Evidence for the armed occupation and etnic cleansing please.
With evidence I mean facts, not opinions.
So why do people hate Israel?
Evidence for the armed occupation and etnic cleansing please.
With evidence I mean facts, not opinions.
senojekips
Active member
Oh fcuk off you idiot,.. it is an Internationally recognised fact, evidence of which has been previously posted here several times,.. at least accompanied by a number of quotes by Zionist leaders not only admitting to it but stating that it is part of their policy.
That was not MY opinion, it was David Ben Gurion's. There's pages more in a similar vein, but I'm not even going to bother, as all I wish to do is show you for the lying Zionist troll that you are.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Look I really do not want to point out the obvious but it seems to be necessary in this case, you are wasting your time pretending these things aren't happening as no one here accepts that and it is only making your case weaker (seriously take a look all of the respondents it really is just you disagreeing with everyone else and an Israeli that seems to think calling the Palestinians animals justifies his case - Perhaps an ally you don't need).
Your only chance to score points is to convince people that there is an acceptable reason that it is happening and if you can do that I would be seriously amused.
Oh I love this one. Can you give me the page number in that book of your quote because I can't find it. (Ben-Gurion: a biography , Michael Bar-Zohar , Delacorte Press, 1979 - 334 pagina's) So it is not your opinion but it isn't Ben Gurion's either. Who's is it? Another fabrication. And you call me a liar??
You didn't (couldn't?) answer my question : Evidence for the armed occupation and etnic cleansing please.
It is not an armed occupation because civilian rules apply. Do some research on the Oslo II accords.
It also cannot be ethnic cleansing because Israel has nothing to say in the Palestinian Territories area A , in area B it is only responsible for the security and in area C only 4% of the Palestinians live there.
It is very easy to say that Palestine is under military occupation and that there is ethnic cleansing but to give proof of it is much more difficult.
I gave proof that it isn't. I'm waiting for your proof to contradict mine.
senojekips
Active member
The fact that you can't find it means nothing except you are not looking, I'll bet you can't find this either
Israellawresourcecentre said:
Global Research said:
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Mate time to wake up read the thread and smell the coffee for all of your "counter arguing" the only people joining this thread are joining it to tell you they don't agree with you.
I am sure you believe what you are saying but the fact is no one else here does, your only hope to get even a remote level of support now is to stop repeating the rubbish no one but you and Israel believe and try to justify the actions that everyone here believes is happening.
However if you insist upon trying to hide an elephant behind a daisy maybe you should look at a new method of doing it because the current one is just not working.
r.fox
Active member
yes Ben-gurion probably did say those things, and at that point in time, the Jews were trying to get the British out the country, and make way for the creation if Israel. the British refused Jewish immigration to the holy land just after WWII, just when most jews thought that they were finally getting some good luck. so its not surprising that he said those things.
This is the real quote:
We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Teveth, Shabtai, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Karsh, Efraim (2000)
It is not the first time that I disprove something from that website and yet you keep believing what they say.
This was rejected by Ben-Gurion and no such committee was ever established. Benny Morris and the Reign of Error
Your article
was not originally posted by GlobalResearch but by al-akhbar.com. You should know it because the link was given. And al-akhbar is not really a neutral source is it?
It did not say that the Moroccan quarter was largely destroyed and captured by the Jordanian troops and expelling 1500 Jews in the war of 1948.
You also forgot to mention that from the period of 1948 to 1967, Jordan demolished 58 synagogues in Jerusalem’s Old City. (all of them but one).
Another thing you forgot was that after the 6 day war 19-year-old barriers once separating Jerusalem were removed so that all peoples of all religions could be allowed access to their holiest sites, thanks to Israel. (forbidden for Jews and Christians under Jordanian rule)
If they can't disprove what I have said, then I don't care how many people won't believe me.
