So why do people hate Israel? - Page 174




 
--
 
February 9th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by udaka
VDKMS,amazing, very perfessional! May I ask what is your job?

A expert of criminal or a engineers of army? You draw these pictures by youself?
I'm retired. I used to be an ECCM (electronic counter counter measures) operator in the Belgian Air Force. My job was to (try) eliminate the jamming signals send by the target.

I was not involved into this investigation. Click the link "Situ Studio" and it will bring you to their website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Nope just a professional mouth piece, he has writers that invent the rest for him.

Don't get me wrong it is a great edited version of the sanitised Israeli view but sadly it is not entirely what was written by the forensic investigators...

http://www.forensic-architecture.org...ns/nilin-case/
This was done on the behalf of B'Tselem not the IDF. from the article:
B’tselem, in turn, asked Situ Studio to create a spatial reconstruction of the footage positioning all actors in order to create a definitive reconstruction of the chain of events.


Quote:
The question that VD seems to be skirting around I imagine because the answer is a little embarrassing for him why if the Israeli account is accurate was he treated by Israeli forces for a grazed toe that could never have happened had the bullet missed him?
Nowhere has there been said he was treated for a bullet wound. He was treated for a bruised toe. That's why B'Tselem asked Situ Studio for help.

Quote:
So while the analysis is accurate in that you can not determine whether he was hit by the bullet or not from the video the fact that he was treated for a bullet wound to the foot confirms Seno's case unless of course you believe a bullet can jump back 2 meters or more if you believe VD's constantly changing story.
There was no bullet wound.

Quote:
I think the fault with Seno's argument is that he has focused on the hole in the shoe that I do not believe is relevant to the case as had a projectile passed through the foot to make a hole that size you would see a rather messy wound, my guess is that the hole was there previous (just natural wear) and the wound was to the side of his foot.
I agree to that.

Quote:
What you should be questioning is why VD would only post selected bits of the investigation and oddly enough only the bits that support his case, that I think you will find are not the actions of a professional engineer or of a criminologist but they are the actions of a professional con-man.
In this case I support B'Tselem. What the soldiers did was unacceptable although I can understand their frustration. No army in the world is so closely watched and its enemies set up many pitfalls, closely watched by videorecorders. There are thousands of soldiers manning checkpoints, chasing terrorists and performing riot control. Many things can and will go wrong. But one filmed event is enough and the whole world knows it before any investigation is done. Wether the video was genuine or manipulated, damage is done.

I think you did not read the article very well. B'Tselem was responsible for supplying the evidence. They also contacted the company which results I posted. I did not hide anything. This is a very simple case with one unknown: where did the bullet hit the ground. Close to his foot or two meters away. Unfortunately we do not know for sure. The soldiers got their punishment and the victim was not severely wounded.

Quote:
Just like with the JFK case, why he was shot may never be known but the fact that he is dead from a bullet to the head does mean he was shot none the less.
JFK got a direct hit, the Palestinian not.

@ Seno

Yes,I said from in the beginning that it was hard to believe he was shot in the foot.
You said in the beginning, post #8 from thread: Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other and I quote from your post:
There is obviously a third variety, as there is a video showing a blindfolded Palestinian detainee being deliberately shot through the thigh with a rubber bullet, the weapon has no muzzle adaptor.

Also the fact that a direct hit from the rubber (steel) bullet can cause severe injuries is proof that the projectile did not hit the victim, otherwise he wouldn't have a bruised toe but something more severe.

About your camera posistion. In the bottom right of the drawing there is an arrow with the text : camera view. You better delete your "camera position if you believe this drawing" because you placed it at the wrong side of the picture. It is bottom right not upper left. You are still digging deeper.
I advise you to read their explanation completely so you would not fall into the nonsense you are telling now. Did you ever try to have a look at the other projects they are working on? I hope they do not read your nonsense or you will get the award of the year for stupidity.

