US fails to win UN condemnation of Hamas militants in Gaza

[CJ 2.0]

I usually stay out of the Israel forums. Not just here...anywhere.
I am not an expert on the region, nor its conflicts, but I do know Netanyahu's politics.
I've always felt more aligned with folks like Rabin and Shimon Peres.

So was I. Then Israel offered the Palestinians virtually everything they said they wanted and the Palestinians rejected it and launched a terrorist war against Israel’s civilians, where the brave Palestinian freedom fighters that are a “legitimate political party” infiltrated people past soldiers to detonate bombs stuffed with screws soaked in rat poison at religious festivals full of old holocaust survivors and were celebrated as heroes by the palestinian population.

I know a lot of Israelis feel the same way. And Netanyahu has been a visionary in economics, liberalizing and modernizing the Israeli economy and allowing it to pull away from its socialist past and reorient to the modern economic powerhouse that it is becoming, geopolitics, building around the impasse with the Palestinians to tie Israel to other countries’ interests and opportunities, and in managing the conflict with a Palestinian polity that has zero interest in ending the conflict. So folks who are anti Israel demonize him. I get it but it’s just more of the same blame the Jews for people who are trying to kill them junk that has been going on for centuries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

AQ are an international group with no political representatives in any national governments as are ISIS. You are putting them altogether purely to misrepresent those groups that are fighting wars of national interests against the state of Israel. And also wishing to exploit the war being waged between the West and it's allies and states in the ME that has brought terrorism to the streets on both sides. Transparent once more

For the record the conflicts that include the IRA , Hezbollah and Hamas are nationalist struggles with a religious element and are not the same as AQ , ISIS or the now dropped Al Shebab

So if ISIS formed a parliament in their islamic state and won seats it wouldn’t be a terrorist organization and THEN it would be like Hamas?

That makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Apocalypse]

You might think that there have never been any Palestinians living on that territory but reasonable people accept there were. So far from my statement being false it is your own denial of the Palestinian people that is problem

Why don't you answer questions that expose your nonsense?
I made a comment asking you two questions, as usual you say "this exposes my nonsense" and dodge it. It's ridiculous.

And I didn't say "there were never Palestinians living on that territory".

 

[Apocalypse]

AQ are an international group with no political representatives in any national governments as are ISIS. You are putting them altogether purely to misrepresent those groups that are fighting wars of national interests against the state of Israel. And also wishing to exploit the war being waged between the West and it's allies and states in the ME that has brought terrorism to the streets on both sides. Transparent once more

For the record the conflicts that include the IRA , Hezbollah and Hamas are nationalist struggles with a religious element and are not the same as AQ , ISIS or the now dropped Al Shebab

If my criticism is to the nature of these groups as groups that carry out acts of ridiculous barbarism against innocents murdering them in brutal ways, then yes Hezbollah actions against Jews and against Syrians makes them similar to AQ or al-Shabab or ISIS or whatever. Same for Hamas.

It pisses off supporters of each Islamist terror group when one compares them with another. I hardly care about that. People who support one support them all. People who support one terror attack in Jerusalem support another in Paris.

You're trying to say "Hamas is part of a government - it's different!" - but you're not making any sense. The nature is the same nature, and they are all indeed psychotic Islamist terror groups.

 

[Apocalypse]

So if ISIS formed a parliament in their islamic state and won seats it wouldn’t be a terrorist organization and THEN it would be like Hamas?

That makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I explained to him
He would say "ISIS starts with the letter 'I', it's completely different" if he didn't have that one going for him.
Supporters of ISIS do the same thing and act with anger when compared with Hezbollah.

 

[oneworld2]

So if ISIS formed a parliament in their islamic state and won seats it wouldn’t be a terrorist organization and THEN it would be like Hamas?

That makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope, because it is still a group with an international agenda that targets various countries in a self proclaimed global jihad. Hamas are an Islamic national liberation/resistance movement whose scope only extends to their own national liberation.

National liberation movements are different from global megalomaniacs so looking at them differently makes sense

 

[oneworld2]

If my criticism is to the nature of these groups as groups that carry out acts of ridiculous barbarism against innocents murdering them in brutal ways, then yes Hezbollah actions against Jews and against Syrians makes them similar to AQ or al-Shabab or ISIS or whatever. Same for Hamas.