Again you made a nice speech but were is your prove that I am wrong? Remember that in order to disprove my comments you'll have to dismiss the Oslo accords. And wether you like it or not but those accords still stand and are signed by Israel and the Palestinians and they do say who is responsible for what area and by what means.
If you are against those accords, or are anti-israel and pro-palestine that's your right to do so but that doesn't mean they are illegitimate.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
No one is trying to disprove you because no one believes you, you are trying to sell Santa Claus to adults, there is no point in disproving an argument that is so obviously out of touch with reality.
I can accept that 10%, 20% hell even 50% of the images and videos that get posted here are faked or taken out of context but even so that still leaves 50-90% that are not and you know the old saying "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times is a Pattern" and Israeli actions are not an accident nor a coincidence they are a pattern of mistreatment, lies and brutality that you are happily selling.
senojekips
Active member
All that means is that he didn't accurately record in the letter to his son that which was said publicly. Or more likely his son's "letter" is deliberately misquoted (or more likely forged) in a rather lame attempt at hiding the truth, which of course the world has witnessed in action over the succeeding years. The evidence of this is undeniable.
Because, other that the fact that you are a blatant Zionazi inspired propagandist, you are also a proven deliberate liar, a fact which I demonstrated earlier where you denied having said that which I was able to cut and paste out of your own post. Get over it, no one believes Zionist propaganda other than their own followers and the US government. Numerous Jewish organisations even deny it, and that number is growing as more and more Jews everywhere are exposed to the enormity of the truth which had been hidden from them by a combination of Israeli censorship and disinformation.
Get over it the days of Israel propaganda and censorship are over we are able to see the truth now.
Coming from you, who ceaselessly quotes Zionist sources? Plus of course GlobalResearch may well not have been the originator, however they did quote it because they recognised it as factual.
The fact remains, the Israelis demolished the Moroccan quarter to access the Wailing wall, (Which was and still is on occupied territory). As for Jewish synagogues,... no one cares anymore, Karma is a *****. What about the nearly 500 Palestinian villages demolished by the Israelis?
That's obvious,.. nobody can "prove" anything to a pathological liar, you live in your own parallel universe based on disinformation provided by the worlds most despised and distrusted rogue state,... Remember all those UN resolutions, they weren't earned as a result of International goodwill towards Israel.
Last edited:
Froggy
Banned
A characteristic feature of the coverage of the Palestine conflict is that articles are often angled in a way that makes Palestinians responsible for Israeli violence.
It is a general problem in terms of media treatment of the violence. But violence is not just violence, perpetrators are not just perpetrators and victims are not just victims. How we see the violence depends largely on which view the media in general has given us. There is good and evil perpetrators, and there are innocent and self-inflicted victims. And who is what depends on the context in which the media puts violence in the articles, commentaries, analyzes and editorials that explicitly seeks to enlighten us on the context.
Media assessment of who is right, often by the context in which individual events or major developments are seen in, is cut such that they manufacture Israeli motives as more noble than they actually are. Conversely, Palestinians are often portrayed as irrational, stupid and in the large and completely to blame for their fate. It is often about their violence and Israel's motives for violence against Palestinians.
One can not claim that the initiative into concrete acts of violence never comes from Palestinians, or for that matter that Palestinian violence is always legitimized by what Israel is doing. But I believe that there is a dramatic imbalance of violence causes and motives that systematically produces Israeli war and violence as a necessary response to Palestinian terrorism or fanaticism. Or, at best, in retaliation, which may have been excessive, but fundamental to understand in view of what it is retaliation for. The fact that Palestinian terrorism could be an exaggeration, but understandable reaction to or retaliation for Israeli violence is a viewpoint that almost never aired.
In other words, different principles are used as the basis for the assessment of Israeli and Palestinian violence. Overall, all of course agree that violence in general is something we would rather be free off. But most, or many, also agree that there are necessary violence, and that there are understandable violence. The problem of the media coverage is that there is a tendency to see the violence by Israeli security forces as necessary and intelligible, while Palestinian violence is considered improper or irrational.