You also take my words out of context.
"This incident clearly shows that the "steel" bullets the IDF uses cannot even penetrate a toe from a distance of 1.5 meters"
this was in reply of your "being able to pierce the skull and break bones at ranges exceeding 40 metre"
Give me the explanation to why that extreley dangerous bullet (according to you) only caused a bruised toe? My answer: it was no direct hit. Like I said from in the beginning. You said he was shot through the thigh, remember?
I'll summarize your "logic". A bullet is fired from 1.5 meters through the thigh (read here) and exits in the middle of his foot (read here) with as a result a bruised toe! (read the article from The Guardian here)

Did you already send your side of the story (the picture with the hole in his foot) to B'tselem herself? If you are right then they have the evidence that the bullet went through the foot of the victim and the soldiers will be punished for a crime and not for a harassment. Here is your change to destroy the lives of two IDF service men. What are you waiting for? Or are you too cowardly do do that? Shall I do it? I can give the link to your posts and "logic". Don't worry, I will only do it with your permission. Shall I do it, yes or no?
February 10th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Binyamin Netanyahu’s pipe dream

Monday, 10 February 2014, 12:18 pm
Article: Redress Information By Uri Avnery
What’s wrong with the demand that the Palestinian leadership recognize Israel as the “nation state of the Jewish people”?
Well, practically everything.
States recognize each other. They don’t have to recognize each others ideological character.
A state is a reality. Ideologies belong to the abstract realm.
When the United States recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, it recognized the state. It did not recognize its communist nature.
When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) recognized the state of Israel in the Oslo agreement, and in the exchange of letters preceding it, it was not asked to recognize its Zionist ideology. When Israel in return recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, it did not recognize any particular Palestinian ideology, secular or religious.
Some Israelis (including myself) would like to change the self-definition of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, omitting the word “Jewish”. Some other Israelis would like to omit or demote the word “democratic”. Neither of us believe that we need the confirmation of the Palestinians for this.
It’s just none of their business.
Sabotage or inferiority complex?
I don’t know what the real intention of Netanyahu is when he presents this demand as an ultimatum.
The most flattering explanation for his ego is that it is just another trick to sabotage the “peace process” before it reaches the demand to evacuate the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. The less flattering explanation is that he really believes in it, that he is driven by some deeply rooted national inferiority complex that needs outside assurance of “legitimacy”. Recognizing the “national state of the Jewish people” means accepting the entire Zionist narrative, lock, stock and barrel, starting from the divine promise to Abraham to this very day.



