible.

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:lol its highlighted in a previous posts Sassy.

The fact is only Irn has come top your support here.

That shows how you will struggle to get anyone to back your view, of which your views justifies countless terrorism, wars etc

Oh well it seems you now want to deflect onto your inability to recognise you screwed up. So you will go off this in an attempt to derail the thread.

Best you learn to live with how you made many errors here.

Cheers and goodnight sassy

No Didge. It's you that scewed up big time by failing to recognise that people can fight back without resorting to terrorism. It was your belief that terrorism was the only option resulting in your argument which was completely flawed from the start and easily dismantled.

Just accept that you got it so wrong.

Its very much correct. armed ressistance is what is being justified in the case of the palestinian attacks, with a belief of occupation. The point is this is exactly what such extremists groups argue off to justify their terrorism. So it does not matter if what is done is armed or not armed in her method, as she never clarified Thius to fight and resist also allows for violence.It allows for passive resisatnce. This is based on resistance to occupation. So she justified  many groups
She did not rule out armed resisatnce, so it has to be valid to her method

Sorry to burst your buble, as like I said, her method was too uniformed and flawed
To me it should be peaceful resistance, but its noy, hence why again your point is very moot.

Well peaceful resistance is something that you should have considered before going off creating all those comparisons to try and prove your point.

You just got it wrong.

There have been hundreds of peaceful marches in the West Bank over the last few days.  The have been met with live bullets, rubber bullets, stun grenades and tear gas.

Anyway as seen they want to act immature and now poorly excuse the massive error on the method which does allowed for both armed and passive resistance. It thus clearly then allows for terrorism based off occupation to sassy's method

To fight is very broad whcih can cover many things and sassy did not clarify. Like I say, the method was based onto fight.

So your claim Irn is wrong,. as Sassy never claimed only passive ressistance in regards to fighting.

So now continue to talk about me, as happy with that as I know you cannot counter my points and that clearly Sassy;s method is flawed.

Cheers

A coward and a Quisling however many words he uses and however many deflections he tries.

Irn Bru wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Its very much correct. armed ressistance is what is being justified in the case of the palestinian attacks, with a belief of occupation. The point is this is exactly what such extremists groups argue off to justify their terrorism. So it does not matter if what is done is armed or not armed in her method, as she never clarified Thius to fight and resist also allows for violence.It allows for passive resisatnce. This is based on resistance to occupation. So she justified  many groups
She did not rule out armed resisatnce, so it has to be valid to her method

Sorry to burst your buble, as like I said, her method was too uniformed and flawed
To me it should be peaceful resistance, but its noy, hence why again your point is very moot.

Well peaceful resistance is something that you should have considered before going off creating all those comparisons to try and prove your point.

You just got it wrong.

Again sassy did not state only passive ressitance and to say fight allows for armed resistance, in fact all forms of ressiatnce.
So you are now defending her error

A coward and a Quisling, trying to squirm his way round it.  Disgusting.

Cuchulain wrote:Anyway as seen they want to act immature and now poorly excuse the massive error on the method which does allowed for both armed and passive resistance. It thus clearly then allows for terrorism based off occupation to sassy's method

To fight is very broad whcih can cover many things and sassy did not clarify. Like I say, the method was based onto fight.

So your claim Irn is wrong,. as Sassy never claimed only passive ressistance in regards to fighting.

So now continue to talk about me, as happy with that as I know you cannot counter my points and that clearly Sassy;s method is flawed.

Cheers

Didge, it was a fairly simple question with a fairly simple answer. Quisling or fight back I think it was. You only ever considered armed resistance with the comparisons you made to try and make your case.

That's where you went wrong fronm the start.

All irrelevant Irn.
Her method was to fight or be a Quisling, froma  view off being occupied.
Fight allows for many forms of ressiatnce.
So I do not have to even factor countless other methods, when the point is to show how bad such a method is that would then justifying many wrongs and groups in history for some of their acts.
Clearly you are admitting to this and why there is no need to show other forms of ressiatnce with fighting,
So again you make irrlevant points to a flawed view point she had.

The point is to show the method is flawed.
You do understand why the views were made on showing how and why its flawed.

So I never went wrong and as seen sassy's method allows for the justification for many wrongs.

So this is what I mean Irn, more deflections from you.

I am bored now to be honest as this is text book deflections from you both.