Things that make flub/clown/danmandnottyboi/pecker smile

[toguy5252]

Not as pathetic as your attempts to justify and cover up ethnic cleansing and humanitarian crimes. I would say people like you are the same as holocaust deniers. Probably even worse since you know it happened once to your people and now you justify inflicting the same crimes on others. To me it is the ultimate act of racism.

I have not denied that the Israeli's have committed crimes against the Palestinians and if you took the time to actually read my posts you would see that that is the case. I certainly dispute that those acts amount to genocide or ethnic cleansing and any fair reading of history would confirm that that is the case. I likewise do not accept that all of the current suffering of the Palestinian people is solely the result of the actions of Israel and that Hams and the PA share none of the blame and are no part of the cause.

Your repetition of statements that have no basis in fact or history does not make them true.

Israel is fighting on all sides for its existence. They have done what most countries and I would hope Canada would do in similar circumstances.

Simply ignoring or trying to justify the relentless rocket and other attacks or the wars instigated by its neighbors is to ignore facts and history.

Simply turning a blind eye to the terrorism of Hamas and other Palestinian groups in the area is to ignore reality.

 

[basketcase]

.... Also, they were glad to accept the Jews as it delayed the inevitable demographic transition to an Arab majority. Funny how outsiders were accepted yet residents were LOCKED OUT.... RACISM...please explain to me why Israel will not issue citizenship to those born in Israel? PLEASE!!! is that because under Israel law their children would AUTOMATICALLY be entitled to Israeli citizenship? hmmmm. Yet Jews with NO HISTORICAL LINKS are welcomed into the Apartheid state.

Strange thing is 1/4 of the Arabs chose to stay in Israel in 1948 and got full citizenship rights. Explain that 'RACISM'.

 

[nottyboi]

I have not denied that the Israeli's have committed crimes against the Palestinians and if you took the time to actually read my posts you would see that that is the case. I certainly dispute that those acts amount to genocide or ethnic cleansing and any fair reading of history would confirm that that is the case. I likewise do not accept that all of the current suffering of the Palestinian people is solely the result of the actions of Israel and that Hams and the PA share none of the blame and are no part of the cause.

Your repetition of statements that have no basis in fact or history does not make them true.

Israel is fighting on all sides for its existence. They have done what most countries and I would hope Canada would do in similar circumstances.

Simply ignoring or trying to justify the relentless rocket and other attacks or the wars instigated by its neighbors is to ignore facts and history.

Simply turning a blind eye to the terrorism of Hamas and other Palestinian groups in the area is to ignore reality.

Would they be suffering if Isreal was not created? Of course not. as I have said before, Israel does not want peace. I see no evidence they want it. Until they face a REAL threat, they will not seriously pursue peace...but it will probably be too late at that point.

 

[basketcase]

Away for work for a couple of days so let me lump together a bunch of responses.

... but one of the reasons that the violence became so bad was the Nabka. My point is that for Fuji to call these Jews ethnically cleansed is a lie, they were actively courted to emmigrate to Israel and pushed locally because of the violence happening in Israel.

Wow, you are completely up in the air on this argument. You blame Arab violence against Jews on Israel (like you blame everything else) and absolve all of the Arabs about any injustice they have ever done to anyone, even though the Arab actions to their (former) Jewish countrymen was almost identical to Jewish actions against the Palestinians who fled.

perhaps in isolated cases this may be true, but on the whole they were exorted to fight to the death. In many cases they fled for safety as a state of war enveloped them. So they mainly war refugees.

Most historians agree that the Arabs who fled fled out of fear that was spread by both Arabs and Jews. Both sides had a significant blame for creating refugees yet of course you only see fit to blame one side.

Well in the case of the jews..it's didn't work out too well for the ones that decided to stay did it? ( I am talking about Nazi Germany here) so when you add that historical frame. Fleeing seems to be the safest course of action.