When John Kerry considers whether to include this demand in his framework agreement, he should think about this twice.
Where would this leave his special emissary, Martin Indyk?
Indyk is a Jew, bearing a Yiddish name (Indyk means turkey). If Israel is the state of the entire Jewish nation and/or people, he is included willy-nilly. The state of Israel represents him, too. So, how can he function as an honest broker between the two warring sides?
And where does this leave the millions of American Jews, now that the conflict between the governments of the US and Israel is deepening? On what side are they? Are they all Jonathan Pollards?
The newly found independent American voice vis-à-vis Israel drives Israeli rightists to devise more and more weird solutions.
Joker in the pack
The latest example is Binyamin Netanyahu’s brilliant idea: why not leave the Israeli settlers where they are as Palestinian citizens?
This looks to many sensible people as eminently fair, in the best Anglo-Saxon tradition.
The state of Israel now has some 1.6 million Arab Palestinian citizens. Why should the State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, not include some 0.6 million Jewish Israeli citizens?
The Arabs in Israel enjoy, at least in theory, full legal rights. They vote for the Knesset. They are subject to the law. Why should these Israelis not enjoy full legal rights in Palestine, vote for the Majlis and be subject to the law?
People love symmetry. Symmetry makes life easier. It removes complexities… This symmetry is false, too.
Israel’s Arab citizens live on their land. Their forefathers have been living there for at least 1,400 years, and perhaps for 5000 years. Palestinian negotiator Sa’eb Erekat exclaimed this week that his family has been living in Jericho for 10,000 years, while his Israeli counterpart, Tzipi Livni, is the daughter of an immigrant.
The settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories are mostly new immigrants, too. They do not sit on the land of their forefathers, but on Palestinian land expropriated by force – either “private” land or “government land”. This so-called “government land” was the communal land reserves of the villages that in Ottoman times was registered in the name of the Sultan, and later in the name of the British and Jordanian authorities. When Israel conquered the area, it took over these lands as if it owned them.
The settlers and their character
But the main point is something different. It concerns the character of the settlers themselves.
The core of the settlers, precisely those who live in the “isolated” small settlements in the areas that will in any case become part of the Palestinian state, are religious and nationalist fanatics.
The very purpose of their leaving comfortable homes in Israel and going to the desolate stony hills of “Judea and Samaria” was idealistic. It was to claim this area for Israel, fulfil their interpretation of God’s commandment and make a Palestinian state forever impossible.
The idea that these people would become law-abiding citizens of the very same Palestinian state is preposterous. Most of them hate everything Arab, including the workers who work for them without the benefit of minimum wages or social rights, and say so openly at every opportunity. They support the “Price Tag” thugs who terrorize their Arab neighbours, or at least don’t speak out against them. They obey their fanatical rabbis, who discuss among themselves whether it is right to kill non-Jewish children, who, when grown up, may kill Jews. They plan the building of the Third Temple, after blowing up the Muslim shrines.
To think about them as Palestinian citizens is ludicrous.
Of course, not all the settlers are like that. Some of them are quite different.
This week, an Israeli TV station aired a series about the economic situation of the settlers. It was an eye-opener.
Those ideological pioneers, living in tents and wooden huts, are long gone. Many settlements now consist of palatial buildings, each with its swimming pool, horses and orchards – something the Israeli 99 per cent cannot even dream of. Since almost all of them came to the “territories” without a shekel in their pocket, it is clear that all these palaces were built with our tax money – the huge sums transferred every year to this enterprise.
The clusters of urban settlements near the Green Line called “settlement blocs” are another matter. They are likely to be joined to Israel in the context of an “exchange of territories”. But at least two of them raise severe questions: Ariel, which lies some 25 kilometres inside the putative Palestinian state, and Maaleh Adumim, which practically cuts the West Bank into two.
Incorporating these two large towns with their inhabitants into the sovereign State of Palestine is a pipe-dream When Netanhayu promised this week that he will not remove one single settler nor evacuate one single settlement, he may have been thinking of Charles de Gaulle, who also did not remove settlers or uproot settlements. He just fixed the date when the French army would leave Algeria.
That was enough.
ENDS



http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1402/S00110/binyamin-netanyahus-pipe-dream.htm
February 10th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Nice read.

But I have a problem though with the "Their forefathers". For Sa’eb Erekat they go back 10.000 years and for Tzipi Livni only to her parents. Isn't it possible that her forefathers once lived there too? And how does Erekat know his 10.000 year old family history?

Didn't the writer said Israeli "Arab". There were no Arabs in that region 10.000 years ago. Most Arabs came in the 19th century together with the Jews, only in larger numbers. This is a fact.

Remember when I gave the question : "How far is one allowed to go back in history to prove he's right?" Up till now no one gave an answer. Propably because there is none. It is not the people who live there that decide but the ones who rule there. Fortunately for the "Palestinians" the Israelis rule there and now they can govern almost all their people. Never in history was there a country that gave such powers to the "Palestinians", not even the Arabs themselves. Jordan didn't gave the West Bank to the "Palestinians" and Egypt didn't gave the Gaza to them. Israel did give area A and B to the Palestinians. No one complains to all those countries who had a chance to give the land to the "Palestinians" but the only one that did gets the blame.

Another problem I have with this article is that he only speaks about Jewish religious fanatics. Why doesn't he mention the Jihadis? Do not forget that every "Palestinians" child does not learn that Israel exisits. In their geography lessons Israel is no where to be found while Israel is an official country. One should teach the truth and not lies. The fanatic Jews want their land back that "God" promised to them but the Jihadis want the hole world! Do you think that terrorism will stop once Israel and Palestine are neighbouring countries?

In Syria there are Jihadis who already think about the "next war" : El Andalus AKA Spain.

