• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colonisation of West Bank to start again

Wrong. They received funding from the Israeli Interior Ministry, which makes it state sponsored.

State funding/financial incentives is not forced transferral, try again.

1. Egypt was had no settlement policy like Israel. 2. Egypt did not attack Palestinians.

First statement is meaningless, second is absolutely false. Ask a Gazan arab what life was like under the Egyptians...

1. Israel has a settlement policy that currently runs counter to the peace process.2. Israel has used disproportionate force numerous times against the Palestinians.

First statement is false since this is not a land dispute, second statement is meaningless since wars against terrorists do not require "proportionate" responses.

Wrong. Look at the first government of Israel. It was filled with Jewish terrorists, like the group from Lehi that assassinated UN Mediator Folke Bernadotte.

Claiming that the entire government is filled with terrorists is is an idiotic and demonstrably false statement, stating that they are "jewish" terrorists is a sign of racism. Do you hate jews, yes?

Someone who is willing to leave a home of peace and security to live in occupied territory and be surrounded by hostile entities is obviously extreme and/or far-right. Most settlers that live in the occupied territories are among those that believe Israel has a right to Gaza/West Bank/East Jerusalem. That is an extreme view, since the international consensus is that Israel has absolutely no right to Gaza/West Bank/East Jerusalem.

You are lying yet again, most settlers have moved there because rent/housing is less expensive than in tel aviv and jerusalem. Are facts important to you?

Or you can choose no violence, but we all know that you don't like that option.

Ask the arab muslims about that, who are ethnically cleansing the middle east of non-muslims by force, and have used terrorism against jews for about 1,400 years.

Hello straw man! Come back when you stop engaging in a logical fallacy.

Hardly, since in every thread on iran's nuclear program the arab muslim terror apologists would immediately raise the nuclear program of israel as an attempted counterweight.

And since you only seem to complain about israeli actions towards arab muslims - but never about how arab muslims treat each other, it is a perfectly valid statement.

No, that's the name of the topic you are posting in. If you want to make a topic on Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program (of which they have no delivery system for), go ahead. Don't ruin this topic with your digression.

They do not need to finalize its missile payload designs for it to be deployable. I guess you just proved you: 1-have no clue about nuclear weapons 2-have no clue about the middle east
 
Last edited:
They got their with the support of the Israeli government. They received federal funding from the Israeli Interior Ministry. It was a state-sponsored policy, and the international consensus is that it is a violation of Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. "As far as you know things" means jack crap here.

And facts are of no interest to you. There was no forced population transfer into the area, hence no violation. Funding or tax credits, begging or praying by the gov't is meaningless - maybe a read of the Convention might actually be useful to you.

Apparently you are ignorant of history too. Israel instigated the conflict by diverting the amount of water that went into Jordan from the Jordan River.

Please tell me you are not attempting to claim that the reason israel was attacked by 8 arab armies simultaneously in 1948 was because they "diverted the Jordan river." Please tell me you are bringing more to the table here than that :(

And no, Jordan did not 'conquer' the West Bank (you are apparently oblivious to what conquer means).

Your claim here is contradicted by your next sentence:

Jordan occupied it and then attempted to annex it, which was not recognized by anyone but the UK. They have since reliquenshed all claims to the West Bank, as Egypt has with Gaza.

Once again, what pal arab efforts were made from 1948-1967 under Jordanian rule to form their own state? How about actually addressing the question, instead of attacking the poster?

A few instances? More like a few hundred instances a year. And the Palestinians living in Israel are not 'settlers'. They were legal residents in the region under the British Mandate and happened to live in the territory that was declared Israel. The extremist settlers were evicted, against their will (not all of them, a lot of settlements complied), for violating international law. If you cannot accept that, too bad.

Interesting how you screech about alleged expulsion of arabs, but forced deportations/ethnic cleansing of jews merits your cheering.

BTW, legal claims under the British mandate did not have to be validated by Israel after the arabs attacked, in case you were wondering. You don't get to claim land after initiating a war you lost.