If violence is self-defense or not, depends on the situation it is carried in. It depends on what preceded the violence, and what kind of a relationship, it is carried in.
It's fine to give a rapist a knee in the groin where that would prevent an attack. It is blatant self-defense. But it is not self-defense when the rapist strikes his victim unconscious to prevent her from defending herself.
Our assessments of right and wrong in the Palestine conflict must relate to events unfolding in a context that no one has access to control. I do not think that the responsibility for the war in Gaza is determined by who shot first. But when editorialists engage in legitimizing Israel, one of the world's mightiest military powers then you should at least have the events in your considerations that may explain Palestinian leadership motives to act as they do.
And why is it that Palestinians must endure not to get medicine and food? Why is it that they must accept Israeli military attacks? And why is it that the question of who "started" the war is to benefit Israel. Because Israel is the strongest, and the Palestinian leaders are too stupid to realize it? It is of course an argument, but a moral argument, it is not.
It is a general problem in terms of media treatment of the violence. But violence is not just violence, perpetrators are not just perpetrators and victims are not just victims. How we see the violence depends largely on which view the media in general has given us. There is good and evil perpetrators, and there are innocent and self-inflicted victims. And who is what depends on the context in which the media puts violence in the articles, commentaries, analyzes and editorials that explicitly seeks to enlighten us on the context.
Media assessment of who is right, often by the context in which individual events or major developments are seen in, is cut such that they manufacture Israeli motives as more noble than they actually are. Conversely, Palestinians are often portrayed as irrational, stupid and in the large and completely to blame for their fate. It is often about their violence and Israel's motives for violence against Palestinians.
One can not claim that the initiative into concrete acts of violence never comes from Palestinians, or for that matter that Palestinian violence is always legitimized by what Israel is doing. But I believe that there is a dramatic imbalance of violence causes and motives that systematically produces Israeli war and violence as a necessary response to Palestinian terrorism or fanaticism. Or, at best, in retaliation, which may have been excessive, but fundamental to understand in view of what it is retaliation for. The fact that Palestinian terrorism could be an exaggeration, but understandable reaction to or retaliation for Israeli violence is a viewpoint that almost never aired.
In other words, different principles are used as the basis for the assessment of Israeli and Palestinian violence. Overall, all of course agree that violence in general is something we would rather be free off. But most, or many, also agree that there are necessary violence, and that there are understandable violence. The problem of the media coverage is that there is a tendency to see the violence by Israeli security forces as necessary and intelligible, while Palestinian violence is considered improper or irrational.
If violence is self-defense or not, depends on the situation it is carried in. It depends on what preceded the violence, and what kind of a relationship, it is carried in.
It's fine to give a rapist a knee in the groin where that would prevent an attack. It is blatant self-defense. But it is not self-defense when the rapist strikes his victim unconscious to prevent her from defending herself.
Our assessments of right and wrong in the Palestine conflict must relate to events unfolding in a context that no one has access to control. I do not think that the responsibility for the war in Gaza is determined by who shot first. But when editorialists engage in legitimizing Israel, one of the world's mightiest military powers then you should at least have the events in your considerations that may explain Palestinian leadership motives to act as they do.
And why is it that Palestinians must endure not to get medicine and food? Why is it that they must accept Israeli military attacks? And why is it that the question of who "started" the war is to benefit Israel. Because Israel is the strongest, and the Palestinian leaders are too stupid to realize it? It is of course an argument, but a moral argument, it is not.
senojekips
Active member
The Palestinian leaders are certainly not "stupid" in this regard. They are certainly not my idea of an ideal government but hard times call for hard measures and they know that they were only elected for one main reason, and that was to resist their aggressor,.... even though they know they are no match, just as the Marquis resisted the might of the German occupier in WWII.
You have presented a very well thought summation of the problems.
Last edited:
That's right, the letter was forged. You used the forged one. Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem
"The original restored version states the exact opposite. In fact Ben Gurion wrote: “ We must not expel the Arabs and take their place.” !