The last problem I have with the article is the safety for Israel. No one wants war, right? Who will govern the Palestinian state? In the West Bank they are fed up with the corruption of their leaders. Hamas rules Gaza as a dictatorship. The "Palestinians" had their civil war before they have their state. And it was a very bloody one. If Israel would have done the same it would have been a world wide outrage but it seems that muslims are allowed to kill anyone everywhere.

Settlements shouldn't be a problem. There are only two ways: they either become Israeli or Palestinian. Settlers and Palestinians should be made aware of that.

What do you think about this solution : a confederate state. One military and one police force everything else is for Israel/Palestine. The name of the state? Israel in Hebrew and Palestine in Arabic.
--
February 11th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VD
About your camera posistion. In the bottom right of the drawing there is an arrow with the text : camera view. You better delete your "camera position if you believe this drawing" because you placed it at the wrong side of the picture. It is bottom right not upper left. You are still digging deeper.
Is that a deliberate misunderstanding, or are you merely tying to reinforce the fact that you as as dumb as dogsh!t? The camera position that I showed was not "my" position which is quite plain if you read my answer,... BUT, it would have had to have been the position of the camera if you believe the lines of parallax (divergence) on the drawing, try tracing it out for yourself. Note: Cameras having only as single point of convergence at their prime focus, have no binocular disparity which would only make an immeasurable difference anyway.
"I advise you to read my explanation completely so you would not fall into the nonsense you are telling now."
Quote:
Originally Posted by VD
Did you ever try to have a look at the other projects they are working on? I hope they do not read your nonsense or you will get the award of the year for stupidity.
Put very simply,... NO!... because they have absolutely no bearing on, or relationship to, this case. The childishly simple mistakes were made in drawing "B" not "other" drawings.
I notice you also completely avoided answering the fact that Forensic Architecture clearly state that the victim was shot at a range of 1.5 metres, yet in their drawings they clearly show him to be at 4.0 metres.


These basic errors show that this analysis is certainly not a credible document in any way, shape or form. If they can't even get the distances correct in their drawings, what chance do they have of making an accurate analysis? None of which answers your other statement that the projectile missed the victim by 40cms and struck the ground 6 metres behind him. I don't see that in any of these drawings either. You should never have started telling lies about this, because this is the mess it gets you into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VD
You also take my words out of context.
"This incident clearly shows that the "steel" bullets the IDF uses cannot even penetrate a toe from a distance of 1.5 meters" this was in reply of your "being able to pierce the skull and break bones at ranges exceeding 40 metre"
Please post the part of the video, photographs, or other hard physical evidence, showing these projectiles "cannot even penetrate a toe from a distance of 1.5 meters" and I don't want contradictory lies, as released by the Department of Hasbara.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VD
Give me the explanation to why that extreley dangerous bullet (according to you) only caused a bruised toe?
Nice try, such a pity it's totally incorrect. The explanation was not my explanation, but the results of a study done by a team of Israeli Physicians at the Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, on nearly 600 hospital admissions involving injuries and deaths from steel projectiles coated with a thin coating of rubber or plastic, I merely quoted their findings as published in "The Lancet" one of the the world's most prestigious Medical Journals

I have never stated he had a either a "Bruised" or "blistered" toe, except, to quote your posts. That is what you have alleged, not me, and as yet you cannot show the slightest physical evidence to support your statement. In fact, in a desperate attempt to lie your way out of it, you actually posted two mutually conflicting excuses. One saying he was hit, another saying he wasn't,... (how do you explain that?) I have always advocated the the projectile passed through his shoe and have posted clips from the video clearly showing an exit hole on the sole of the shoe. You can't even manage to post this miraculous clip of Frame 633 showing an "uninjured foot" inside of the victim's shoe.