The Palestinian government is the Palestinan Authority. Care to cite where the PA has endorsed hatred and genocide, or are you going to quit making things up?

You are dumbing the thread down to the point of absurdity, and I'm beginning to think you are a troll. If we need to start presenting examples such as streets named after suicide bombers, textbooks and TV shows extolling the murder of jews, then you really need to step out of the thread and bring yourself up to a functional level of basic knowledge.

Just because Israel does not directly provide opportunities for people to move into occupied territory does not mean it has not indirectly supported the action for decades. The international consensus is that the Israeli settlement policy is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute.

The conventions, if you read them, do not state what you claim.

'What settlers do is something at an individual level.' What blatant falsehoods. Numerous times the settlers have stated that any Israeli action against the settlements will result in violence directed at Palestinian civilians. Their intent when committing these acts of violence is purely political. Those that attack Palestinian farmers, buildings, schoolchildren for political purposes are terrorists.

Since you continue to miss the point, the GOVERNMENT of israel does not have a formal policy for WB residents to attack arab muslims in the WB.

The GOVERNMENT OF GAZA, aka hamas, DOES have a formal policy to attack and murder jews, as stated in their charter.

Is that clear enough for you?

- it runs counter to the peace process

False, since this is not a land dispute.

- it is purposely set up to change the demographics of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (violation of UNSCR242)

Wrong again, since 242 calls for a settling of NEGOTIATED borders, and not to a complete fallback by israel to the greenline/1948 Armistice line.

- those that choose to settle n occupied territory are among those on the far-right ideological spectrum

Unless you can prove this claim, it is purely a lie.

- it is a violation of international law

Repeating the same line over and over is trolling. Please refrain from doing so.
 
Last edited:
They're aholes to be sure and are prosecuted, but should be so even more vigorously for any crimes against persons.

I wonder if our arab defending poster here can list for us the number of hamas terrorists who have been arrested and prosecuted for murdering israeiis as israel has against violent WB residents.
 
State funding/financial incentives is not forced transferral, try again.
You need to brush up on the interpretation of legal documents. Where do you see the word 'forced' here?
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
How do you think settlers receive mail? Why do you think settlements have IDF soldiers surrounding them? It is a state sponsored policy, and denying it is pathetic and false. Israel engages in the transfer of its civilian population into the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem). The international consensus is that Israel's settlement policy is a violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, so whatever your personal opinion on the matter is will always be completely irrelevant.
First statement is meaningless, second is absolutely false. Ask a Gazan arab what life was like under the Egyptians...
Rofl. Ask a Gazan Arab what life is like under Israeli occupation. Egypt helped establish the PLO and any Gazan will tell you life would be better under Egypt than Israel.
First statement is false since this is not a land dispute, second statement is meaningless since wars against terrorists do not require "proportionate" responses.
It is a land dispute? This entire conflict is a land dispute. As for the second part, prove that wars against terrorists do not require proportionate responses.
Proportionality (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, proportionality and distinction are important factors in assessing military necessity.
You are wrong. Strange that you are creating a habit of being wrong.
Claiming that the entire government is filled with terrorists is is an idiotic and demonstrably false statement, stating that they are "jewish" terrorists is a sign of racism. Do you hate jews, yes?
First of all, I never said entire. I clearly said 'filled'. Second, denying it is pathetic and devoid of historical relevance:
Yitzhak Shamir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This man became the 7th Prime Minister of Israel. He also authorized the assassination of the man who saved over 10,000 Jews from gas chamber death.
You are lying yet again, most settlers have moved there because rent/housing is less expensive than in tel aviv and jerusalem. Are facts important to you?
It's cheaper because the Israeli government gives them money for taking Palestinian land! Apparently you have no idea what the word 'fact' means.
Ask the arab muslims about that, who are ethnically cleansing the middle east of non-muslims by force, and have used terrorism against jews for about 1,400 years.
Good straw man! Try not to engage in logical fallacies when attempting to debate. It defeats your own argument.
Hardly, since in every thread on iran's nuclear program the arab muslim terror apologists would immediately raise the nuclear program of israel as an attempted counterweight.
That is actually reasonable since the issue is about the deterrence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Still doesn't mean you can engage in a straw man.
And since you only seem to complain about israeli actions towards arab muslims - but never about how arab muslims treat each other, it is a perfectly valid statement.
No, it's a straw man. I suggest looking up what that is, since you apparently have no idea what it means.
They do not need to finalize its missile payload designs for it to be deployable. I guess you just proved you: 1-have no clue about nuclear weapons 2-have no clue about the middle east
[/quote]
Without a capable of delivery system, any nuclear weapon becomes limited in deployment. Limits in deployment means it will not be a successful deterrent. Common sense evades you, huh?
 
