Originally Posted by VDKMS

It is not because you find it in many places that lies or the distortion of facts become true.
You just take things you like to hear, wehter they are true or not, as long as they are anti-Israel. The web sites that tell things you don't like are in your eyes zionist propaganda.

I'm only anti Israel as I would have been anti Nazi, after all someone has to have some moral backbone, it's quite obvious that you have none. Similarly, just because something is denied in a Zionist inspired site does not mean that it's not true.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

This is a perfect example of your thinking. You only look at the anti side and ignore the other. This gives you the impression that "everyone" is against.

One can only base their answers on the facts as they are presented, and the fact is that there is a lot more anti zionist sentiment in the world than support for their criminal activities. Pretty simple really. (but only if you are un-biased) It's obviously true, you only have to ask any Zionist, and they'll soon tell you how the whole world is against them,... but they never actually ask why is it so, because they know the answer and don't wish to hear it..

Originally Posted by VDKMS

No it isn't, because if you find something on Wikipedia that you like it is the truth, if someone else quotes Wikipedia and you don't like it, it is distorted.

Once again, it's pretty obvious when a rogue state actually goes to the bother of running classes that they admit are designed to change the information supplied. Why is it that no other country finds this deceitful behaviour necessary.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

They cleared all settlements from the Sinai and Gaza.
Why do you worry about the settlements in the West Bank? If there ever is going to be a Palestinian state it will be up to the 1967 borders and the settlements will fall into Palestinian land.

West bank? You kid yourself. I'm talking of the settlements in Palestine, all of it.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

So, if you report what is written, you do not verify do you?

In this case no, if it's good enough for you to quote from pro zionist sources surely it is OK for me to do the same.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

18 sep 2011
One of the reasons that the Palestinians will never get full membership is because they would keep directing the attention of the world, to the the number of UN Resolutions that the Israelis have violated or refused to comply with (more than the total for all members combined), and blatant violations of International Law.

The reason they won't get full membership will come down to the US veto. And if you read my reply i withdrew that statement and modified it to

Originally Posted by senojekips

I'll stand corrected.

However, Israel still has more resolutions raised against it than any other country, (including the other alleged "rogue states"). AND you very conveniently forgot to include the general assembly Resolutions.
You messed up too it seems.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I just report what is written by you, and you were wrong all the time. You NEVER took the time to check it at the genuine UN pages. What about your other facts, didn't you verify them either?

You go on about this as if it somehow absolves Israel of it's status as the world's most recalcitrant criminal state and denier of Human Rights. As I said above, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, after all it was a pro zionist site I quoted from. Or are you admitting that pro zionist propaganda is just that, propaganda?

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I proved it was a distortion of the facts.(again)

Not at all,... all you said is that it was that it wasn't in his diary,... 99% of his life was probably "not in his diary", especially the pieces that he knows would further incriminate him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today's tidbit. No doubt this is also not in someone or another's diary or was never actually said, and NO! I didn't bother to go and check it either.
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."
-- Ariel Sharon, (The Butcher of Beirut) Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

It is not because you find it in many places that lies or the distortion of facts become true.
You just take things you like to hear, wehter they are true or not, as long as they are anti-Israel. The web sites that tell things you don't like are in your eyes zionist propaganda.

Once again I have tried to avoid this thread like a scorching case of herpes but I guess it is time to interrupt the Spike and VD show to point out that your argument works both ways, I wouldn't trust what the Israeli's tell me any more than I believe what Hamas have to say on the issues they are both just peddling their cause and the truth is expendable.

In the end you are both just peddling the one line.

For the record though if I had to choose a side in this it would probably be the Palestinian side given that they are on the losing end of almost all of these confrontations and it is very difficult to believe they are voluntarily giving all their land away as part of a conspiracy.

Or in other words it is this image that tells me Israel is the agressor and in the wrong...


Had they stayed within there borders I probably would be pro-Israeli but the fact is they just committing slow motion genocide as part of a land grab.

Originally Posted by MontyB

In the end you are both just peddling the one line.

For the record though if I had to choose a side in this it would probably be the Palestinian side given that they are on the losing end of almost all of these confrontations and it is very difficult to believe they are voluntarily giving all their land away as part of a conspiracy.

You are quite correct, I am only pushing the one line, but I do have the decided advantage in that my one line is supported Internationally, both legally and morally. Unless you can see a valid reason why I should support an argument against these legal and moral values, I see it as the only way that I (and anybody with an ounce of human decency) can possibly go.

The Jewish people have quite rightfully never let it be forgotten about when the world last ignored a similar situation and a group of people were treated like animals.