I notice you still have made no effort to answer any of my
questions,
nor have you admitted that this clearly shows that Australians do not treat their Aboriginal people in the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians.
No,.... I haven't forgotten the original point of all this, despite your childish attempts to divert the subject.
February 11th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Is that a deliberate misunderstanding, or are you merely tying to reinforce the fact that you as as dumb as dogsh!t? The camera position that I showed was not "my" position which is quite plain if you read my answer,... BUT, it would have had to have been the position of the camera if you believe the lines of parallax (divergence) on the drawing, try tracing it out for yourself. Note: Cameras having only as single point of convergence at their prime focus, have no binocular disparity which would only make an immeasurable difference anyway.
"I advise you to read my explanation completely so you would not fall into the nonsense you are telling now."
Put very simply,... NO!... because they have absolutely no bearing on, or relationship to, this case. The childishly simple mistakes were made in drawing "B" not "other" drawings.
I notice you also completely avoided answering the fact that Forensic Architecture clearly state that the victim was shot at a range of 1.5 metres, yet in their drawings they clearly show him to be at 4.0 metres.


These basic errors show that this analysis is certainly not a credible document in any way, shape or form. If they can't even get the distances correct in their drawings, what chance do they have of making an accurate analysis? None of which answers your other statement that the projectile missed the victim by 40cms and struck the ground 6 metres behind him. I don't see that in any of these drawings either. You should never have started telling lies about this, because this is the mess it gets you into.
Please post the part of the video, photographs, or other hard physical evidence, showing these projectiles "cannot even penetrate a toe from a distance of 1.5 meters" and I don't want contradictory lies, as released by the Department of Hasbara.
Nice try, such a pity it's totally incorrect. The explanation was not my explanation, but the results of a study done by a team of Israeli Physicians at the Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, on nearly 600 hospital admissions involving injuries and deaths from steel projectiles coated with a thin coating of rubber or plastic, I merely quoted their findings as published in "The Lancet" one of the the world's most prestigious Medical Journals

I have never stated he had a either a "Bruised" or "blistered" toe, except, to quote your posts. That is what you have alleged, not me, and as yet you cannot show the slightest physical evidence to support your statement. In fact, in a desperate attempt to lie your way out of it, you actually posted two mutually conflicting excuses. One saying he was hit, another saying he wasn't,... (how do you explain that?) I have always advocated the the projectile passed through his shoe and have posted clips from the video clearly showing an exit hole on the sole of the shoe. You can't even manage to post this miraculous clip of Frame 633 showing an "uninjured foot" inside of the victim's shoe.

I notice you still have made no effort to answer any of my
questions,
nor have you admitted that this clearly shows that Australians do not treat their Aboriginal people in the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians.
No,.... I haven't forgotten the original point of all this, despite your childish attempts to divert the subject.
Are you on medication or what?
February 11th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Are you on medication or what?
No I just have this intense dislike of pathological liars (especially ones that lie with all the guile of a five year old) and who deliberately ignore the facts because they don't suit their desired outcome.

The large red print was to help you see my questions that you have been ignoring for the last week or so. Questions you have still avoided answering, because you know that there is no answer that agrees with your previous lies.

OK, so let's keep it simple for you. Here is question #1. If you have difficulty reading this question, please let me know and I will make the print larger for you.

Quote:
Quote:
(1). "Did the projectile hit the victim's foot, or did it miss by 40 cms, hitting the ground 6 metres behind him"?
February 11th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Just to break a trend here how do we feel about this idea?

'Give the Palestinians full voting rights' says Habayit Hayehudi MK
Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa says Palestinians should become full citizens of Israel as part of a one-state solution • On the possibility of Israel losing its Jewish character, Kalfa says: One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority.

Shlomo Cesana


Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa |
Photo credit: Dudi Vaaknin


Palestinians should become full citizens in Israel, according to Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa.
"We should grant Palestinians full citizenship, equality, invest in their local infrastructure and [give them] voting rights in the Knesset," Kalfa said, in a surprising suggestion from a right-wing MK.
The proposal is born out of Kalfa's ideological objection to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He believes that the state should draft a law claiming all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as an undivided Israel, and making all residents within its borders Israeli.
Kalfa feels this will put an end to claims of Israeli apartheid or maltreatment of its Arab residents.
Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett is the only coalition party leader who opposes a two-sate solution, but he suggests limited autonomy for Palestinians as opposed to having them fully integrate, as Kalfa suggested.
"It is obvious that we cannot go the way of a two-state solution," Kalfa told Israel Hayom. "I am in favor of one country for everyone. Palestinians? There has never been and there currently is no [Palestinian] nation."
Kalfa, who was once a resident of Atzmona community in the since evacuated Gush Katif settlements, also provided an answer for his detractors who claim that Israel will no longer be a Jewish state if his suggestion is followed. "One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority in the state," he said.


