You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Apple Recognizes Palestine
- Thread starter gryfin
- Start date
What refugees? Palestinians who were born in Syria are not refugees, except maybe from Syria these days.
And again, why is ethnic cleansing of Jews so acceptable to you?
.
There you go again, arguing that Palestinians have already been ethnically cleansed so they don't deserve any more rights and then argue that taking illegal squatters off land is 'ethnic cleansing'.
Your morals are showing again.
You have already been shown irrefutable proof that those who left did so voluntarily. Moreover, those who never were in Israel are outside this discussion entirely--those born in Syria are Syrian civilians, not Israeli civilians.
Let us imagine that the settlers in the West Bank are told that they can stay in their homes, but that they are going to switch to Palestinian control, because they are on Palestinian territory. Let's say that the Palestinians extend some guarantees that they will be fully equal citizens but these settlers reject that, refuse to recognize Palestinian control. A few of them then arm themselves and begin resisting Palestinian attempts to impose control over the area, firing on Palestinian forces. The town is surrounded, and a third country negotiator goes in, who tells the settlers that they have no real hope of holding off the Palestinian forces, they are vastly outgunned and outnumbered, they should sign the truce and stay and live in peace.
The settlers angrily insist that any deal must include a repudiation of Palestine and say they won't sign it, they would rather leave. They pack up and begin leaving the area. A few choose to stay, they are left in peace, given full citizenship, and go on to be equal citizens in the Palestinian state, living in their homes and going on with their lives.
Would you call that an ethnic cleansing? I wouldn't.
Let us imagine that the settlers in the West Bank are told that they can stay in their homes, but that they are going to switch to Palestinian control, because they are on Palestinian territory. Let's say that the Palestinians extend some guarantees that they will be fully equal citizens but these settlers reject that, refuse to recognize Palestinian control. A few of them then arm themselves and begin resisting Palestinian attempts to impose control over the area, firing on Palestinian forces. The town is surrounded, and a third country negotiator goes in, who tells the settlers that they have no real hope of holding off the Palestinian forces, they are vastly outgunned and outnumbered, they should sign the truce and stay and live in peace.
The settlers angrily insist that any deal must include a repudiation of Palestine and say they won't sign it, they would rather leave. They pack up and begin leaving the area. A few choose to stay, they are left in peace, given full citizenship, and go on to be equal citizens in the Palestinian state, living in their homes and going on with their lives.
Would you call that an ethnic cleansing? I wouldn't.
Of course that's different because those are Jews. They don't belong in Muslim lands, even the ones whose families had lived in Hebron since antiquity till forced out by the Arabs in 1936.You have already been shown irrefutable proof that those who left did so voluntarily. Moreover, those who never were in Israel are outside this discussion entirely--those born in Syria are Syrian civilians, not Israeli civilians.
Let us imagine that the settlers in the West Bank...
You have already been shown irrefutable proof that those who left did so voluntarily. Moreover, those who never were in Israel are outside this discussion entirely--those born in Syria are Syrian civilians, not Israeli civilians.
Let us imagine that the settlers in the West Bank are told that they can stay in their homes, but that they are going to switch to Palestinian control, because they are on Palestinian territory. Let's say that the Palestinians extend some guarantees that they will be fully equal citizens but these settlers reject that, refuse to recognize Palestinian control. A few of them then arm themselves and begin resisting Palestinian attempts to impose control over the area, firing on Palestinian forces. The town is surrounded, and a third country negotiator goes in, who tells the settlers that they have no real hope of holding off the Palestinian forces, they are vastly outgunned and outnumbered, they should sign the truce and stay and live in peace.
The settlers angrily insist that any deal must include a repudiation of Palestine and say they won't sign it, they would rather leave. They pack up and begin leaving the area. A few choose to stay, they are left in peace, given full citizenship, and go on to be equal citizens in the Palestinian state, living in their homes and going on with their lives.
Would you call that an ethnic cleansing? I wouldn't.
Of course that's not ethnic cleansing because they are there illegally to begin with and there is no legal basis under which they should be given citizenship.
Evicting squatters is not ethnic cleansing.