It seemed to work out pretty well for the 1/4 of the Arab population that chose to stay and became full citizens.

Except for one big difference.
The Jews who left/were kicked out took over/were given land in Israel while the Palestinians who left/were kicked out were put in refugee camps because their homes were taken from them.

Actually they weren't given land, they were givien citizenship - you know, rights like health, education, employment - you know treated like humans.

The result today is also that the Palestinian refugee is still Israel's problem, and not the Arab nations.
While the Arab nations take care of the refugee camps, the right of return is yet another big albatross for Israel.

I guess that you will continue to blame Israel for the Arab states treating the Palestinians like crap.

So where was all this land for the refugees supposed to come from. Canada is a HUGE country...do we give refugees land? WTF that is IDIOTIC. Of course we know where the land for jewish refugees came from (evicted Palis). Zionism is essentially Lebensraum.... of course the Arabs have an agenda, but so do the Israelis .

Again, just like refugees that come to Canada, the Jewish refugees to Israel were given citizenship and rights, not land while the Palestinian refugees were given - well nothing.

I really wish you rah rah Israel types would take off your bigoted racist blockers and learn something once in awhile. With the exception of Lebanon, Palestinians in other Arab countries are given citizenship and treated like dirt like the rest of the local population, Syria, Egypt, Jordan are prime examples. The so called "refugee camps" just outside of Damascus in Syria actually have some of the best shopping as I have been told.

Now the sole exception is Lebanon which is a sectarian construct by the French, the vast majority of the Palestinian refugees there are Sunni Muslims and the Christians along with the Shia sure as hell dont want to give them citizenship and full employment rights, thereby tipping the sectarian balance in favour of the Sunnis in that tiny country.

Israel screwed itself in 1967 by annexing East Jerusalem, adding tens of thousands of Arabs under its control whose population continues to grow. They are trying oh so hard to get rid of these Arabs but the problem is short of forcing people out with guns a la some Arab villages in 48, they wont leave.

Except for the period of time when Jordan was trying to justify it's annexation of the West Bank, Arab states for the most part don't give citizenship to Palestinians. Saudi Arabia for one refuses to give citizenship to anyone but long time Saudis - but like most gulf states are quite happy to have generations of Palestinian 'guest workers'. It is sad that you accept the lack of rights that the Palestinians have just because they are not the only ones that ARab states treat like crap.

First off, stop using the terms 'ethnically cleansed' in relation to Jews and Arab countries. Its not true.

I think you are right but since you use the term to describe the Palestinian refuees, it is equally apt for the Jewish refugees since the reasons are exactly the same.

 

[basketcase]

Meanwhile, the UN has released another chapter of the Goldstone report, and it suggests that both Israel and Hamas did not investigate themselves impartially. Now we'll see if Goldstone's recommendations of war crime charges to the ICC will happen.

Actually the UN made no comment on the two reports submitted, by Israel and the PA. Significantly, Hamas has made no report and seemingly has not made any investigation.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3939619,00.html

To use your logic in the Iran thread, since Israel is closer to being compliant Hamas is justified in receiving all of the blame.

 

[fuji]

Except that the Pali refugees did not go into many of those countries... kinda inconvenient how these genocidal acts work...

Yet those self-same countries launched military attacks against Israel supposedly over the Palestinian issue, all the while holding stolen Jewish lands. Hypocritical, no?

 

[basketcase]

... Hypocritical, no?

Why let hypocrisy get in the way of a good old anti-Israel tirade?

 

[nottyboi]

Yet those self-same countries launched military attacks against Israel supposedly over the Palestinian issue, all the while holding stolen Jewish lands. Hypocritical, no?

I don't know what is hypocritical about that. You can say many things about it, but hypocritical does not seem to be a good discription.

 

[nottyboi]

Away for work for a couple of days so let me lump together a bunch of responses.