http://www.israelhayom.com/site/news...e.php?id=15391

However when dealing with this lot I always find statements like this trigger red flags..."One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority in the state," he said"

Still it would solve all the problems if he really meant "equal rights" which given the above comment I suspect he doesn't.
February 14th, 2014  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
No I just have this intense dislike of pathological liars (especially ones that lie with all the guile of a five year old) and who deliberately ignore the facts because they don't suit their desired outcome.
Talking to yourself again?

Quote:
The large red print was to help you see my questions that you have been ignoring for the last week or so. Questions you have still avoided answering, because you know that there is no answer that agrees with your previous lies.

OK, so let's keep it simple for you. Here is question #1. If you have difficulty reading this question, please let me know and I will make the print larger for you.

Where is your claim he was shot through the foot? Or the tigh as you first mentioned.
Your claim is invalid, the facts overwhelmingly prove that. (B'Tselem, the victim himself , reporters, court ruling and the fact that he was send home after being looked at by a medic)
My claim, that he wasn't hit, still stands. No one can say for sure what hit the victim's toe.

Now, about Aboriginals/Australians , "Palestinians"/Israelis , Congolese/Belgians.

From those three groups the Aboriginals, Congoleze and Israelis can claim they once ruled there before the others came. The Europeans set foot first in "Australia" in the beginning of the 17th century. King Leopold II got the Congo Free State in the 19th century. "Palestinians" arrived in great numbers in the 19th century.

Aboriginals still don't have a country of their own.
The "Palestinians" got theirs in 1994 and Congo became independent in 1960.

Israel gave the "Palestinians" living in Israel full constitutional rights. They were able to vote from day one in 1948. Aboriginals in Australia had to wait untill 1962.

Between 2000 and 2007 there were 378 aboriginal deaths in custody. None (1 disputed) "Palestinians" died in Israeli custody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Just to break a trend here how do we feel about this idea?

'Give the Palestinians full voting rights' says Habayit Hayehudi MK
Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa says Palestinians should become full citizens of Israel as part of a one-state solution • On the possibility of Israel losing its Jewish character, Kalfa says: One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority.

Shlomo Cesana


Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa |
Photo credit: Dudi Vaaknin


Palestinians should become full citizens in Israel, according to Habayit Hayehudi MK Zvulun Kalfa.
"We should grant Palestinians full citizenship, equality, invest in their local infrastructure and [give them] voting rights in the Knesset," Kalfa said, in a surprising suggestion from a right-wing MK.
The proposal is born out of Kalfa's ideological objection to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He believes that the state should draft a law claiming all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as an undivided Israel, and making all residents within its borders Israeli.
Kalfa feels this will put an end to claims of Israeli apartheid or maltreatment of its Arab residents.
Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett is the only coalition party leader who opposes a two-sate solution, but he suggests limited autonomy for Palestinians as opposed to having them fully integrate, as Kalfa suggested.
"It is obvious that we cannot go the way of a two-state solution," Kalfa told Israel Hayom. "I am in favor of one country for everyone. Palestinians? There has never been and there currently is no [Palestinian] nation."
Kalfa, who was once a resident of Atzmona community in the since evacuated Gush Katif settlements, also provided an answer for his detractors who claim that Israel will no longer be a Jewish state if his suggestion is followed. "One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority in the state," he said.


http://www.israelhayom.com/site/news...e.php?id=15391

However when dealing with this lot I always find statements like this trigger red flags..."One way or another, the Jews will remain the majority in the state," he said"