You changed my quote, I complained to the moderator of the forum and your post was deleted. We both know what happend so don't call me a liar.
I'm still waiting for the first fact that I list to be disproved.
No. But I admit that Israel is not as good as it enemies in manipulating the media.
They didn't tell everything.
Oh we start to see what is underneath your facade. What happend in 1948 to the moroccan quarter must be remembered but what happend to the Jews you don't care anymore. Thank you for admitting that you are biased.
Nearly 500? Give me that link please. I think you included the Jewish villages who were destroyed by the Palestinians and Arabs.
I'm still waiting untill you disprove my facts.
@Froggy
nicely said! Although I prefer the same view from the other side. The conflict is very complex. But I have two questions:
1 - How do you make peace with someone who wants your destruction? (it's in the covenant of Hamas)
2 - What if the other side gives you the powers to govern or preside over certain territory? (Oslo accords)
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
The old Israeli tactic of committing the crime then accusing the others of it? The same as the did in the case of, using of Palestinians as human shields (videos and other evidence has been supplied) and then accusing the reverse. Never the less history is witness to the fact that Israel has pursued an active policy of Ethnic cleansing for over 60 years, so your denial means nothing. We are all well aware of Israel's propensity for deliberate lies and re writing of history, as was demonstrated in my other post this morning regarding the IDF's lies about not having used White Phosphorus in Gaza until confronted with their own photographic evidence.
No, I never changed anything, and to demonstrate that fact I have reposted the statements in question below. http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/stirring-pot-page3-t96375.html(Post 22 and 23) #22 Being your denial of having said it, #23 being my answer with Copy and Paste showing that you did in fact say it. So not only are you a liar, you now lie about your lies,... it seems that you have learned well from your Zionazi controllers, but fortunately they are fools.
So, Yes my lying manipulative "friend" you are caught out at your "tricks" once again, and I have every justification in calling you a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
I never insisted that "owned" and "occupied" is the same. (Post #22)
Obviously you are either blind, stupid or a pathological liar. My point was that you insisted that the people who "occupied" Israel, "owned" it as shown below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The material I posted was copied from the findings of the UN Security Council and ICJ. In your own post you clearly state that it is recognised as "Palestinian territory occupied by Israel". Occupation gives Israel no legal or moral right to any claims of ownership.
To which, after several exchanges you finally admitted:- Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Sorry Seno, my mistake. I thought that owning ment having it
I gave you full credit for being man enough to admit this mistake on that occasion, however you have now turned about, and deny what you have admitted previously.
So, after many such examples I have finally come to the realisation that there is no sense in me trying to reason with a totally immoral and persistent liar. You are on my Ignore list.
I think that my post has adequately shown that you have not posted any facts. Including your lame attempt at having my posts removed.
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VjAGi2FKHfA
don't know how to post a video so i just posted its url
WOW! that kid had just bought an AK-47:9mm: and thought why not go kill some Israeli kids so he went and killed a 12 year old Israeli fifth grader in the arms of his father .
That Palestinian uncivilized brute:viking:!
Oh! :sorry: didn't realize that he was the one that got murdered by Israelis.
That was really hard as the bad Hamas was using him as a shield. It was so hard for the professional Israeli army not to shoot him .
don't know how to post a video so i just posted its url
WOW! that kid had just bought an AK-47:9mm: and thought why not go kill some Israeli kids so he went and killed a 12 year old Israeli fifth grader in the arms of his father .
That Palestinian uncivilized brute:viking:!
Oh! :sorry: didn't realize that he was the one that got murdered by Israelis.
That was really hard as the bad Hamas was using him as a shield. It was so hard for the professional Israeli army not to shoot him .
I'm very glad you brought this up!
If you quote you quote everything and do not leave words out that can change the contents.
I didn't say posts I said post (singular) and you know damn well what post I was talking about unless you have done it with others too and lost count.