If the criteria for being deemed a terrorist group is" barbarism and carrying out acts of violence against innocents " then you can add Israel , the US , Russia . UK, Saudi etc etc almost any nation to the list

It pisses off supporters of each Islamist terror group when one compares them with another. I hardly care about that. People who support one support them all. People who support one terror attack in Jerusalem support another in Paris.

Nothing to do with " pissing people off " it's to do with accuracy. National liberation movements are different from groups that wage/fight an international war and thus to say the two are the same is to basically lie

Nobody is " supporting " any act , they are differentiating between different groups with different agendas in different situations. You just add the " support for violence " stuff ( in virtually every post ) because you wish to flame and bait instead of discuss. It's just that simple and just that desperate a tactic

 

[oneworld2]

Why don't you answer questions that expose your nonsense?
I made a comment asking you two questions, as usual you say "this exposes my nonsense" and dodge it. It's ridiculous.

And I didn't say "there were never Palestinians living on that territory".

There's nothing to answer nor anything to dodge

The British gave the land that was inhabited by Arabs to immigrant Jews.....thus...... the leaders of one people ( the British ) , giving the territory of another people ( Arab residents of Palestine ) to a third people ( recent European Jewish immigrants )

That's factually correct and incontestable . The only " nonsense" going on is your objection to the second part of that equation

 

[oneworld2]

What did I insert?

Your MO is to make baseless claims and once called out on them to disappear. Let's see if you'll grant us a satisfying answer to that question.

I've told you what you have inserted ( in post 50 ) and you have ducked the response, making the second sentence only applicable to yourself :roll: in a classic case of outright projection

Not only that , you have since done the very same thing in post 54 in yet another baiting post ,whilst still having not responded to being called out on the very things you accuse others of............ making baseless claims and then " disappearing " when being called out on them :roll:

 

[Apocalypse]

There's nothing to answer nor anything to dodge

The British gave the land that was inhabited by Arabs to immigrant Jews.....thus...... the leaders of one people ( the British ) , giving the territory of another people ( Arab residents of Palestine ) to a third people ( recent European Jewish immigrants )

That's factually correct and incontestable . The only " nonsense" going on is your objection to the second part of that equation

It wasn't their land. That's history denial, outright and simple.

 

[Apocalypse]

If the criteria for being deemed a terrorist group is" barbarism and carrying out acts of violence against innocents " then you can add Israel , the US , Russia . UK, Saudi etc etc almost any nation to the list



Nothing to do with " pissing people off " it's to do with accuracy. National liberation movements are different from groups that wage/fight an international war and thus to say the two are the same is to basically lie

Nobody is " supporting " any act , they are differentiating between different groups with different agendas in different situations. You just add the " support for violence " stuff ( in virtually every post ) because you wish to flame and bait instead of discuss. It's just that simple and just that desperate a tactic

Aside of Russia and SA - the UK, Israel and the US don't target civilians, let alone engage in a barbaric targeting of citizens as you claim here absurdly and completely based on your wishful thinking.
You're always trying to defend your absurd claims by making new absurd claims. It's ridiculous and doesn't serve you well.

Saying that psychotic Islamist terror groups aren't "psychotic terror groups" because they are carrying a political agenda is pathetic, and it's exactly like supporting the murders they commit, as you reject their status as a psychotic Islamist terror group and wish to legitimize such groups.

Whether they are political or not is completely irrelevant to their nature. Your excuse is similar to arguing that ISIS is not like Hamas because ISIS starts with the letter 'I' and Hamas does not. Completely irrelevant nonsense.

No idea how you think you're able to claim you aren't supporting the murder of civilians when you refuse to acknowledge the nature of psychotic Islamist terror groups.
You're not doing anything different than promoting a group of thugs who murdered a civilian for non-political reasons. The fact that this is political does not change the nature of what you're supporting.

 

[Apocalypse]

Nope, because it is still a group with an international agenda that targets various countries in a self proclaimed global jihad. Hamas are an Islamic national liberation/resistance movement whose scope only extends to their own national liberation.

National liberation movements are different from global megalomaniacs so looking at them differently makes sense

So if ISIS had a national agenda and kept their ways of terrorism, you'd say they aren't a psychotic terror group?
You understand how ridiculously and inhumanly stupid the argument you're making here is?