Still it would solve all the problems if he really meant "equal rights" which given the above comment I suspect he doesn't.
Let's count.(2012)
Israel has 6.102.000 Jews and 1.682.000 Arabs. The rest is 348.000.
West Bank and Gaza has 4.290.000 Arabs. The rest is approx 50.000 (I do not know if these were counted as "Palestinians")
When they merge into one country we have 6.102.000 Jews, 5.972.000 Arabs and the rest is approx 400.000.
So he could be right although the difference between Jewish and Arab population is almost nihil and the rest will make the difference in a vote. Maybe Habayit Hayehudi believes the rest will vote more in favor of the Jews than the Arabs.
It could work in a prospering economy but we all know that if islamists get to power democracy is gone and (parts or whole) sharia law will be implemented. Jews will never allow that. Remeber that the PA calls itself secular although rule of law is based on Sharia.
Of course, if this would end the conflict then we must give it a try although, for the moment, I prefer a confederal state.
February 14th, 2014  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
My claim, that he wasn't hit, still stands. No one can say for sure what hit the victim's toe.
So you are claiming that the the Israeli courts charged and convicted the two sh!tbags' wrongfully? Plus, you also claimed several times that he was hit in the foot and suffered a "Bruised or Blistered toe". Alsoin support of your argument, you posted a series of drawings by "Forensic Architecture" and various quotes from News sources, showing that he was shot in the foot. A fact not disputed by the courts.

No one is interested in your "opinions" we just want you to explain how you claim two totally contradictory statements in support of your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Now, about Aboriginals/Australians , "Palestinians"/Israelis , ---snip---
Another very obvious and lame attempt to divert the subject because you know you have lied your way into a corner. No, we've been through all that, haven't we? So how about you stick to the subject.

I noticed that in your little attempted diversion, that you very carefully avoided posting the figures for non Indigenous Deaths in Custody. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....n%20custody~73 Taking into account the relative percentages of Aboriginal/non Aboriginal prisoners, a non Indigenous person actually has a 22% greater chance of dying in custody than an Aboriginal. So what are you trying to imply?

February 15th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
An interesting book review (it is also an interesting book)


Genesis: An even-handed look at Harry Truman, America and the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict

JEET HEER

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Feb. 14 2014, 2:40 PM EST

Last updated Friday, Feb. 14 2014, 3:19 PM EST


Love is blind: the adage is somewhat musty when applied to our personal relationships, but it can help illuminate geopolitics. Who could miss the smouldering passion in Stephen Harper’s eyes when he serenaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a singularly inept rendition of Hey Jude? It’s hard to imagine Harper warbling a tone-deaf tune to any other world leader, but something about Israel ignites our prime minister’s lumbering soul. Zionism and love might seem like disparate topics but no true understanding of the contention surrounding Israel is possible without acknowledging the intense emotional investment generated by the Jewish state.

John B. Judis’s authoritative and essential new history, Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, is an account of the founding of Israel with a particular focus on the role played by the American Jewish community in pressuring President Harry Truman, a most reluctant Godfather, to give his blessing to the newborn state in 1948. Beneath the expertly narrated historical chronicle, there is a deeper story in the book, which is about how love can cause otherwise admirable people to become party to a grave injustice.

The strength of the Zionist project comes from the compelling moral claim it makes on all decent people. In their long stateless exile, the Jewish diaspora suffered persecution for centuries, culminating in the Holocaust. Even after the near-total extermination of the European Jews, the surviving refugees faced high barriers from many countries, including Canada and the United States. What could be more just than the redemption of the unwanted through the building of a permanent safe haven?

The complicating fact, known from the start, was that this proposed haven would be built on land that was already densely populated. As Vladimir Jabotinsky, a pioneering Zionist whose Revisionist Zionist Party was a precursor to the Likud Party, forthrightly asserted in 1923, “we are seeking to colonize a country against the wishes of its inhabitants, in other words, by force.”

Jabotinsky was a right-wing extremist who admired Mussolini. The Zionist mainstream in Europe was socialist and, in America, left leaning and liberal. Yet as Judis documents, there was a troubling overlap between Jabotinsky’s fundamental attitude toward the native Arabs of Palestine and that of many more respectable advocates for a Jewish state. All too many Zionists thought there was nothing wrong with building a state on a policy of “transfer” (in other words, expulsion).