Wow, you are completely up in the air on this argument. You blame Arab violence against Jews on Israel (like you blame everything else) and absolve all of the Arabs about any injustice they have ever done to anyone, even though the Arab actions to their (former) Jewish countrymen was almost identical to Jewish actions against the Palestinians who fled.



Most historians agree that the Arabs who fled fled out of fear that was spread by both Arabs and Jews. Both sides had a significant blame for creating refugees yet of course you only see fit to blame one side.


It seemed to work out pretty well for the 1/4 of the Arab population that chose to stay and became full citizens.



Actually they weren't given land, they were givien citizenship - you know, rights like health, education, employment - you know treated like humans.


I guess that you will continue to blame Israel for the Arab states treating the Palestinians like crap.


Again, just like refugees that come to Canada, the Jewish refugees to Israel were given citizenship and rights, not land while the Palestinian refugees were given - well nothing.


Except for the period of time when Jordan was trying to justify it's annexation of the West Bank, Arab states for the most part don't give citizenship to Palestinians. Saudi Arabia for one refuses to give citizenship to anyone but long time Saudis - but like most gulf states are quite happy to have generations of Palestinian 'guest workers'. It is sad that you accept the lack of rights that the Palestinians have just because they are not the only ones that ARab states treat like crap.


I think you are right but since you use the term to describe the Palestinian refuees, it is equally apt for the Jewish refugees since the reasons are exactly the same.

You line of argument is idiotic. You speak of the Arabs as though they are a single tribe...yet you KNOW they are not. If you want to go that far, the Israelis should welcome all the Palis back since they are all sons of abraham. Not all refugees that come to Canada get citizenship. Many are deported. Jewish refugees are treated differently as Israel has a specific policy to creat a Jewish homeland. How are non-jewish and more specificallty Arab refugees handled in Israel. Do they get the same full package welcome as jews? lol More evidence of the Apartheid state.

 

[fuji]

First off, stop using the terms 'ethnically cleansed' in relation to Jews and Arab countries. Its not true.

You are plainly ignorant on this point, there couldn't be a clearer example of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world--many Arab counrtries rid themselves entirely of their Jewish populations, dropping their Jewish populations from tens or hundreds of thousands to ZERO.

Go and educate yourself, you know nothing.

Not all of the Jews who fled the Arab countries fled to Israel, many of them wound up in third countries. Yes, many of those who arrived in Israel were proud to participate in the creation of a new country--but that does not alter that they were persecuted and ethnically cleansed from their country of origin, does not change the fact that their property and their homes were stolen from them by their persecutors.

You really are horrendously prejudiced against Jews in this matter: You only see wrongs done to Palestinians, you refuse to admit that any wrongs were done by Arabs to Jews. You are either ignorant or bigoted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's honest ignorance for now--but since your eyes should be open now, if you persist in your inane claims, it'll rapidly become apparent that it's bigotry.

 

[basketcase]

???

I guess there is no such thing as the "Arab Leage" who has agreed among themselves that Palestinians will be kept as 'refugees'.

You might also differentiate between refugees to Israel and immigrants to Israel.

As for your questions about Israelis policies towards refugees, you may want to do a little digging into the non-Jewish African refugees.

There are an estimated 20,000 asylum seekers in Israel from countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ivory Coast. Quite often they are shot by Egyptian authorities but Israel takes them in. For some reason they think of Israel as the safest choice of all the African countries. Some have been deported but many are still living peaceably in Israel.

While Israel (like Canada with the Tamil ship) is still trying to figure out how to make sure that their country is not abused by false refugees or smugglers, there are numerous Israeli organizations working to support these refugees such as found at http://www.irefugees.org/ and http://www.ardc-israel.org/en/


p.s. If a Palestinian from Lebanon wants to make a refugee claim in Canada, I would think they would have a valid case.

 

[nottyboi]

???

I guess there is no such thing as the "Arab Leage" who has agreed among themselves that Palestinians will be kept as 'refugees'.