I plan to report your post which is filled with insults, and hopefully will lead to an infraction or ban. Until then:

You need to brush up on the interpretation of legal documents. Where do you see the word 'forced' here?

Given that the entire 49th Article is ONE whole paragraph, it is astounding you are so lazy as to have not bothered to read it before sticking your foot in your mouth yet again:

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

"Individual or mass forcible transfers"

Next time, READ BEFORE POSTING.

Rofl. Ask a Gazan Arab what life is like under Israeli occupation. Egypt helped establish the PLO and any Gazan will tell you life would be better under Egypt than Israel.

Ask him what life is like under hamas. Second, egypt helped fund the PLO - created 4 years BEFORE israel stepped foot into Gaza - as a means of attacking israel without responsibility, just as iran does today with hamas. As for your other claim:

Life in Gaza under Egyptian occupation

"I encountered a territory that bore stark witness to Egyptian aggression, callousness and inhumanity. For 19 long years, the area had been run directly by the Egyptian army. Under a "constitution" drawn up by the Egyptians, all legislative powers were invested in the Egyptian military commander, who controlled the civil administration. All political parties, except one endorsed by the Egyptians, were banned. The military governor also acted as the judiciary, and there was no appeal. "

and

"For nearly 19 years, the inhabitants of the Strip were prohibited from leaving their homes from 9 p.m. until dawn on pain of death. This curfew was enforced by roadblocks. Men between 18 and 40 were prohibited from traveling to Egypt unless they were fortunate enough to secure permits. If they failed to return at the expiration of their permit, the military authorities took steps against their families.

The Egyptians seized property at will, while refugees were prohibited from owning land. Thousands of young refugees were forcibly conscripted into the Egyptian army. Many were sent to fight Gamal Abdel Nasser's war in Yemen; others were sent into Israel to murder, sabotage and disrupt communications."

You're REALLY beginning to get smoked here...

It is a land dispute? This entire conflict is a land dispute.

If it was, when israel exited gaza and lebanon, the violence and terrorism would have stopped, but didn't.

As for the second part, prove that wars against terrorists do not require proportionate responses.

Terrorists are non-state actors, so quoting the GC is meaningless.

First of all, I never said entire. I clearly said 'filled'.

You're kidding, right?

Second, denying it is pathetic and devoid of historical relevance: This man became the 7th Prime Minister of Israel.

Except he renounced violence - when did hamas, arafat and the arabs do that again?

It's cheaper because the Israeli government gives them money for taking Palestinian land! Apparently you have no idea what the word 'fact' means.Good straw man! Try not to engage in logical fallacies when attempting to debate. It defeats your own argument.

I can see where this is going, you can't even get the basic facts accurate, and start thread-bombing with inapplicable statements like "straw-man" to try and obscure your embarrasing errors...no wonder you're ignored by the bulk of the forum, I should have known better. :rolleyes:

Without a capable of delivery system, any nuclear weapon becomes limited in deployment. Limits in deployment means it will not be a successful deterrent. Common sense evades you, huh?

Genius, you can put a nuclear bomb on a truck, or is that concept beyond your grasp?
 
I plan to report your post which is filled with insults, and hopefully will lead to an infraction or ban. Until then:

Given that the entire 49th Article is ONE whole paragraph, it is astounding you are so lazy as to have not bothered to read it before sticking your foot in your mouth yet again:

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

"Individual or mass forcible transfers"

Next time, READ BEFORE POSTING.
Reading comprehension fail? The line you quoted deals with the forcible transfer of protected persons in an occupied territory. It has nothing to do with an Occupying Power transferring ITS OWN civilian population into an occupied territory. Good job proving yourself wrong.

Ask him what life is like under hamas. Second, egypt helped fund the PLO - created 4 years BEFORE israel stepped foot into Gaza - as a means of attacking israel without responsibility, just as iran does today with hamas. As for your other claim:

Life in Gaza under Egyptian occupation

"I encountered a territory that bore stark witness to Egyptian aggression, callousness and inhumanity. For 19 long years, the area had been run directly by the Egyptian army. Under a "constitution" drawn up by the Egyptians, all legislative powers were invested in the Egyptian military commander, who controlled the civil administration. All political parties, except one endorsed by the Egyptians, were banned. The military governor also acted as the judiciary, and there was no appeal. "

and

"For nearly 19 years, the inhabitants of the Strip were prohibited from leaving their homes from 9 p.m. until dawn on pain of death. This curfew was enforced by roadblocks. Men between 18 and 40 were prohibited from traveling to Egypt unless they were fortunate enough to secure permits. If they failed to return at the expiration of their permit, the military authorities took steps against their families.

The Egyptians seized property at will, while refugees were prohibited from owning land. Thousands of young refugees were forcibly conscripted into the Egyptian army. Many were sent to fight Gamal Abdel Nasser's war in Yemen; others were sent into Israel to murder, sabotage and disrupt communications."

You're REALLY beginning to get smoked here...
A forum post is not evidence, rofl. Do you even know how to debate honestly?

If it was, when israel exited gaza and lebanon, the violence and terrorism would have stopped, but didn't.
Except Israel has no exited the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights. Again you prove yourself wrong.
Terrorists are non-state actors, so quoting the GC is meaningless.
You have still not proven your statement. Come back when you can prove that proportionality is not required when using legal force against terrorists.
You're kidding, right?
Show where I said entire then. Otherwise, No, I am not kidding.
Except he renounced violence - when did hamas, arafat and the arabs do that again?
Nice straw man, yet again. Quite pathetic that in less than 3 responses, you have engaged in a logical fallacy 5 times.
I can see where this is going, you can't even get the basic facts accurate, and start thread-bombing with inapplicable statements like "straw-man" to try and obscure your embarrasing errors...no wonder you're ignored by the bulk of the forum, I should have known better. :rolleyes:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have no idea what the facts are. You have no idea that you engage in informal fallacies rendering your own arguments obsolete. You remain woefully ignorant of your own ignorance. Pathetic.
Genius, you can put a nuclear bomb on a truck, or is that concept beyond your grasp?
[/quote]
And tracking that would be so easy and just as simple to stop. This is almost as stupid as those posters who said Iran could suitcase nuke America.
 
The line you quoted deals with the forcible transfer of protected persons in an occupied territory. It has nothing to do with an Occupying Power transferring ITS OWN civilian population into an occupied territory. Good job proving yourself wrong.

Wrong sweetie. You claimed that the israeli government is transferring its population there; that is factually incorrect. Financial incentives does not constitute transferral. Try again.

A forum post is not evidence, rofl. Do you even know how to debate honestly?

Try reading the entire post superstar - it is from the jerusalem post. Whoopsie!

Except Israel has no exited the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights.

Only a moron at this point would think the terrorism would stop if israel exited the WB, the 2 are mutually exclusive. If the arabs wanted to exhibit a sing of good faith, firing rockets the day israel left an area is not going to support peaceful intentions.

You have still not proven your statement. Come back when you can prove that proportionality is not required when using legal force against terrorists.