Judis is a liberal Jewish American and most of the people he’s writing about in this book were liberal Jewish Americans. When offering profiles of the various Zionist leaders, he pays close attention to father-son dynamics, so the book is on many levels a family history. But it’s far from a pious celebration of ancestral glory. Rather, Judis’s core concern is “how American liberals, in the wake of the Holocaust and the urgency it lent to the Zionist case, simply abandoned their principles when it came to Palestine’s Arabs.”

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was a giant of American liberalism, a man who fought for civil rights, unions and women’s suffrage. Yet as Judis notes, Brandeis and his followers didn’t apply the ideals of equality and self-determination to the Middle East, but rather “saw Palestine’s Arabs largely through the prism of Western colonialism and Jewish nationalism. They ignored them or assigned them to a lower rung of humanity than Palestine’s Jews or America’s multifold nationalities.” These liberals were all too quick to dismiss Arabs as “savages” or view them as a “fungible” people (in Judis’s apt words) who could be forcibly relocated without concern. The minority tradition within Zionism that was more respectful of Arabs, growing out of the writings of Ahad Ha’am, was swamped by this larger ethnocentric current.

The well-meaning, much-harassed and not always competent figure of Harry Truman is central to Judis’s investigation of the tension between liberalism and Zionism. Some historians have celebrated Truman as a righteous champion of the Jewish State motivated by a Christian Zionism. As Judis amply demonstrates, this view is at odds with the facts. As a Jeffersonian Democrat, Truman had genuine compassion for survivors of the Holocaust and wanted to give them a home, but, in Judis’s words, he had serious qualms about creating a nation “defined by a particular people or race or religion.” His ideal solution was a “federated Palestine.”

Truman tried to purpose a foreign policy that would equitably balance the competing claims of Jews and Arabs. But this attempt at even-handedness was thwarted by intense lobbying by American Zionists, creating a model of political dysfunction that continues to make the issue intractable to this day.

The Israel/Palestine question is a subject rich in polemicists and shallow in sober analysts. Judis is a happy exception to this dismal rule. Many who follow American politics have learned over the years to rely on Judis’s judicious, well-researched essays and books. His biography of William F. Buckley is a classic, and this new book is likely to be equally lasting. At times, Genesis makes for dry reading, but that quality of dispassion is welcome in so emotionally wrought a subject.

Aside from examining the moral blindness of many Zionists, Judis is equally critical of the other major actors. He is unsparing in his account of the feckless dishonesty of British imperialists, the factionalism and intransigence of many of the Arab leaders and Truman’s chaotic management style.

Beyond its intrinsic value, Genesis is a harbinger of an important change in American culture. Judis is a senior editor of the New Republic, a magazine that for the better part of a century has embodied the marriage of Zionism and liberalism. In 1948, one of Harry Truman’s chief worries was that he would lose votes to New Republic editor Henry Wallace, running on the Progressive Party platform, who accused the president of being insufficiently supportive of Zionism.

Under the leadership of Marty Peretz, who served variously as publisher and editor-in-chief from 1974 to 2012, the New Republic was fiercely and sometimes crazily defensive of Israel. Writing in Vanity Fair, James Wolcott cheekily summed up Peretz’s worldview by saying that for him Israel is a “lion of nations, loyal ally and democratic outpost, Gateway of Meccas … a land of religious resonance and geopolitical significance.” Yet in recent years some writers and editors who first made their name in the New Republic, not just Judis but also Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart, have become formidable critics of the Jewish State. The love affair between liberalism and Zionism has definitely lost its bloom, and a divorce might be imminent. These days, it’s right-wingers like Harper who are blindly besotted by Israel. Given the fact that Israel in the past relied on bipartisan support from both liberals and conservatives in America, this is a change pregnant with significance.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/...ticle16899370/
 


Similar Topics
Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
Israel strikes Beirut suburb, tightens blockade
A conversation with Iranian dissident (MUST READ)
Palestinians
American racism