You might also differentiate between refugees to Israel and immigrants to Israel.

As for your questions about Israelis policies towards refugees, you may want to do a little digging into the non-Jewish African refugees.

There are an estimated 20,000 asylum seekers in Israel from countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ivory Coast. Quite often they are shot by Egyptian authorities but Israel takes them in. For some reason they think of Israel as the safest choice of all the African countries. Some have been deported but many are still living peaceably in Israel.

While Israel (like Canada with the Tamil ship) is still trying to figure out how to make sure that their country is not abused by false refugees or smugglers, there are numerous Israeli organizations working to support these refugees such as found at http://www.irefugees.org/ and http://www.ardc-israel.org/en/


p.s. If a Palestinian from Lebanon wants to make a refugee claim in Canada, I would think they would have a valid case.

Lots of African refugees...no arab refugees. So here they consider claims from people outside yet not people that have actually lived there..why is that?

 

[basketcase]

What situations are these Arabs fleeing that they would turn to Israel?

If you want to pursue this line of thought, you are saying that Israel is (in legal parlance) a "safe country" for Arab refugees and they would choose to seek "protection" from the Arab states they are fleeing. Is that the intent of your question?

 

[flubadub]

You are plainly ignorant on this point, there couldn't be a clearer example of ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world--many Arab counrtries rid themselves entirely of their Jewish populations, dropping their Jewish populations from tens or hundreds of thousands to ZERO.
.

And you are plainly wrong.
I don't deny that the Jewish population has plumetted in Arab countries, but I do dispute your claims of why that happened.
There were probably two main reasons:
Pressure from Israel to immigrate
Anger in Arab countries over attacks on Palestinians in 1947
Both of those factors are largely due to outside pressure, and largely due to Jewish policies (such as Plan D).
The anger from the 1947 attacks you could almost argue resulted in pressure in Arab countries to leave, but since the level of violence and number of attacks jumped so much after 1947 you can't really separate this violence from the policies that caused this anger.

The ethnic cleansing in Germany and now in Israel is much different. It was/is state sponsored, backed by laws and rules and was part of a large program that worked with citizenship, land rules and rights. Show me the laws and policies that drove the Jews out of Arab countries and you might have a case, but without them your claim of ethnic cleansing has no base. Until then the Jews were a victim mostly of their own policies.

 

[toguy5252]

Would they be suffering if Isreal was not created? Of course not. as I have said before, Israel does not want peace. I see no evidence they want it. Until they face a REAL threat, they will not seriously pursue peace...but it will probably be too late at that point.

Your kidding right. The lives of the Arab populations in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are wonderful. The Arabs in Israel are not suffering. the Arabs/Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon and elsewhere are because of the treatment of their host countries not because of Israel. Why don't you try concentrating on facts once in a while instead of the usual propaganda and talking points.

The only reason you see no evidence that Israel does not want peace is because you ignore the facts that are apparent for all to see. After years of asking for direct negotiations with the Palestinians with the goal of achieving a two state solution it appears that the commencement of such talks which have been resisted by Abbas are imminent. It take 2 to negotiate a treaty and up until now it has only bee Israel which has been trying to get those negotiations started.

 

[toguy5252]

And you are plainly wrong.
I don't deny that the Jewish population has plumetted in Arab countries, but I do dispute your claims of why that happened.
There were probably two main reasons:
Pressure from Israel to immigrate
Anger in Arab countries over attacks on Palestinians in 1947
Both of those factors are largely due to outside pressure, and largely due to Jewish policies (such as Plan D).
The anger from the 1947 attacks you could almost argue resulted in pressure in Arab countries to leave, but since the level of violence and number of attacks jumped so much after 1947 you can't really separate this violence from the policies that caused this anger.