But as for this quote:
I'm surprised you still make this claim having been shown to be basing the whole claim off of an intentional misquoting.You have already been shown irrefutable proof that those who left did so voluntarily.
You really have no shame in your defense of apartheid, do you?
Of course that's not ethnic cleansing because they are there illegally to begin with and there is no legal basis under which they should be given citizenship.
Evicting squatters is not ethnic cleansing.
Then you no doubt support the removal of Palestinian squatters from East Jerusalem. In fact there is always dispute about territory, the Palestinians don't even recognize Israeli citizenship ad a concept .
Basically you think ethic cleansing is great so long as it is Jews being cleansed.
And there is no misquoting, the palis in Haifa specified their condition for staying, you just don't like the facts.
Then you no doubt support the removal of Palestinian squatters from East Jerusalem. In fact there is always dispute about territory, the Palestinians don't even recognize Israeli citizenship ad a concept .
...
Actually record numbers of East Jerusalem Arabs have been taking Israeli citizenship recently. Either it's part of a plan to slowly take over Israel or they realize life in Israel is better than under the PA. Of course this is just another example of the Israeli ethnic cleansing that is increasing the number of Arab citizens. 150,000 chose to stay in Israel in 1948 and they have grown to 1.6 million.
And there is no misquoting, the palis in Haifa specified their condition for staying, you just don't like the facts.
Here's the quote, no mention of a condition for staying:
We wish to reiterate our statement at that meeting that while the removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town is voluntary and is being carried out at our request, yet the request was to the greatest extent prompted by your refusal to take any action to protect the lives and properties of those residents.
Well, I'm glad to hear you so worried about ethnic cleansing, I'm sure that will translate into some kind of policy to return those 4 or 5 million Palestinian refugees awaiting Israel's enacting of numerous UN resolutions calling for their return.
Correct?
Now, if there were any chance of a two state solution, you are just pouring water on it. If you are so sure that the Israeli's squatting in Palestine would never leave, then how can you argue that there is any hope of a two state solution?
The only hope left now is a one state solution that respects the rights of all and resolves to solve the refugee problem.
That would be a good cure for ethnic cleansing, wouldn't it?
You never respond to the main point you keep trying to distract from it:
The Arabs specified the conditions under which they were willing to stay, and it was specifically a clause in the truce repudiating Israeli jurisdiction.
At which point they found the Jewish terrorists weren't honest about their offer, that when they requested 24 hours to confirm or discuss whether they had the jurisdiction to sign the terrorists instead said sign now or we kill 3 or 4 hundred more people.
Thus they ordered the Palestinians to leave in fear of their lives and safety, as said in their statement.
The Arabs would have signed and stayed had they got the term they wanted added to the agreement.
Period.
The Palestinians would have considered it if they perceived that the offer was honest and their lives weren't at risk, as they said before in your research their number one concern was the safety of civilians. And it was because it was very apparent that they wouldn't be safe, due to the bombing of the market and hospitals in the previous day or two and continued violence and threats during negotiations that they fled in fear for their lives.
As they said:
the request was to the greatest extent prompted by your refusal to take any action to protect the lives and properties of those residents.
Sorry, but once again, you are lying. The Arabs specified their condition for signing the truce, Israel (Haganah) rejected it. But they did specify their condition, there is no doubt or dispute about that part. Had the Israelis accepted it then they Arabs would have stayed.
Sorry, but once again, you are lying.
Here is the quote which you supplied and now you call 'lying'.
We wish to reiterate our statement at that meeting that while the removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town is voluntary and is being carried out at our request, yet the request was to the greatest extent prompted by your refusal to take any action to protect the lives and properties of those residents.
No mention of a truce.
Read the rest of the documents, moron. The Arabs made clear on several occasions that they would sign the truce if they could have added to it a clause repudiating Haganah's jurisdiction.
This is the relevant quote that you, quite some time ago used as your defense of ethnic cleansing:
We wish to reiterate our statement at that meeting that while the removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town is voluntary
Then, when challenged you provided the document where the full quote was found to be:
We wish to reiterate our statement at that meeting that while the removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town is voluntary and is being carried out at our request, yet the request was to the greatest extent prompted by your refusal to take any action to protect the lives and properties of those residents.