Yes,... I am fully aware of the perils of arguing a moral argument with people who are totally devoid of moral principle themselves, but it is better than just allowing them to peddle their lies and distortions without opposition. It's like soldiers going to war Monty, no one really wants to do it, but there are some things that just have to be done.

Originally Posted by senojekips

You are quite correct, I am only pushing the one line, but I do have the decided advantage in that my one line is supported Internationally, both legally and morally. Unless you can see a valid reason why I should support an argument against these legal and moral values, I see it as the only way that I (and anybody with an ounce of human decency) can possibly go.

The Jewish people have quite rightfully never let it be forgotten about when the world last ignored a similar situation and a group of people were treated like animals.

Yes,... I am fully aware of the perils of arguing a moral argument with people who are totally devoid of moral principle themselves, but it is better than just allowing them to peddle their lies and distortions without opposition. It's like soldiers going to war Monty, no one really wants to do it, but there are some things that just have to be done.

I am not going to argue that either you or VDKMS should change your views to accommodate the others point of view I am just asking you both to realise that neither of you are necessarily pushing the absolute truth and that both sides in this battle (Palestinians and Israeli's) have skeletons hidden in the closet.

I do agree that this is not a topic where only one sides story can be allowed to stand unchallenged but I tend to think that having both parties stand at opposite ends of a room and shouting the same story over and over at each other is not really a productive option.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am not going to argue that either you or VDKMS should change your views to accommodate the others point of view I am just asking you both to realise that neither of you are necessarily pushing the absolute truth and that both sides in this battle (Palestinians and Israeli's) have skeletons hidden in the closet.

It's not that difficult really, if the Zionists had not insisted on occupying the land of another people against their wishes, there never would have been any skeletons.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I do agree that this is not a topic where only one sides story can be allowed to stand unchallenged but I tend to think that having both parties stand at opposite ends of a room and shouting the same story over and over at each other is not really a productive option.

It's not about being "productive", the facts are all there for anyone who's interested, it's more a matter of denying the aggressors the ability to freely spread their distorted message blaming the victims for what has happened.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Or in other words it is this image that tells me Israel is the agressor and in the wrong...


Had they stayed within there borders I probably would be pro-Israeli but the fact is they just committing slow motion genocide as part of a land grab.

The reason why I reply on your post is because senojekips and 84RFK liked it (so it is 3 to 1 ). It's a good example of how things gets distorted. When we look at the map we see in white the "Jewish land" and in green the "Palestinian land". Stage 2, 3 and 4 are, as far as I know, correct. The first one is distorted because it gives not Jewish land/Palestinian land but Jewish owned land (ownership)/non jewish owned land. Below the picture with explanation.
remark : up until the partition there was neither a Jewish land (unless we go back more than 2000 years ) nor a Palestinian land (never was). Only the region of Palestine which was governed by the British through a mandate.

The Jewish population was concentrated in settlement areas in 1947. The borders were drawn to encompass them, placing most of the Jewish population in the Jewish state. (Map reflects Jewish owned land not the size and number of settlements. It does not imply that only Jews lived here or that all other land was owned or exclusively populated by Arabs.)

I also want to point out that (about the immigration of the Jews) it was either the Ottoman Empire or the British mandate who decided who was allowed to settle (legally) in the region of Palestine. The local population (Arabs, Christians and Jews) had no say in it. The Jews did not stole the land of the local population (again - Arabs, Christians and Jews) but bought it. In order to buy land someone else has to sell it. If the "palestinians" hadn't sold their land to the Jews then the Jews couldn't have any "Palestinian" land.
Stage two was accepted by the Jews but not by the Arabs. Both of them had the right to accept or deny what was "given" to them. None of the two got what they asked for. Again it was the UN who had the power to divide the land not the local population (Arabs, Christians and Jews). The southern triangle on the map is desert, no one lived there but the semisedentary Bedouins. Stage 3 was created because of the Arab attack on the newly born state of Israel. That attack was not because of the Jews in "Palestine" but because of a non-muslim state on muslim land. Do not forget that the Arab leadership welcomed the Jews after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire but didn't want a Jewish state. Stage 4 was created after the Oslo accords with the PLO.
So, except for the current settlements, Israel stayed within their borders.
Sooner or later the map of Palestine will look like stage 3.