The ethnic cleansing in Germany and now in Israel is much different. It was/is state sponsored, backed by laws and rules and was part of a large program that worked with citizenship, land rules and rights. Show me the laws and policies that drove the Jews out of Arab countries and you might have a case, but without them your claim of ethnic cleansing has no base. Until then the Jews were a victim mostly of their own policies.

Why do you refuse to answer a pretty simple question. is it because you do not accept the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state in any borders?

 

[danmand]

The only reason you see no evidence that Israel does not want peace is because you ignore the facts that are apparent for all to see. After years of asking for direct negotiations with the Palestinians with the goal of achieving a two state solution it appears that the commencement of such talks which have been resisted by Abbas are imminent. It take 2 to negotiate a treaty and up until now it has only bee Israel which has been trying to get those negotiations started.

Direct talks 'to resume' next month


Mitchell has met repeatedly with Abbas, Netanyahu and other officials over the last four months [AFP]

Israeli and Palestinian officials are expected to be invited to meet in Washington next month for their first direct talks in a year and a half, according to media reports.

Formal announcements are anticipated from the US state department and the quartet of Middle East peace negotiators - the UN, Russia the EU and the United States - regarding developments later on Friday.

According to unnamed diplomatic sources quoted by Reuters news agency, the two sides could hold their first face-to-face meeting on September 2 in Washington DC.

Barack Obama, the US president, would reportedly be present at the talks.

Israeli media are reporting that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, have agreed to place a one-year deadline on the talks.

Many other details of the negotiations are still unclear, however, particularly whether the US has provided guarantees for either side.

The Arab League endorsed the talks in principle last month, but only subject to certain "measures and conditions". Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary-general, said direct talks should be preceded by "written guarantees" from the United States.

Netanyahu, however, has said that he is willing to resume direct talks "without preconditions".

"I don't think there's any common Israeli and Palestinian ground as yet," Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator, told Al Jazeera. "There will be deep scepticism pretty much everywhere ... I think we're going to hear something rather vague, something open to more than one interpretation."

Settlements at issue

Ismail Haniya, the Hamas leader in Gaza, criticised the expected announcement. Speaking after Friday prayers in Gaza, he said "nothing has been achieved" to warrant direct talks with Israel.

Haniyeh also said Palestinians should concentrate first on national reconciliation. The Hamas and Fatah movements have been estranged for years, and Egyptian attempts at mediation over the last few months have produced little progress.

One immediate obstacle for the negotiations could be Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

talks about talks
December 2008: Palestinians suspend talks after Israel launches Gaza war.

March 2010: Abbas agrees to indirect talks, then freezes them over settlements.

May 2010: Indirect talks begin with a four-month timeframe.
August 2010: US expected to announce resumption of direct talks.
September 2010: West Bank settlement freeze scheduled to end on September 26.Netanyahu imposed a 10-month halt on settlement expansion in the West Bank last November. The freeze did not include East Jerusalem, and it has been routinely violated in the West Bank: The liberal Israeli group Peace Now documented 492 violations of the freeze in a report issued earlier this month.

The expansion halt is due to expire altogether on September 26, and major new construction could heighten the pressure on Abbas to back out of the talks.

Netanyahu is under pressure from the US to extend it, but he has warned repeatedly that an extension could cause his right-wing government to collapse.

The issue of settlements is deeply divisive in Israel, where numerous polls have found public opinion almost evenly split on Netanyahu's freeze.

The most recent survey, a July poll from the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, found that 52 per cent of Israelis favour restarting construction when the freeze ends; 42 per cent supported extending the moratorium.

'Proximity' talks

Al Jazeera's Nick Spicer, reporting from Washington DC, said the impending end of the Israeli settlement freeze had concentrated American efforts on restarting the talks.

"What really put pressure on the resumption of direct talks was President Obama's fear that the expiration of the moratorium on building new settlements, that expires on September 26, would completely break down what was left of the peace process," he said.

The Palestinian Authority broke off direct talks with Israel in December 2008, when Israel launched a three-week war in the Gaza Strip. Obama has spent the last 18 months trying to cajole both sides into restarting a dialogue.