You better learn the truth:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY&feature=player_detailpage"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY&feature=player_detailpage[/ame]
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
The fact that I did not quote everything in no way changed the facts.
You did argue that owning and occupying (having) were one and the same.
After I proved you wrong you did apologise for your mistake. (Israel Rightfully own the west Bank #241)
You did later deny that you had stated that "owning" and "occupying" were one and the same. (That was the first time I put you on Ignore for blatant lying)
All of this has been posted with copies of both yours and my posts quoted from the relevant posts, yet you now try to shift the goal posts and state that you were talking of another post. How can this be so when I copied and posted the posts in question. Don't even bother answering, because I'm not going to reply.
And that was the post I was referring to when I accused you of lying, but obviously you have problems remembering, as you lie in so many posts.
Now, as for your personal (total absence of) character, having had a Moderator delete or change one of my posts without consulting me. You are not worthy of my time and henceforth will not be answered. I will deny what you say and show you for the shallow spineless Zionazi that you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The film clip above is a typical Israeli denial, having no "proof" that the boy was not wounded or killed.
What is truly interesting, is that regardless of everything else, "If the terrified boy who we see cowering behind his father was not hit, why is he shown lying on the ground where he is clearly exposed to Israeli fire, if he was not at least wounded he would have remained behind the drum and his father, trying to make himself as small a target as possible. The second concern being that Palestinians like everyone else in Israeli occupied territory must carry Identity papers, so the Israelis would have records of his location, yet they can't produce the boy, something they could surely do if he were still alive.
You did argue that owning and occupying (having) were one and the same.
After I proved you wrong you did apologise for your mistake. (Israel Rightfully own the west Bank #241)
You did later deny that you had stated that "owning" and "occupying" were one and the same. (That was the first time I put you on Ignore for blatant lying)
All of this has been posted with copies of both yours and my posts quoted from the relevant posts, yet you now try to shift the goal posts and state that you were talking of another post. How can this be so when I copied and posted the posts in question. Don't even bother answering, because I'm not going to reply.
And that was the post I was referring to when I accused you of lying, but obviously you have problems remembering, as you lie in so many posts.
Now, as for your personal (total absence of) character, having had a Moderator delete or change one of my posts without consulting me. You are not worthy of my time and henceforth will not be answered. I will deny what you say and show you for the shallow spineless Zionazi that you are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The film clip above is a typical Israeli denial, having no "proof" that the boy was not wounded or killed.
What is truly interesting, is that regardless of everything else, "If the terrified boy who we see cowering behind his father was not hit, why is he shown lying on the ground where he is clearly exposed to Israeli fire, if he was not at least wounded he would have remained behind the drum and his father, trying to make himself as small a target as possible. The second concern being that Palestinians like everyone else in Israeli occupied territory must carry Identity papers, so the Israelis would have records of his location, yet they can't produce the boy, something they could surely do if he were still alive.
Last edited:
Froggy
Banned
It is very common to consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a religious conflict that persists because the individual, but devout Muslims and Jews want it. It is not difficult to understand that some will think like that, because it is how the conflict looks, if you only look at who acts violently: The settlers, on the desolate and rocky hilltops surrounded by hostile Palestinians, Islamists who blow themselves up and calls death to Israel. But this is, I think, to reverse cause and effect. People simply do not adopt unreasonable religious ideologies. When Islamist groups and ideologies are gaining ground, it is because of their desperate ideology provides answers to desperate people living in a desperate situation together with others who are just as desperate as themselves.