I do not have to prove an iota to you, terrorists as non-state actors enjoy no GC protections, nor is proportionality required to deal with them. The UN charter itself gives a nation wide latitude to defend itself and use lethal force, you can screech and troll all you want here, but it changes nothing.

Show where I said entire then. Otherwise, No, I am not kidding.

To a rational adult, "filled" means alot, or most. Keep backpedaling, its getting hilarious.

Nice straw man, yet again. Quite pathetic that in less than 3 responses, you have engaged in a logical fallacy 5 times.

Show us your posts criticising arab actions - ANYWHERE on this forum, until then you are a hypocrite and a liar.

And tracking that would be so easy and just as simple to stop. This is almost as stupid as those posters who said Iran could suitcase nuke America.

And how would that be? I had no idea you had the precise readings on all declared and undeclared uranium in iran's arsenal, wow, you just keep on amazing us...
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
joergan and Degreez... knock off the personal attacks or you will find yourselves removed from the thread.
 
Wrong sweetie. You claimed that the israeli government is transferring its population there; that is factually incorrect. Financial incentives does not constitute transferral. Try again.
Incorrect. I made the claim that the Israeli settlement policy was a violation of international law. The international consensus is that Israel's settlement policy is a violation of Artcle 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. That is why there have been numerous Security Council resolutions issued concerning Israeli settlements:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 446 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;
Israel not complying with this Security Council resolution is a violation of Article 25 of the UN Charter:
The Avalon Project : United Nations Charter; June 26, 1945
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.
Try reading the entire post superstar - it is from the jerusalem post. Whoopsie!
It links to this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034989178&pagename=JPost/JPArticle%

Which takes me to the main page of JPost.
Only a moron at this point would think the terrorism would stop if israel exited the WB, the 2 are mutually exclusive. If the arabs wanted to exhibit a sing of good faith, firing rockets the day israel left an area is not going to support peaceful intentions.
Besides the personal attacks, you fail to take notice that the Israel occupation is one of the reasons terrorists try to justify their actions. Which, despite what you think you've learned in the one month you have been here, I have denounced multiple times over the years on DP.
I do not have to prove an iota to you, terrorists as non-state actors enjoy no GC protections, nor is proportionality required to deal with them. The UN charter itself gives a nation wide latitude to defend itself and use lethal force, you can screech and troll all you want here, but it changes nothing.
If you don't have to prove anything, why are you posting? Proportionality is required whenever there is the use of force. Look at the US invasion of Iraq. This is from the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court:
http://www2.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyre...letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf
Luis Moreno-Ocampo said:
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).


To a rational adult, "filled" means alot, or most. Keep backpedaling, its getting hilarious.
Yes, it is historically recorded that multiple members of Lehi and Irgun became part of the new Israeli government. This includes the terrorist Yitzhak Shamir. Folke Bernadotte was ten times more of a man than Shamir.
Show us your posts criticising arab actions - ANYWHERE on this forum, until then you are a hypocrite and a liar.
I've been here since 2006. Forums posts are recycled after some time. You've been here since sometime this month. Until you've been here at least a few months, you have no right to call someone a hypocrite or liar.
And how would that be? I had no idea you had the precise readings on all declared and undeclared uranium in iran's arsenal, wow, you just keep on amazing us...
Despite what you may believe from science fiction tales or hard right news, Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and then just deploying it with a truck is devoid of any reality. Even if Iran were to create a nuclear weapon, it would not be stupid enough to use it when it knows the consequences of Mutually Assured Destruction. It would use it as a deterrent to avoid any armed aggression, like North Korea. Regardless of what it would do with this nonexistent nuke, the nuclear race that would ensue in the Middle East is much more frightening.
 
Besides the personal attacks, you fail to take notice that the Israel occupation is one of the reasons terrorists try to justify their actions. Which, despite what you think you've learned in the one month you have been here, I have denounced multiple times over the years on DP.

.

Of course you have denounced this "occupation" dozens of times. The question had to do with your ability to criticize the terrorist Palestinians.