 

[CJ 2.0]

There's nothing to answer nor anything to dodge

The British gave the land that was inhabited by Arabs to immigrant Jews.....thus...... the leaders of one people ( the British ) , giving the territory of another people ( Arab residents of Palestine ) to a third people ( recent European Jewish immigrants )

That's factually correct and incontestable . The only " nonsense" going on is your objection to the second part of that equation

Well, to be accurate the British gave the territory they took from the Ottomans to the League of Nations, who then gave it to the Jews and put the British in charge of administering the mandate to facilitate that happening.

That’s factually correct and incontestable...

It is also factually incontestable that the British violated that mandate, leading to the death of possibly millions of additional Jews during the Holocaust.

It is also factually incontestable that Israel’s population is primarily Jews who were displaced from one part of the middle east to the other, similar to (but in greater numbers than) the Arabs displaced from Israel but both dwarfed by other, similar population displacements that happened during the 40s (even after WWII) and thereafter.

Lastly, it is factually incontestable that the Palestinian national movement has always had as its key goal the elimination of Israel rather than actual sovereign independence of the Palestinians.

So let’s not get into who is playing fast and loose with incontestable facts, m’kay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chagos]

It wasn't their land. That's history denial, outright and simple.

Indeed, the narrative of one party having given the land of another to a third is naively simplistic and demonstrates the need of "keeping it simple" in order to avoid addressing situations far more complex.

Alone the often preferred narrative that all of the land in the area that would become known as Palestine was exclusively in the hands of individual Arab farmers, does not withstand scrutiny.

Another common mistake is to assign a sovereignty status to the geographical location of what is known as Palestine, be that assigned prior to WWI or post war.

There was no sovereignty under Roman rule, not under Byzantine rule, not under (brief) Sasanian-Persian occupation, not under Ummayad-Arab rule (succeeded by Abbasid, Fatimids, Ayyubid) not under (finally) Ottoman rule and in fact not under the British mandate either.

None of the above being designed to justify denying any form of modern statehood to today's Arabs who desire to call themselves Palestinians, but let's keep historical facts straight.

In that the latter cannot remotely serve to either justify Palestinian aspirations or to refute them.

 

[oneworld2]

It wasn't their land. That's history denial, outright and simple.

Of course it was their land. You are talking about people that had lived , worked and died in that territory for as long as they and anyone else could remember. That you can even contemplate such outright ridiculousness shows how extreme your views really are imo

 

[Apocalypse]

Of course it was their land. You are talking about people that had lived , worked and died in that territory for as long as they and anyone else could remember. That you can even contemplate such outright ridiculousness shows how extreme your views really are imo

It wasn't their land and you're merely lying here in a poor attempt to deny the parts of history you cannot stand and come to live with.
The Palestinian-Arabs didn't own the land of Mandate Palestine and indeed it wasn't their land, they were no different than citizens of Mandate Palestine who weren't Arab like the Jews.

You insisting that their land was given away as if the land was Palestinian-Arab won't change that reality.
That you call the act of sticking with history and opposing history denial "extreme" shows how deep you are in this whirlpool of ignorance embracing and lies told to promote a barbaric anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic agenda.

 

[Apocalypse]

Indeed, the narrative of one party having given the land of another to a third is naively simplistic and demonstrates the need of "keeping it simple" in order to avoid addressing situations far more complex.

Alone the often preferred narrative that all of the land in the area that would become known as Palestine was exclusively in the hands of individual Arab farmers, does not withstand scrutiny.

Another common mistake is to assign a sovereignty status to the geographical location of what is known as Palestine, be that assigned prior to WWI or post war.

There was no sovereignty under Roman rule, not under Byzantine rule, not under (brief) Sasanian-Persian occupation, not under Ummayad-Arab rule (succeeded by Abbasid, Fatimids, Ayyubid) not under (finally) Ottoman rule and in fact not under the British mandate either.

None of the above being designed to justify denying any form of modern statehood to today's Arabs who desire to call themselves Palestinians, but let's keep historical facts straight.

In that the latter cannot remotely serve to either justify Palestinian aspirations or to refute them.

It is very unfortunate that time after time this platform is used to deny the history of that land by those who either have zero understanding of it or have a ridiculously arrogant intention to try and change history themselves by preaching lies.