Ever since then you've continued your fantasy as if you really had an argument.
All you've done is revealed that the document you supplied clearly reported on terrorism and ethnic cleansing and said nothing of what you claimed.
And yet you continue.
That is shameful.
"The Arabs asked that a condition be added to the effect that the agreement did not imply the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Haganah or any change in the political status of the country. Upon the Jewish rejection of this request, the delegation asked for a twenty-four-hour adjournment to consult the Arab governments on such a momentous issue.
....
The assembled renewed their authorization to the delegation to do what it thought was necessary given the extreme gravity of the situation and to sign the agreement if there was no other alternative.
....
On the way to the 7 PM meeting at the Town Hall, the members of the delegation conferred among themselves and, despite the authorization from the general meeting at Khayat's house, decided that they could not themselves assume the tremendous national responsibility of endorsing an agreement that did not contain an article about Haganah jurisdiction and the political status of the country."
Very clearly they would have stayed if the Jews had agreed to that term--it was their main issue, and it is the only thing that resulted in them refusing to sign the truce.
The bit you were quoting was addressed to THE BRITISH, not the Israelis. Haganah did in fact demonstrate a willingness to protect the lives of the Arab citizens when it fought a gun battle with Irgun to keep them safe, and in fact kept safe those who stayed behind, and in fact delivered all of the things promised in the truce to those who did not leave.
....
The assembled renewed their authorization to the delegation to do what it thought was necessary given the extreme gravity of the situation and to sign the agreement if there was no other alternative.
....
On the way to the 7 PM meeting at the Town Hall, the members of the delegation conferred among themselves and, despite the authorization from the general meeting at Khayat's house, decided that they could not themselves assume the tremendous national responsibility of endorsing an agreement that did not contain an article about Haganah jurisdiction and the political status of the country."
Very clearly they would have stayed if the Jews had agreed to that term--it was their main issue, and it is the only thing that resulted in them refusing to sign the truce.
The bit you were quoting was addressed to THE BRITISH, not the Israelis. Haganah did in fact demonstrate a willingness to protect the lives of the Arab citizens when it fought a gun battle with Irgun to keep them safe, and in fact kept safe those who stayed behind, and in fact delivered all of the things promised in the truce to those who did not leave.
The bit you were quoting was addressed to THE BRITISH, not the Israelis. Haganah did in fact demonstrate a willingness to protect the lives of the Arab citizens when it fought a gun battle with Irgun to keep them safe, and in fact kept safe those who stayed behind, and in fact delivered all of the things promised in the truce to those who did not leave.
Well I'm impressed that you've found a new colour for your fonts, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument was based off a deliberate misquote and now you are trying to retroactively try to say its about refusing to sign a disingenuous treaty with a party of terrorists in the face of a protectorate who personally decided to side with the terrorists and abandon his duty.
But it doesn't change the fact that you lied on your first argument and your second argument is wrong.
No misquoting, liar . The Arabs wanted the British to fight the war for them, and the British refused. They viewed the Jewish victory as an attack but that was just noise. The Jews in fact did protect them once the fighting stopped.
Meanwhile it is indisputable that they were ready to accept the truce if one more clause could be added.
Meanwhile it is indisputable that they were ready to accept the truce if one more clause could be added.
No misquoting, liar . The Arabs wanted the British to fight the war for them, and the British refused. They viewed the Jewish victory as an attack but that was just noise. The Jews in fact did protect them once the fighting stopped.
Meanwhile it is indisputable that they were ready to accept the truce if one more clause could be added.
It is indisputable that they were trying to save the lives of civilians but didn't trust and couldn't sign a truce under threats of death.
So, as they said, and you tried to leave out in your quoting, they left in fear for their lives.
We wish to reiterate our statement at that meeting that while the removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town is voluntary and is being carried out at our request, yet the request was to the greatest extent prompted by your refusal to take any action to protect the lives and properties of those residents.
Does it sink in more when its your favourite colour?