The fact that Jews live on some land you believe should belong exclusively to Arabs may be the justification you offer for their being killed, but the responsibility for their murders lies with those who murder them and not the fact that their being Jewish incites the rage of genocidal racists. If a person of color walking down the street is lynched by the KKK, the responsibility for the lynching lies with the racists and not some trumped up charge that the victim incited them by virtue of their race or ethnicity.
 
Of course you have denounced this "occupation" dozens of times. The question had to do with your ability to criticize the terrorist Palestinians.

That was a low punch. It also shows your ethnic/religious bias hence confirming your stance is nothing other than a racial one rather than a rational one.
 
That was a low punch. It also shows your ethnic/religious bias hence confirming your stance is nothing other than a racial one rather than a rational one.

Well ignoring the ignorant statement that Palestinians are a race, Gardener was speaking about his lack in ability to criticize the Palestinian terrorists, and hence your "accusation" is quite bizarre and torn-off.
 
That was a low punch. It also shows your ethnic/religious bias hence confirming your stance is nothing other than a racial one rather than a rational one.

Are you actually trying to say that Palestinians have not engaged in terrorism against Israelis?

If you would actually pay attention to CONTEXT, you would notice mine was a reply to the passage I quoted involving..........you guessed it......Palestinian terrorists.
 
Well ignoring the ignorant statement that Palestinians are a race, Gardener was speaking about his lack in ability to criticize the Palestinian terrorists, and hence your "accusation" is quite bizarre and torn-off.

Palestinians are Arabs Apocalypse. I was talking about Arabs. Gardener needs to be more clear in his statement because it comes across as though he was accusing all Palestinians to be terrorists.
 
Palestinians are Arabs Apocalypse. I was talking about Arabs.
And Gardener was not talking about Arabs, hence why your statement was quite torn-off.
Gardener needs to be more clear in his statement because it comes across as though he was accusing all Palestinians to be terrorists.
It hasn't came across that way to me, it seemed clear that he was talking about terrorist Palestinians, not Palestinians in general.
 
And Gardener was not talking about Arabs, hence why your statement was quite torn-off.

Which is why i emboldened the section where he referred to Palestinians.

It hasn't came across that way to me, it seemed clear that he was talking about terrorist Palestinians, not Palestinians in general.

Thats you. :shrug:
 
Which is why i emboldened the section where he referred to Palestinians.
Let's make it clear, even if he said that all of the Palestinians are something(and he absolutely didn't), it wouldn't be racist, just like saying that all of the Argentinians are something is not racist. Those are simply generalizations and are wrong for their own, it doesn't need to be racism to be wrong.
Thats you.
Oh but I wholeheartedly believe that you're the only one who could confuse a person saying "you do not criticize terrorist Palestinians" with "you do not criticize the Palestinians which I happen to believe are all terrorists".
 
Let's make it clear, even if he said that all of the Palestinians are something(and he absolutely didn't), it wouldn't be racist, just like saying that all of the Argentinians are something is not racist. Those are simply generalizations and are wrong for their own, it doesn't need to be racism to be wrong.

As i said, i misunderstood, hence no need to continue this conversation. You can move on.
 
Of course you have denounced this "occupation" dozens of times. The question had to do with your ability to criticize the terrorist Palestinians.

The fact that Jews live on some land you believe should belong exclusively to Arabs may be the justification you offer for their being killed, but the responsibility for their murders lies with those who murder them and not the fact that their being Jewish incites the rage of genocidal racists. If a person of color walking down the street is lynched by the KKK, the responsibility for the lynching lies with the racists and not some trumped up charge that the victim incited them by virtue of their race or ethnicity.
Great job misrepresenting my post!

I have, over numerous times, denounced Hamas' and other Palestinian militant groups' violent actions. Perhaps your own personal bias impedes you from reading these posts (or any post correctly).

Now when has Gardener ever criticized the Israeli government's actions? Never.
 
Back
Top Bottom