 

[oneworld2]

Aside of Russia and SA - the UK, Israel and the US don't target civilians, let alone engage in a barbaric targeting of citizens as you claim here absurdly and completely based on your wishful thinking.
You're always trying to defend your absurd claims by making new absurd claims. It's ridiculous and doesn't serve you well.

The Dahiya doctrine is the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure which also costs innocent lives. Indiscriminate attacks are likewise mass acts of violence that will and do ensure the deaths of innocent people. They are crimes in and of themselves.

What you want to do , and everyone to believe , is to classify all of their acts of violence as illegitimate crimes and all of your own acts of violence ( read state terrorism ) as legitimate acts of self defence. The reality is , however , that both sides have employed legal and illegal methods/tactics in this conflict and thus cannot claim any moral high ground or claim only the other side are law breaking combatants

Saying that psychotic Islamist terror groups aren't "psychotic terror groups" because they are carrying a political agenda is pathetic, and it's exactly like supporting the murders they commit, as you reject their status as a psychotic Islamist terror group and wish to legitimize such groups.

If they were just a terrorist group with no other compulsion than to commit acts of terrorism , how come they have honoured ceasefires that the Israeli state has ended up being the first to violate ?

How come they were recognized by the IDF as being " careful " to maintain that ceasefire ? How come they are , in the words of Netanyahu himself , desperate for a ceasefire in recent weeks ?

Should we not be asking whether it is the state of Israel that is the real enthusiast for continued violence ? Questioning their psychological state ?

Snipped the rest as it was just the same hyperbolic Hasbara garbage I've come to expect from your posts. Seeing how many inflammatory phrases you can fit into one post. It's pathetic tbh

They engage in legitimate forms of combat and so does Israel. They also commit crimes and so does Israel. You want to strip them of legitimacy for their crimes but , ridiculously , think the crimes of your own shouldn't delegitimize them.

It's just that simple and in no way supports anything other than a more even handed approach than your own

 

[CJ 2.0]

Of course it was their land. You are talking about people that had lived , worked and died in that territory for as long as they and anyone else could remember. That you can even contemplate such outright ridiculousness shows how extreme your views really are imo

For most of them that isn’t true. Arafat himself was egyptian and was born and went to school there.

Some 100% were but there were also Jews who had been there for as long as they could remember. And of course the Jews from Arab countries had lived there for millenia linger than the Arabs in Israel.

Of all the territory allocated by the international community for the Jews, most was given away to Jordan or illegally to Syria. The tiny area that was west of the Jordan had some people but a merely blip on the global landscape or within the Arab world, and many nomadic peoples were in and out of the territory.

So please just maintain perspective and avoid exaggeration. It’s important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJ 2.0]

The Dahiya doctrine is the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure which also costs innocent lives. Indiscriminate attacks are likewise mass acts of violence that will and do ensure the deaths of innocent people. They are crimes in and of themselves.

What you want to do , and everyone to believe , is to classify all of their acts of violence as illegitimate crimes and all of your own acts of violence ( read state terrorism ) as legitimate acts of self defence. The reality is , however , that both sides have employed legal and illegal methods/tactics in this conflict and thus cannot claim any moral high ground or claim only the other side are law breaking combatants



If they were just a terrorist group with no other compulsion than to commit acts of terrorism , how come they have honoured ceasefires that the Israeli state has ended up being the first to violate ?

How come they were recognized by the IDF as being " careful " to maintain that ceasefire ? How come they are , in the words of Netanyahu himself , desperate for a ceasefire in recent weeks ?

Should we not be asking whether it is the state of Israel that is the real enthusiast for continued violence ? Questioning their psychological state ?

Snipped the rest as it was just the same hyperbolic Hasbara garbage I've come to expect from your posts. Seeing how many inflammatory phrases you can fit into one post. It's pathetic tbh

They engage in legitimate forms of combat and so does Israel. They also commit crimes and so does Israel. You want to strip them of legitimacy for their crimes but , ridiculously , think the crimes of your own shouldn't delegitimize them.