Now, can any one of you tell me why the "Palestinians" only wanted a state AFTER there was word of a Jewish state?
Can any one of you tell me why the Palestinians didn't revolt against the Turks or fought with the allies (including Jews!)and Arabs when they attacked the Ottoman Empire to get an independent state?
I advise you that before answering those questions immediately, do some research om how the Arabs lived in Palestine and how and why Islam got all those muslim land.
Here are some links:
The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931

An Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine, during the period 1st July, 1920 - 30th June, 1921 - League of Nations

And last but not least, have a look at the Hamas charter here.

israeli settlers are different from the majority of israelis, who are opposed to their actions.

the majority of israelis support the two state solution and self determination for both themselves and the palestinians.

i understand that we do not see eye to eye on this issue, but i do not believe it is okay to slander an entire population, aka all jewish israelis

Originally Posted by VDKMS

The reason why I reply on your post is because senojekips and 84RFK liked it (so it is 3 to 1 ). It's a good example of how things gets distorted.

Here is your problem do you honestly think that before I decided I liked the map I didn't go and check the information it contained to ensure that it was "reasonably" accurate?

Yeah I know it is not 100% accurate but quite honestly even if it was only 20% accurate it still proves the same point, Palestinians are losing land to Israeli settlement so all I have to decide is whether that loss is legitimate (ie selling up and moving on to better pastures else where) or illegitimate (ie being forced off through various methods and their land being taken) I tend to believe it is the latter.

Originally Posted by benaakatz

israeli settlers are different from the majority of israelis, who are opposed to their actions.

the majority of israelis support the two state solution and self determination for both themselves and the palestinians.

i understand that we do not see eye to eye on this issue, but i do not believe it is okay to slander an entire population, aka all jewish israelis

You know the most common statement in Germany after WW2 was "No I didn't support the Nazi's and I could not do anything to stop them" so sorry but heard it before and the world didn't believe it then either, guilt by association can be a bastard.

Well, my "like" was mostly based upon the last set of maps showing that the areas under the Palestinian "Authorities" is more or less a chessboard with little to no physical contact between the "green squares" and only limited movement allowed along the checkered board.

So the settlers in the occupied territories is a "cheap way" of claiming territory, but also quite expeensive for Israel since the IDF have to guard every single settlement, even those who recieve no financial support from the Israeli government, and the surrounding area with access routes and communication lines.

In my opinion, the State of Israel is a unquestionable and undeniable fact, the debate should be focused on the settlers and the Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

Another fact is that Israeli retaliation against agression from the Palestinian side has more than often claimed a substantial collateral damage, and civil infrastructure has often been the target of their military operations.
Back when Arafat was still alive, and partly in charge, Palestinian police stations was a favoured target of the IDF.
Bombing police stations into a pile of rubble, and then accuse the Palestinian Authorities for not being able to keep terrorists in check, sounds a bit contradictive in my ears.

I believe Ive said it before, but an Israeli state based on the pre-67 borders, Jerusalem under international control, all settlements disbanded and a Palestinian state on the rest of the territory, that would be a good start.

In such case, the state of Israel would have the perfectly moral and internationally recognized right to act against agression from the other side.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Here is your problem do you honestly think that before I decided I liked the map I didn't go and check the information it contained to ensure that it was "reasonably" accurate?

Yeah I know it is not 100% accurate but quite honestly even if it was only 20% accurate it still proves the same point, Palestinians are losing land to Israeli settlement so all I have to decide is whether that loss is legitimate (ie selling up and moving on to better pastures else where) or illegitimate (ie being forced off through various methods and their land being taken) I tend to believe it is the latter.

So you knew that stage 1 of the maps was not correct but you didn't mention it? That is a distortion of the facts isn't it.
Do you also came to the conclusion that map stage 1 gives a totally wrong impression of the actual amount of Palestinians versus Jews living there at that moment.



When you look at the map above it gives you the impression that Palestine is largely Palestinian with only a small part Jewish. That map was used by the UN. But if you look at the total population of Palestine we find the following (from the Supplement to the Survey of Palestine, June 1947 by the UN)

Total : 1,845,560
Moselms : 1,076,780
Jews : 608,230
Christians : 145,060
Others : 15,490

Would you have believed if I had told you that on map stage 1 the Jewish population totals 1/3rd? Let alone more than half the muslim population?

You know the most common statement in Germany after WW2 was "No I didn't support the Nazi's and I could not do anything to stop them" so sorry but heard it before and the world didn't believe it then either, guilt by association can be a bastard.

The famous German excuse was "ich habe es nicht gewusst" (I did not know it). Propably this would have been more accurate : I didn't want to know. But that's where the comparison stops. There are a lot of Israeli groups who fight for Palestinian justice, B'Tselem is one of them. Unfortunately we don't see such a group within the Palestinian society to denounce Palestinian violations.
What I find disturbing though is that senojekips likes your reply although he had worked with that organisations so he must have known that your last statement is incorrect. Or is he going to say "I don't want to know"?