He pushed earlier this year for "proximity talks," indirect negotiations moderated by George Mitchell, Obama's Middle East evoy.

Abbas and the Arab League agreed in March to begin indirect talks, which were almost immediately postponed following Israel's announcement of 1,600 new homes in the illegal East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo.

The negotiations finally began in May, and Abbas said he would give them four months to show progress.

 

[basketcase]

And you are plainly wrong.
I don't deny that the Jewish population has plumetted in Arab countries, but I do dispute your claims of why that happened.
There were probably two main reasons:
Pressure from Israel to immigrate
Anger in Arab countries over attacks on Palestinians in 1947...

Wow, could you then explain how violence between Arabs and Jews in 1947 caused the following?

There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828.[29] In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed, a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls. It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted.[30] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.[31][32] In 1839, the Allahdad incident, the Jews of Mashhad, Iran, now known as the Mashhadi Jews, were coerced into converting to Islam.[33]

In the middle of the 19th century, J. J. Benjamin wrote about the life of Persian Jews:

"…they are obliged to live in a separate part of town…; for they are considered as unclean creatures… Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mobs with stones and dirt… For the same reason, they are prohibited to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans… If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him… unmercifully… If a Jew enters a shop for anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods… Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them... Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever please them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life... If... a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of the Katel (Muharram)…, he is sure to be murdered."[34]

In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian monk and his Muslim servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread.[35] A Jewish barber was tortured until he "confessed"; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation. In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakech and Fez in Morocco. In 1869, 18 Jews were killed in Tunis, and an Arab mob looted Jewish homes and stores, and burned synagogues, on Jerba Island. In 1875, 20 Jews were killed by a mob in Demnat, Morocco; elsewhere in Morocco, Jews were attacked and killed in the streets in broad daylight. In 1897, synagogues were ransacked and Jews were murdered in Tripolitania.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule#Nineteenth_century

The only thing that changed in 1948 was that the Jews had somewhere to flee to.

 

[fuji]

I don't deny that the Jewish population has plumetted in Arab countries, but I do dispute your claims of why that happened.
There were probably two main reasons:
Pressure from Israel to immigrate
Anger in Arab countries over attacks on Palestinians in 1947

Pressure from Israel to immigrate existed, just as Arab League leaders pressured Palestinians to leave Israel back in 1947/1948. Plainly that was a factor in BOTH cases equally.

In your point #2 if you are honest you are not denying the ethnic cleansing took place you are trying to justify it, which is just sickening.

I would say the anger in Arab countries was over the creation of the State of Israel generally, anger that a non-Muslim state existed in "their" Muslim land. That anger was then directed against Jews living in Arab countries most of whom had nothing to do with the creation of the State of Israel--yet they were beaten, chased out of their homes, had their property stolen anyway. They were ethnically cleansed and in the face of the persecution and the beatings and the theft the message from Israel that Jews needed their own country to protect them from such attacks resonated with many of them.

Not all of them though--many of those Jews who were beaten and victimized by Arab countries fled to Europe or America or elsewhere, not all the refugees from Arab countries went to Israel.

 

[flubadub]

Why do you refuse to answer a pretty simple question. is it because you do not accept the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state in any borders?

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again.

Here you go.

No state has any inherant right to exist.
There is no right that says Canada exists. It exists as long as the people here decide it should. If Quebec decides to leave, there is no inherant right that says they can't. People decide if states should exist.

The right for Israel to exist as a sovereign state should depend on its full population deciding it should exist.
I back democratic rule, so if a majority of all people living within its borders accept it as a sovereign state, then I, in my infinite power, will acquiesce.

When soveriegn states begin to act like despots, not representing the people, taking rights away or committing state terrorism or other war crimes then that state should be held accountable for its actions and if not, it should not be supported as a state.