It's just that simple and in no way supports anything other than a more even handed approach than your own

They “honoured” ceasefires that they actually breached pretty routinely with such breaches ignored by you and others. And their reduction in violence was mostly a result of being smarter, more sophisticated terrorists who knew that they could not sustain their terrorist aggression at that time, not because of anything else.

As just one of a billion examples, they never stopped digging tunnels into Israel. That was a breach of the ceasefire right from commencement of it. Obviously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Apocalypse]

Snipped the rest as it was just the same hyperbolic Hasbara garbage I've come to expect from your posts

Oops. Exposed yourself there. The word 'hasbara' is merely the Hebrew word for PR. Using the Hebrew word to grant it some powerful special meaning is propaganda nonsense, and those who make use of it in 100% of the cases are those who were exposed to the brainwashing of small random hate-sites operated by crazy people, mostly we're talking about British anti-Semitic hate-sites. Way to go showing where you're coming from here.

Snipped the rest of your post because it's getting tiring how you think you can just dodge whatever you feel uncomfortable with responding.
I'll repeat again - claiming organizations like ISIS/Hamas/Hezbollah/al-Qaeda/Whatever are not psychotic Islamist terror groups is the same as endorsing their agenda of murdering innocent civilians. Trying to claim that had ISIS held only a national goal it would be the same as Hamas in that manner is ridiculously stupid, and doesn't help change the status of your position as that which promotes the murder of civilians. One who promotes such barbarism cannot expect legitimacy to discuss moral subjects.

 

[oneworld2]

Well, to be accurate the British gave the territory they took from the Ottomans to the League of Nations, who then gave it to the Jews and put the British in charge of administering the mandate to facilitate that happening.

That’s factually correct and incontestable...

The Balfour declaration , as you know , preceded those events, so the charge that the British granted the Jews a homeland in Palestine is correct.

The McMahon correspondents 1915 also preceded the events you focused on and promised Arab self rule if they assisted the allies in defeating the Turks

Sykes-Picot also precedes the events you focus on and was a carve up of the former Ottoman territories between France and Britain

So to conclude , and snipping the rest of your post on the grounds of irrelevance , the British did make the call to give the land of the Palestinian Arabs to Jewish immigrants before the events you refer to. Which was in fact just the colonial powers rubber stamping of it via the League of Nations

 

[oneworld2]

Indeed, the narrative of one party having given the land of another to a third is naively simplistic and demonstrates the need of "keeping it simple" in order to avoid addressing situations far more complex.

Nope, it is the truth of what happened. Talk of land ownership is a separate debate as is the question of sovereignty or any colonialist carve up wrt " geographical location" .

The fact remains that there was a significant Arab population in Palestine that had both owned land and worked the land of others , foreign Ottoman landlords , for centuries prior to either the Balfour Declaration or the advent of Zionism

 

[oneworld2]

For most of them that isn’t true. Arafat himself was egyptian and was born and went to school there.

So because Arafat was born in Egypt there were no Palestinians in Palestine pre Zionism :roll:

Some 100% were but there were also Jews who had been there for as long as they could remember. And of course the Jews from Arab countries had lived there for millenia linger than the Arabs in Israel.

Nobody is disputing there was a Jewish presence that made up some the population of Palestine before the Mandate period. They just recognize it as a tiny minority of the population.

Of all the territory allocated by the international community for the Jews, most was given away to Jordan or illegally to Syria. The tiny area that was west of the Jordan had some people but a merely blip on the global landscape or within the Arab world, and many nomadic peoples were in and out of the territory.

So please just maintain perspective and avoid exaggeration. It’s important.

I don't recall the international community giving a map for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. So I don't know how you have included Jordan or Syria as being part of it. Maybe you will provide something that I am unaware of ?

I know you think all/most of the Arabs in Palestine at the time of the partition plan were recent immigrants but the case , mainly focused on Joan Peters book , was completely stuffed by Porath and Finkelstein. And what is not in any doubt is that the Jewish population living there at the same time was most definitely the result of recent immigration from Europe

 

[Chagos]

It is very unfortunate that time after time this platform is used to deny the history of that land by those who either have zero understanding of it or have a ridiculously arrogant intention to try and change history themselves by preaching lies.

Yes, and by what has meanwhile followed we can see that both countless repetition of what has been refuted is supposed to serve as facts, and that the most ignorant shout the loudest.

Not much point in wasting one's time on such people, methinks.