One way to understand the increased support for the Islamists is that it has roots in the growth of social and economic hopelessness and the increasing scarcity of prospects for a viable Palestinian state. It is perhaps difficult to understand Palestinian behavior, if all you see is stone-throwing young people, suicide bombers or long-bearded men with murder in their eyes and promises of destruction of Israel in the mouth. And even harder if one only considers the Israeli occupation forces as beleaguered police in a world of violent men who want violence for violence sake, or because their religion tells them that they must be violent:
Viewed in isolation, it is easy to understand that Israeli soldiers did not hold back from using deadly force against Palestinians who are attacking them with stones. Especially if you get the idea that they are throwing stones on religious grounds. This idea you will only get if you are unaware of or forget the context it all takes place in, the Israeli occupation. When someone throws stones at heavily armed soldiers, and the response is to shoot, then it is hard to explain with reference to situations we know. It is so extreme and foreign to us, as most people have no experience of violence similar to that which takes place between Israel and the Palestinians, and basically it is easy to see violence in general as one caused by the parties hatred for each other.
To some people the Israeli soldiers are murderers and for others the Palestinians are religious maniacs you must suppress at any price. But the problem with this view is the media's attention to the stories, "stories" rather than history. What is happening right now is preferred and the historical background is omitted.
And when trying to judge who is right and wrong, then an individual action wins over the reality that it must be viewed in. People's behavior in specific situations are made their characteristics, they have by virtue of their ethnicity or culture. It is basically racism thinking, and it is easy to resort to when you want to understand the incomprehensible. So to understand why the Palestinian-Israeli reality is that violence characterized as it is, we must ask ourselves this:
Who has power over this reality?
Who take the decisions that lead to quarrels?
Who has the power to determine the rules of the game?
All parties in this conflict have blood on their hands but when Western news media engage in legitimizing Israel, one of the world's mightiest military powers, then you should at least report the events with in your consideration can explain the Palestinian leadership motives to act as they do.
One way to understand the increased support for the Islamists is that it has roots in the growth of social and economic hopelessness and the increasing scarcity of prospects for a viable Palestinian state. It is perhaps difficult to understand Palestinian behavior, if all you see is stone-throwing young people, suicide bombers or long-bearded men with murder in their eyes and promises of destruction of Israel in the mouth. And even harder if one only considers the Israeli occupation forces as beleaguered police in a world of violent men who want violence for violence sake, or because their religion tells them that they must be violent:
Viewed in isolation, it is easy to understand that Israeli soldiers did not hold back from using deadly force against Palestinians who are attacking them with stones. Especially if you get the idea that they are throwing stones on religious grounds. This idea you will only get if you are unaware of or forget the context it all takes place in, the Israeli occupation. When someone throws stones at heavily armed soldiers, and the response is to shoot, then it is hard to explain with reference to situations we know. It is so extreme and foreign to us, as most people have no experience of violence similar to that which takes place between Israel and the Palestinians, and basically it is easy to see violence in general as one caused by the parties hatred for each other.
To some people the Israeli soldiers are murderers and for others the Palestinians are religious maniacs you must suppress at any price. But the problem with this view is the media's attention to the stories, "stories" rather than history. What is happening right now is preferred and the historical background is omitted.
And when trying to judge who is right and wrong, then an individual action wins over the reality that it must be viewed in. People's behavior in specific situations are made their characteristics, they have by virtue of their ethnicity or culture. It is basically racism thinking, and it is easy to resort to when you want to understand the incomprehensible. So to understand why the Palestinian-Israeli reality is that violence characterized as it is, we must ask ourselves this:
Who has power over this reality?
Who take the decisions that lead to quarrels?
Who has the power to determine the rules of the game?
All parties in this conflict have blood on their hands but when Western news media engage in legitimizing Israel, one of the world's mightiest military powers, then you should at least report the events with in your consideration can explain the Palestinian leadership motives to act as they do.
senojekips
Active member
The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians are not fighting over a religious matter, as Palestinians of all religions want the Israelis out of their land. The fighting is over the Zionist occupation of land that had been lived on continuously by the native population almost since time immemorial.
The term "Palestinians" includes all those who had lived in the area continuously including Muslims Christians and Jews.
I will admit that the Mullahs and the rabbis have attempted to hijack the whole thing in an effort to involve those of their particular following into the fight.
Last edited: